volume 1 chapters 1–17, index - university of...

United StatesDepartmentof Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky MountainResearch Station

General TechnicalReport RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1

September 2004

Restoring WesternRanges and Wildlands

Volume 1Chapters 1–17, Index

Abstract ______________________________________Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard; Shaw, Nancy L., comps. 2004. Restoring western

ranges and wildlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Pages 1-294plus index.

This work, in three volumes, provides background on philosophy, processes, plantmaterials selection, site preparation, and seed and seeding equipment for revegetatingdisturbed rangelands, emphasizing use of native species. The 29 chapters include guidelinesfor planning, conducting, and managing, and contain a compilation of rangeland revegetationresearch conducted over the last several decades to aid practitioners in reestablishing healthycommunities and curbing the spread of invasive species. Volume 1 contains the first 17chapters plus the index.

Keywords: rehabilitation, revegetation, plant ecology, seed, plant communities, wildlifehabitat, invasive species, equipment, plant materials, native plants

AB

A—Reseeding on the BoiseRiver watershed, 1937.

B—Rangeland drill.

C—Elk on burned winter range.

D—Sampling soil, north-centralNevada.

E—Aerial seeding.

Front covers on all three volumes:Desert Experimental Range Utah.Photo by John Kinney.

Restoring Western Rangesand Wildlands

i

Compilers

Stephen B. MonsenRichard StevensNancy L. Shaw

ED

C

Volume 1Chapters 1–17, index

The Compilers _____________________________________Stephen B. Monsen (retired), Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah

Richard Stevens, Project Leader (retired), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Great BasinResearch Center, Ephraim, Utah

Nancy L. Shaw, Research Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho

The Authors _______________________________________James N. Davis is Project Leader, Big Game Range Trend Program, Utah Division of WildlifeResources, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah.

Sherel K. Goodrich is Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, AshleyNational Forest, Vernal, Utah.

Kent R. Jorgensen was Wildlife Biologist (deceased), Great Basin Research Center, UtahDivision of Wildlife Resources, Ephraim, Utah.

Carlos F. Lopez was Soil Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah.

E. Durant McArthur is Project Leader and Research Geneticist, U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo,Utah.

Stephen B. Monsen was Botanist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah. He is currentlya private natural resources consultant and volunteer worker for the Rocky Mountain ResearchStation.

David L. Nelson was Plant Pathologist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah. Hecontinues contractual and volunteer work for the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Nancy L. Shaw is Research Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, RockyMountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho.

Richard Stevens was Project Leader (retired), Great Basin Research Center, Utah Divisionof Wildlife Resources, Ephraim, Utah.

Arthur R. Tiedemann was Project Leader and Range Scientist (retired), U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah.

John F. Vallentine was Professor (Emeritus), Department of Integrative Biology, BrighamYoung University, Provo, Utah.

Gordon A. Van Epps was Associate Professor (retired), Snow Field Station, Utah AgriculturalExperiment Station, Utah State University, Ephraim, Utah.

Bruce L. Welch is Plant Physiologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky MountainResearch Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah.

Steven G. Whisenant is Professor, Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management,Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

G. Richard Wilson was Director (retired), Utah State Seed Laboratory, Utah Department ofAgriculture, Salt Lake City, Utah.

ii

Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands has had a

fairly long gestation period. The final product of three

volumes had its beginnings in 1983. At that time

research administrators of the Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station (now part of the Rocky

Mountain Research Station) had obtained funding

from the Four Corners Regional Commission (FCRC)

to produce a series of research summary syntheses to

aid agriculture and natural resource values and man-

agement for the Four Corner States (Arizona, Colo-

rado, New Mexico, and Utah) and surrounding areas.

The FCRC, now defunct, was formed in 1965 as one of

five Federal regional commissions to aid regional

development in economically distressed areas. Restor-

ing Western Ranges and Wildlands was intended to

supplant the successful, out-of-print, Restoring Big

Game Range in Utah (Plummer and others 1968) with

a broader geographic coverage and new knowledge

gained during the intervening years. Restoring Big

Game Range in Utah was published by the Utah

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Fish

and Game. The authors, in addition to A. Perry

Plummer (a Project Leader and Range Scientist for the

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-

tion), were Division of Fish and Game Biologists Donald

R. Christensen and Stephen B. Monsen. The three

were part of an integrated Federal and State workgroup

lead by Mr. Plummer and located at the Great Basin

Research Center in Ephraim, Utah (for additional

details see McArthur 1992). This volume served land

managers well. There are many dog-eared copies in

offices and libraries in Utah and elsewhere around the

West. It has been cited many times in peer-reviewed

literature of the Science Citation Index during the past

several decades (ISI Web of Science, online).

I sat with a group of administrators and researchers

in a 1983 meeting in the conference room of the Shrub

Sciences Laboratory in Provo, Utah, as we laid out

plans for writing and compiling Restoring Western

Ranges and Wildlands by subject areas and possible

contributors. The lead compilation roles in the effort

were assigned to Stephen B. Monsen, by this time a

Botanist with the Intermountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station, and Richard Stevens, Project

Leader of the Habitat Restoration Unit of the Utah

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife

Resources. Steve and Richard also took on major

writing assignments. But delaying the publishing

date were continuing research assignments, other

demands on the compilers’ time, a shift in revegetation

philosophy toward holistic landscape management

and emphasis on using native plants, and retirement

of both Steve Monsen and Richard Stevens. A third

compiler was added to the team—Nancy L. Shaw, a

Research Botanist on the Shrubland Biology and Res-

toration Research Work Unit posted in Boise, Idaho.

She worked tirelessly to see the project completed. All

three compilers deserve kudos for completion of this

massive project.

Many people have helped the authors and compilers

complete this work. I extend appreciation to dozens of

reviewers of the individual chapters but especially to

Robert B. Ferguson, retired Scientist from the Inter-

mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, and

the late Homer D. Stapley, Scientist, from the Utah

Division of Wildlife Resources, who each reviewed

Foreword

E. Durant McArthur, Project Leader, Shrubland Biology and Restoration Research Work Unit,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah

iii

most of the manuscript. The manuscript was initially

prepared on several computer hardware and accompa-

nying software word processing systems. The prepara-

tion and integration of the manuscript was facilitated

by Pat Ford, Nancy Clark, and Roberta Leslie of the

Shrub Sciences Laboratory, and Scott Walker, Nalisa

Bradley, and Chris Wade of the Utah Divison of

Wildlife Resources, Great Basin Research Center in

Ephraim, Utah. Others who contributed to the project

include Rocky Mountain Research Station employees

who worked on indexing (Jan Gurr), reference compi-

lation (Karl Soerensen and Felicia Martinez), and

proofreading and general assistance (James Hall, Jim

Spencer, Darren Naillon, Kelly Memmott, Gary

Jorgensen, Melissa Scholten, Danielle Scholten, John

Kinney, Ann DeBolt, Matthew Fisk, Lynn Kinter,

and Nicholas Williams). Also contributing services

were the Library staffs of the Rocky Mountain Re-

search Station (Carol Ayer, Mary Foley, Lindsay

Bliss, Sally Dunphy, Elizabeth Parts, and Jolie

Hogancamp) and Pacific Southwest Research Station

(Irene Voit). The Rocky Mountain Research Station

Publishing Services lead by Louise Kingsbury, with

Nancy Chadwick, Lillie Thomas, Loa Collins, and

Suzy Stephens, performed exceedingly well in editing,

integration, layout, and design. Many of the line draw-

ings of plant species that are on the chapter introduc-

tory pages and illustrate the species in chapters 20

and 21 were prepared by Rocky Mountain Research

Technician Annielane J. Yazzie.

This work represents the continuing collaboration of

the Rocky Mountain Research Station and the Utah

Division of Wildlife Resources. Both organizations

contributed materially to publication costs including

support from the Federal Pittman Robertson W-82-R

Project for wildlife habitat restoration. Other substan-

tial support came from the Forest Service State and

Private Forestry National Fire Plan, Bureau of Land

Management Great Basin Native Plant Selection and

Increase Program, and the Four Corners Regional

Commission.

I believe that the materials presented here in a “how

to, what with, and why” manner will be timely and

relevant for land managers and students in rehabilita-

tion and restoration of degraded Western wildlands

for years into the future.

iv

v

Contents

Volume 1: PageForeword by E. Durant McArthur ............................................................................. iii

1. History of Range and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in theIntermountain West .................................................................................. 1

2. The Intermountain Setting ............................................................................ 73. Research Background ................................................................................ 154. Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and

Restoration............................................................................................. 195. Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or

Artificial Treatments ............................................................................... 256. Climate and Terrain .................................................................................... 337. Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs ...................... 398. Controlling Plant Competition ..................................................................... 579. Mechanical Plant Control ........................................................................... 65

10. Herbicides for Plant Control ....................................................................... 8911. Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning .................................... 10112. Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices .......................................... 12113. Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and

Rehabilitation Projects ......................................................................... 15514. Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management ............................... 17515. Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems ........... 18716. Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites ................................... 19317. Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal

Plant Communities ............................................................................... 199

Volume 2:18. Grasses .................................................................................................... 29519. Forbs for Seeding Range and Wildlife Habitats ....................................... 42520. Chenopod Shrubs .................................................................................... 46721. Composite Shrubs .................................................................................... 49322. Rosaceous Shrubs ................................................................................... 53923. Shrubs of Other Families ......................................................................... 597

Volume 3:24. Seed Collection, Cleaning, and Storage .................................................. 69925. Shrub and Forb Seed Production ............................................................. 71726. Seed Germination .................................................................................... 72327. Seed Testing Requirements and Regulatory Laws .................................. 73328. Establishing Plants by Transplanting and Interseeding ........................... 73929. Production and Use of Planting Stock ...................................................... 745

References ............................................................................................... 769Appendix 1 Scientific/Common Names .................................................... 847Appendix 2 Common/Scientific Names .................................................... 866Index .................................................................................................. Index-1

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending yourmailing information in label form through one of the following media.Please specify the publication title and number.

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail [email protected]

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing Address Publications DistributionRocky Mountain Research Station240 West Prospect RoadFort Collins, CO 80526

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does notimply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service

CAUTION:PESTICIDES

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does notcontain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the usesdiscussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must beregistered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they canbe recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled orapplied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Followrecommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides andpesticide containers.

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 1

Stephen B. Monsen

1Chapter

Range, wildlife, watershed, and recreation research in theIntermountain region is a relatively young science. Most earlyresearch was initiated to rectify problems resulting from over-grazing that resulted in a deterioration of range and watershedresources. Thus, restoration measures were closely aligned torange and watershed disciplines.

Campbell and others (1944) characterized four broad periodsof range research: (1) The exploratory period prior to 1905;(2) limited intensive studies, 1905 to 1909; (3) organized experi-ments undertaken throughout the mountainous West and theGreat Plains, 1910 to 1927; and (4) expanded research accompa-nying aggressive public action on range problems, 1928 to present.

History of Rangeand Wildlife HabitatRestoration in theIntermountain West

2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 1 History of Range and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the Intermountain West

The real growth in range and wildland researchbegan in response to Federal management policyfor newly created Forest Reserves (later called theNational Forest System). Unfortunately, the develop-ment of range research lagged far behind the need,and this lack of information has, in part, contributedto serious problems that still exist in many areas.Although some formal grazing studies were begun by1910, comprehensive programs did not begin until1935 (Campbell and others 1944).

The exploratory period described by Campbell andothers (1944) consisted of observational and investi-gative works. The first was the discovery, collection,and description of many native plants (Nuttall 1818;Torrey and Gray 1838-43; Vasey 1889) (fig. 1). Thiswork was aided by the creation of the Division ofBotany established in 1868 within the Department ofAgriculture. The assemblage of these collections ulti-mately lead to an understanding of plant distribution,community associations, species abundance, andecotypic variation. A second area of work involvednotations of western pastures and range problems. Athird category consisted of exploratory investigationsby Department of Agriculture personnel in whichrangeland resources within the Forest Reserves weredescribed. These surveys identified research needs.

The range-livestock industry greatly expanded by1880 and created extremely serious land administra-tive problems (fig. 2). Development and implementa-tion of realistic husbandry was made possible throughthe creation of Forest Reserves including the Cas-cade Range Forest Reserve developed in 1893, whichrestricted grazing, driving, or herding of livestockwithin any of the Reserves (Colville 1898). By 1905,an administrative proposal was developed by Potter

Figure 1—Early plant exploration and classifica-tion surveys helped to identify plant species andcommunity types.

Figure 2—Livestock grazing seriously alteredplant communities, particularly on the high sum-mer ranges of central Utah.

and Colville (1905) that served as a guide to land useuntil passage of the Grazing Act of 1934.

In 1901, the Divisions of Agrostology and Botanywere consolidated within the Bureau of Plant Indus-try. This led to studies relating to reseeding, grazing,and the development of forage plants for rangelands(Burtt-Davy 1902).

In 1905, the Forest Reserves were transferred fromthe Department of the Interior to the Department ofAgriculture and then combined with the Bureau ofForests to form the Forest Service. Grazing problemswere so acute that authority was given to controlanimal numbers, distribution, and grazing duration.Detailed grazing studies were organized. Initial ef-forts were made to seed mountain rangelands with



pasture forages. Work began in Oregon but soon in-cluded other areas in the West.

In 1910, the Office of Grazing Studies in the ForestService was established, and formal range researchefforts were developed. Most studies dealt with rangesurveys, grazing reconnaissance, natural revegeta-tion, and the formulation of grazing practices to im-prove range and watershed conditions. Some StateAgricultural Experiment Stations were establishedand developed supportive studies during this period(Cotton 1905).

Watershed problems, including flooding and ero-sion, were critical issues, particularly within the In-termountain States. Consequently, a research facil-ity, initially known as the Utah Experiment Station,was established in central Utah on the Manti NationalForest (fig. 3). This center, later renamed the GreatBasin Experiment Station, initiated and conductedstudies of range management and revegetation.

The Bureau of Plant Industry conducted numerousgrazing studies that significantly influenced the selec-tion and use of species for pasture grazing (Shantz1911, 1924). Range research was transferred from theBureau of Plant Industry to the Forest Service in1915. This consolidated and strengthened range re-search in desert regions when the Santa Rita andJornada Experimental Ranges, established in 1912,were added to the Forest Service base.

In 1926, the Office of Grazing Studies was trans-ferred from the administrative branch of grazing andestablished as a division in the branch of research. Thesubsequent passage of McSweeney-McNary ForestResearch Act of 1928 funded and expanded research intimber, range, and watershed at various experimentstations. The Act consolidated all Forest Service rangeresearch into regional units and experiment stations.It provided for increased cooperative research withState Agricultural Experiment Stations. It also ex-panded research activities to include artificial range

Figure 3—The establishment of the Great BasinStation in Ephraim Canyon, Utah, facilitated ex-tensive range and watershed research activities.

revegetation, wildlife, and other land values. Artifi-cial revegetation studies included the selection ofnative species for future improvement and the adap-tion of native and introduced species for site improve-ment (Forsling and Dayton 1931; Price 1938; Stewartand others 1939). The studies were primarily locatedat the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Stations.

Establishment of the Great Basin Station quicklygenerated range and watershed research within theIntermountain region. The station’s location in theGreat Basin Province was representative of areasincluding most of the western half of Utah, nearly allof Nevada, California east of the summit of the SierraNevada, a large area in southeastern Oregon, portionsof southeastern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming(Keck 1972). Consequently, research efforts were ex-panded to coordinate with other field locations inIdaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

By 1900, livestock grazing had seriously disruptedvegetation in many plant communities within theGreat Basin. Extremely critical problems existed onhigh summer ranges of the Wasatch Mountains andWasatch plateau. Serious flooding and erosion fromhigh mountain ranges were critical problems. Initialresearch at the Great Basin Station dealt withassessment of watershed problems and developmentof measures to correct summer flooding. In 1913,researchers turned their attention to restoring sitesby natural reestablishment of native species and di-rect seeding with natives and exotics. Field adaptabil-ity study sites were established in aspen and grass-forb communities, and additional species and fieldplantings were established in subsequent years. By1930, considerable information had been accumulatedrelating to species performance and site adaptability.Many artificial seedings using both native and exoticspecies were highly successful (Forsling and Dayton1931).

Beginning in the early 1930s, scientists from theIntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta-tion united to acquire and field test an extensivearray of herbaceous and woody species for use onrange and watershed sites in Utah, Nevada, Idaho,and Wyoming (fig. 4). Field testing centers were lo-cated at representative sites in the major plant com-munities in these States. Field plantings and evalua-tions were carefully maintained at most locations forapproximately 20 years. New selections and plantmaterials were added to the program. Planting sites andenvironmental conditions were monitored, and plantperformance was compared with growth response ofadjacent native communities (Frischknecht andPlummer 1955; Pearse and others 1948; Plummer andothers 1955).



Field studies included the assessment of species andthe development of planting equipment, methods ofseeding, and seedbed preparation (Plummer andothers 1943; Stewart 1949). Various equipment andplanting practices were developed to treat steep, roughterrain and rangelands (Pechanec and others 1965),but most methods and implements were developed forseeding grasses and broadleaf herbs (fig. 5).

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServicePlant Materials Centers selected and tested herba-ceous plants during this same period. Their effortsresulted in the release and use of many importantcultivars (Hafenrichter and others 1949; Hanson 1965).Various State Agricultural Experiment Stations anduniversities were also conducting species selectionand field planting procedures (Cook and others 1967).

In 1954, the testing and development of grasses andbroadleaf herbs was transferred from the USDA For-est Service to the newly created USDA AgriculturalResearch Service. This agency has released numerousintroduced, and more recently native cultivars andgermplasms.

Problems with big game ranges, particularly winterranges, became important issues during the 1940sand 1950s. State Game and Fish Departments recog-nized that game herds and livestock grazing haddecimated many important game ranges in nearlyall Intermountain States. Scientists and research or-ganizations previously affiliated with range researchwere solicited for support. Big game habitat and im-provement research was begun in Idaho, California,and Utah by Forest Service scientists, but it wasfunded in part by State agencies in Idaho, Oregon,and Washington. Many herbs previously developedfor range purposes proved equally useful for wildlife,but a shift in emphasis from herbs to shrubs tookplace.

Cooperative shrub research between the Utah Divi-sion of Wildlife Resources and Intermountain Re-search Station began in 1957. This cooperative effortexpanded over time, resulting in the establishment ofthe Forest Services’ Shrubland Biology and Restora-tion Project. The project has contributed to the selec-tion of many useful shrubs and herbs, including devel-opment of cultural techniques required to rear andplant these species.

The presence of testing sites, research facilities,and experience with the culture of forage plantsdeveloped by earlier researchers at the Great BasinStation aided initial progress in shrub research. Inaddition, considerable testing and culture of woodyplants for conservation plantings (George 1953;Haynes and Garrison 1960; Horton 1949; Mirov andKrabel 1939; Van Dersal 1938) and upland gamebirdhabitat improvement (Miller and others 1948) provided

Figure 4—Three of the early species selectionplots established at the Great Basin Station. Theplots helped to identify plants for use in revegeta-tion efforts.



Figure 5—A major problem confronting rangeand wildlife seeding has been the lack of equip-ment suitable for operating on irregular terrain.

useful species and rearing techniques (Doran 1957)that were adapted to big game habitat improvement(Brown and Martinsen 1959; Plummer and others1968).

Restoring wildlife habitat by artificial seeding ofshrubs and broadleaf herbs has been hindered be-cause of the erratic germination characteristics ofvarious shrubs, the inability of shrub seedlings tocompete with herbs, and the lack of equipment capableof operating on steep, mountainous terrain. Yet, con-siderable progress has been achieved in selecting anddeveloping useful shrub species, ecotypes, and culti-vars for game and range seedings. Selections havebeen advanced primarily through cooperative effortsby the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation and continue under the present Forest Servicestructure of the Rocky Mountain Research Station;USDA Soil Conservation Service; and the Utah Divi-sion of Wildlife Resources (McArthur and others 1985;Monsen and Davis 1985; Stevens and others 1985c;Stutz and Carlson 1985).

Numerous scientists, agencies, and universities haveexpanded the scope of shrub research since the 1970s.Although numerous studies have been completed,requirements for establishing many native speciesthat have received little use in past seeding effortsremain largely unknown. Many shrub-dominatedcommunities, particularly in semiarid and arid lands,are difficult to restore using current practices. Con-sequently, the challenge to enhance rangelandsremains formidable.


E. Durant McArthurSherel K. Goodrich

2Chapter

This book is intended to assist range managers throughout theIntermountain West (fig. 1). The areas of greatest applicabilityare the Middle and Southern Rocky Mountains, Wyoming Basin,Columbia and Colorado Plateaus, and much of the basin andrange physiographic provinces of Fenneman (1981) or about14∞ latitude, from the Mohave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan desertsto the northern Rocky Mountains, and 15∞ longitude, from theGreat Plains to the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain axis. Thislarge area contains diverse landforms and several major vegeta-tional communities. Nevertheless, landform and vegetative typeare repeated often enough to consider the multifaceted units.We emphasize the broad vegetation types listed in table 1.Bailey’s (1978) attempt at a continental-scale treatment recog-nized vegetative types, but Küchler (1964), also working on acontinental scale, recognized at least 28 vegetative types.Bailey’s treatment, for example, doesn’t map out the extensivejuniper-pinyon woodlands of the Great Basin, whereasKüchler’s treatment does. Holmgren (1972) recognized fourfloristic divisions, divided into 16 floristic sections, in an area co-inciding approximately with the southwestern half of figure 1. As

The IntermountainSetting


Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Figure 1—The Interior West locations that are covered in thisbook, with general vegetative types of Bailey (1978):

• 3120 = Palouse Grasslands Province• 3130 = Intermountain sagebrush Province

• 3131 = Sagebrush-wheatgrass section• 3132 = Lahontan saltbush-greasewood section• 3133 = Great Basin sagebrush section• 3134 = Bonneville saltbush-greasewood section• 3135 = Ponderosa shrub forest section

• A3140 = Wyoming Basin Province• A3141 = Wheatgrass-needlegrass-sagebrush section• A3142 = Sagebrush-wheatgrass section

• P3130 = Colorado Plateau Province• P3131 = Juniper-pinyon woodland and sagebrush-

saltbush mosaic section• P3132 = Grama-galleta steppe and juniper-pinyon

woodland mosaic section• M3110 = Rocky Mountain Forest Province

• M3111 = Grand fir—Douglas-fir forest section• M3112 = Douglas-fir forest section• M3113 = Ponderosa pine—Douglas-fir forest section

• M3120 = Upper Gila Mountain Forest Province



Table 1—Vegetation types of the Intermountain region.

Characterization of vegetative typesGeographic area Large Small Disturbed and depauperate

Valleys and lowermountain slopes

Big sagebrush * *Shadscale * *Pinyon-juniper * *Black greasewood *Inland saltgrass *Blackbrush *Lowland annual weeds * *Cheatgrass and red brome * *

Montanea

Aspen-conifer *Mountain brushlands *Subalpine herblands *Wet and semiwet meadows *

Transitional; includingboth mountain and valley

Riparian * *aExclusive of alpine habitats.

smaller geographical areas or particular vegetationtypes are examined more closely, additional vegeta-tion types or subtypes become apparent. Foster (1968)treated 23 major vegetation types in Utah. Passey andothers (1982) treated nine major and 27 subservientvegetation types of sagebrush-dominated communi-ties in western Wyoming, southern Idaho, northwest-ern Utah, and northeastern Nevada.

Our choice (table 1) is to (1) consider plant assem-blages together that respond in a similar manner torehabilitation practices and (2) treat those assemblagesthat are most in need of restoration (because of distur-bance or low productivity) and that have the potentialfor higher productivity. Some smaller vegetative com-munities within the area are not considered.

The Intermountain landscape varies widely. Thisland of considerable topographic relief contains moun-tains, valleys, and plateaus that create complex pat-terns (fig. 2, 3, 4). Many mountain-building eventsoccurred in the relatively recent geologic past (Axelrod1950; Fenneman 1981). Soil types are likewise com-plex, and soil conditions change rapidly over just a fewmiles. Soils are often alkaline but may be neutral ormore rarely acidic depending on parent material(Shelford 1963). Consequently, the vegetative com-munities form complex mosaics and islands in theIntermountain area (Fenneman 1981; Passey andothers 1982; Tidwell 1972).

The landscape and present climatic patterns arerelatively new, and the flora and plant associations,especially in lowland areas, have not been in place formore than 10,000 years. Therefore, plants have beenquite active in evolving new forms and establishingequilibria (Axelrod 1950). Plants in many cases havenot reached their maximum area of adaptation. Thecurrent high mountains trap precipitation and castrain shadows. Examples of the role of topographyand attendant moisture trapping are illustrated infigures 4 and 5. Formerly, the precipitation was moreevenly distributed and the tree species of the moun-tains were continuous over much of the area. Thewoody Artemisia and Atriplex shrubs that dominatemuch of the lowland landscape were either minorfringe components of the vegetation or were substan-tially displaced from their area of present distribution.

We treat 13 vegetative types in this book (table 1).The more widespread types cover much greater landareas than the restricted types. Some of the listedtypes are disclimax communities (lowland annualweeds and cheatgrass-red brome grass) brought aboutby human activities. Others have a substantially dif-ferent vegetative makeup (for example, the big sage-brush communities) because of human actions such asgrazing programs. We have excluded consideration ofthe creosotebush vegetative type, which occurs on thesouthwestern periphery of the Intermountain area



Figure 2—Topographical examples of the Intermountain area from Peterson (1981). (A) Mountain-valley fan with fan remnants [f] and inset fans [I]. (B) Mountain from alluvial fans with alluvial fans [A],interfan valley [V], and fan piedmont [P]. (C) Mountain front topography with ballenas [B], inset fans[I], and fan piedmont [P].

F

F

I

I

P

P

AV

A

P

I

B I



Figure 3—Map locating positions of vegetative types shown intopographic cross section in figure 4.

(fig. 1), because that area is essentially warm desert(Holmgren 1972) and that ecosystem behaves radi-cally differently from the cooler areas that are thesubject of this book.

The Intermountain region, with the notable excep-tion of a few metropolitan areas, is sparsely settled.Communities occupy a relatively small portion of theland. Agriculture, other than grazing, is restricted bywater availability and rough topography, althoughthere are some notable agricultural tracts in severalIntermountain valleys and on the Snake River andColumbia River plains. In Utah, for example, only1,436,000 acres (581,000 ha) (2.6 percent of the State)is currently irrigated, and only 5,629,000 acres(2,278,000 ha) (10.4 percent of the State) is arable orpotentially arable (Wahlquist 1981).

The land provides habitat for many animal species(Shelford 1963). In the sagebrush areas are threeimportant ungulates (elk, mule deer, pronghorn ante-lope), 13 carnivores (badger, coyote, bobcat, skunks,weasels, foxes, and others), 50 small mammals (chip-munks, grasshopper mice, deer mice, pocket mice,kangaroo mice and rats, woodrats, jackrabbits, cotton-tail rabbits, pocket gophers, voles, squirrels, prairiedogs, marmot, porcupines, and others), four gamebirds (grouse, dove, chukar, and quail), and 15 raptors(McArthur 1983a). Numerous songbirds inhabit theregion. In a shadscale community in Utah’s UintaBasin, for example, 35 species of birds, many of themsongbirds, were observed over a 2-year study(McArthur and others 1978b). Several of these spe-cies are managed for hunting and constitute a major



Figure 5—Elevation and site relationships among dominant plant species in the Great Basin ofsoutheastern Oregon. Plant symbols are:

Plant Scientific Plant Scientificsymbol name symbol name

AGSP Agropyron spicatum ARAR Artemisia arbusculaARCA Artemisia cana ARLO Artemisia longilobaARNO Artemisia nova ARRI Artemisia rigidaARSP Artemisia spinescens ARTR2 Artemisia tripartitaARTRT A. tridentata ssp. tridentata ARTRV A. t. ssp. vaseyanaATCO Atriplex confertifolia CARU Calamagrostis rubescensCELE Cercocarpus ledifolius CEVE Ceanothus velutinusDISTI Distichlis spp. ELCI Elymus cinereusFEID Festuca idahoensis GRSP Grayia spinosaJUOC Juniperus occidentalis MURI Muhlenbergia richardsonisPIPO Pinus ponderosa POSE Poa secundaPOTR Populus tremuloides PREM Prunus emarginataSAVE2 Sarcobatus vermiculatus SIHY Sitanion hystrixSYOR Symphoricarpos oreophilus

(Diagram from Dealey and others 1981).

Figure 4—Cross sections of physiographic provinces showing elevation and topographic positioning of vegetative types located infigure 3. A and B are after Shelford (1963), C through J are after West (1983). Legend:

• AM = Alpine meadow and fellfield • MB = Mountain brush shrubland• BB = Blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), semidesert • PJe = Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)-Jeffery pine• CB = Creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) desert (Pinus jeffreyi) forest• DF = Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest • PP = Ponderosa pine forest• FR = Red fir (Abies magnifica) forest • RF = Riparian forest• FB = Wheatgrass (Agropyron), bluegrass (Poa) grassland • SD = Salt desert shrubland• GT = Galleta (Hilaria jamesii ), threeawn (Aristida) shrub steppe • SF = Spruce (Picea engelmannii )-fir (Abies• JP = Juniper (Juniperus osteosperma - J. occidentalis), concolor, A. lasiocarpa) forest

pinyon (Pinus monophylla - P. edulis) woodland • SG = Sagebrush (Artemisia) semidesert• LB = Limber pine (Pinus flexilis), bristlecone pine (Pinus • SS = Sagebrush steppe

longaeva) forest • WD = White fir—Douglas-fir forest• LH = Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), mountain hemlock • USG = Upper sagebrush shrubland

(Tsuga mertensiana) forest • WP = Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) forest.



recreational resource (Wallmo 1975). Other recre-ation includes camping, hiking, photography, natureappreciation, and harvesting food such as berries orroots.

Two additional major uses of Intermountain landsare for grazing of domestic livestock and for mining.The livestock industry in the Intermountain area washistorically, and is currently, a sustaining source ofregional income. Thomas (1973) gave a livestockvalue of nearly $2 billion for over 16 million head oflivestock in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. The mining industry wasimportant historically, as well as currently. The Inte-rior West is endowed with vast deposits of fuels andminerals. These resources are being exploited at anincreasingly rapid rate as the Nation’s mineral andenergy needs expand. Many of these fuel and mineral

resources are amenable to surface mining, whichdisturbs large land areas. The most prominent re-sources currently surface-mined or with such poten-tial are coal, oil shale, phosphate, and uranium. Othermineral resources of the area include copper, lead,zinc, molybdenum, gold, nickel, iron, silver, gypsum,clay, vermiculite, pearlite, talc, flagstone, flourspar,sands, and gravel (Copeland and Packer 1972).

Intermountain lands are multiple use lands. Someuses impact on other uses as, for example, miningand livestock grazing on wildlife habitat. Virtually alluses have some impact on the premier value of theland as a stabilized productive watershed. Keepingthe land productive, useful, and stable should be auniversal goal, and to that end we dedicate the prin-ciples, procedures, and information you will discoverin this book.


James N. Davis

3Chapter

The rangeland in the Intermountain West urgently requireda scientific basis for its management, especially after thegreat mid-1800’s livestock buildup, and then the plant die-offfollowing the severe winters and droughts of the late 1800’s(Stoddart and others 1975). After examining the Western ranges,Jared G. Smith (1895), an agrostologist with the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, wrote that the perennial species were beingovergrazed and were disappearing and were being replaced byweedy annuals. He maintained that no more livestock shouldbe put on an area than could safely be carried through a poorseason. Gaining public and livestock owners’ acceptance of thisconcept has been a problem ever since (Stewart 1936).

The Associate Chief of the Forest Service in a Congressionalreport (Clapp 1936) maintained that severe depletion on rangeswas universal and that most Western U.S. range types were in adepleted condition (depleted at least 50 percent from their origi-nal condition). These generalized Western range types includedshort grass, Pacific bunchgrass, semidesert grass, sagebrush-grass, southern desert shrub, salt-desert shrub, pinyon-juniper,and mountainbrush. He also indicated that the depleted condi-tions had far-reaching negative effects on wildlife and recreation.

Research Background


Chapter 3 Research Background

Formal range research began about 1910, but acomprehensive range research program did not beginuntil 1935. Land managers, livestock operations, andthe public needed research to be better informed onhow to incorporate multiple land use managementconcepts and to take care of the irreplaceable landresources.

Near the turn of the century, some 1,500 attemptswere made to improve the badly depleted Westernranges. These attempts largely failed, resulting in lowenthusiasm and optimism for range seeding. Thefailures were thought to be primarily caused by inad-equately adapted seed sources (mostly cultivated vari-eties) and insufficient site preparation (Stoddart andothers 1975).

Establishment of the Great Basin Station (nowknown as the Great Basin Experimental Range) in1912 quickly generated a variety of range and water-shed research within the Intermountain Region.Early research at the Great Basin Station dealt withwatershed management, effects of grazing on vegeta-tive cover, and the relationship of these to erosiveflooding from high intensity summer storms (Keck1972).

Shortly after the project began in 1912, researcherstried revegetation with shrub plantings. Cuttings ofmany adapted shrubs were placed in the heads ofmountain streams with the object of helping reveg-etate these depleted areas to prevent flooding. Ashort time later, shrub cuttings were placed in gulliesand stream channels. Plantings were also made ondepleted intervening ranges.

Research later looked at natural seeding by nativespecies and artificial seeding with native or intro-duced species. Permanent quadrats were establishedto study the resulting changes in vegetative cover.Experiments with different species, mostly native(some exotics), were conducted to determine whichwere adapted to areas needing revegetation.

In the 1930s, and broadening in the 1950s, researchwas centered on plant species of value to wildlife. Stillongoing, this research has emphasized species adap-tation, methods of seedbed preparation and seedling,optimum time for planting, and the effect of alreadyestablished vegetation on the establishment of seededspecies.

Research has stressed the importance of selectedwoody species, in combination with herbaceous spe-cies, for range and watershed in the Great Basin. Thiswas a significant departure from research being con-ducted on herbaceous species only. Such work wasdone from the late 1920s through the mid-1930s on aseeding within the oakbrush zone (Keck 1972). Thiswork was initiated because drought and heavy graz-ing within the oakbrush type had greatly reducedunderstory production. To make the oakbrush more

productive, different species and seeding techniqueswere tried. The research effort on seeding was ex-panded across the broad geographic area of the Inter-mountain region in 1935. The study areas were in alllife zones up to the much higher subalpine zone.

Since the late 1940s, State and Federal agencies andWestern universities have devoted considerable effortin this area of research. In the latter years, the re-search has dealt with equipment development fromcollecting to planting seed. New areas of researchinclude selection of races, strains, and varieties ofspecies with regard to vigor, growth rate, and growthform; nutritional characteristics; drought tolerance;cold tolerance; animal preference; adaption; resistanceto heavy repeated use; methods of reducing competi-tion of naturally occurring plants; season to plant andmethods of planting; species mixture compatibility;seeding rates and planting depths; and the broadecological effect of the resulting vegetative changes(Plummer and others 1968).

Problems with big game ranges, particularly winterranges, became important issues during the 1940sand 1950s. State Game and Fish Departments recog-nized the unrestricted livestock grazing and wildlifeuse had devastated many critically important wintergame ranges. Scientists and research organizationspreviously affiliated with range research were solic-ited for their support. Big game habitat improvementand plant materials research began in earnest inWashington (Brown and Martinsen 1959), Idaho(Holmgren 1954; Holmgren and Basile 1959), Califor-nia (Horton 1949; Sampson and Jespersen 1963), andUtah (Plummer and others 1968).

A cooperative effort between the Utah State Divi-sion of Fish and Game and the Intermountain Forestand Range Experiment Station of the USDA ForestService began formally in 1955. This enhanced effortfocused on pinyon-juniper woodlands and associatedsagebrush-grass communities in poor condition, wherethere were heavy deer losses, especially during thesevere winter of 1948 to 1949. The aim stressed theurgency of restoring forage production for both wildlifeand livestock and improving soil stability. Speciesadaptation trial work has been done at more than70 sites throughout Utah (including plant communi-ties in the salt desert up to subalpine). Since 1955, theproject has evaluated 39 genera and 244 species ofgrasses (2,000 accessions); 207 genera and 527 speciesof forbs (1,800 accessions); and 90 genera and 270species of shrubs (2,000 accessions). To date, thisproject has evaluated more than 6,000 accessions ofplants.

As early as 1957, this cooperative project was offeringpractical solutions to problems of inadequate produc-tion and suitable species to help relieve game rangeproblems (Plummer and others 1957). Beginning with



the first initial 1957 report, annual reports werepublished through 1967 (Plummer and others 1966a).The reports were culminated and summarized in abook, Restoring Big Game Range in Utah, by Plummerand others (1968). The reports began by identifyingsite factors that limited the establishment of some ofthe commonly planted species. Researchers studiedspecies adaptation to help determine desirable forageplants that could be grown on the various vegetativecommunities (emphasis was on pinyon-juniper sites)throughout Utah. Work has continued on recognizingsuitable sites and determining how to identify poten-tial production on sites. Research has also looked atviability of native seeds and the environmental condi-tions favorable to their germination. Germinationrequirements were determined for many grasses, forbs,and shrubs, which helped develop better methods andequipment for planting these species. Studies deter-mined “onsite requirements” to prepare for seedingand the basic practical methods for preparing wild-land sites and for planting inaccessible areas.

Various equipment development centers and theRange Seeding Equipment Committee helped developresearch on more effective equipment for collecting,cleaning, storing, and planting wildland seed. Con-siderable effort has been put into design, construction,testing, and field demonstrations. The demonstra-tions include use of some of the following equipment ortechniques: cables, anchor chains (light to heavy,smooth, or Ely chains), shrub seeders, seed dribblers,aerial seeding, shrub transplanting, interseeding,diskchaining, Rangeland drills (using a mixture ofseeds from shrubs, forbs, and grasses), and pipe harrows(Larson 1982; Roundy and Call 1988; USDA ForestService 1992b).

Early efforts dealt with problems associated withthe depredation of seeds by rodents, rabbits, birds,insects, and other biotic factors. Another major con-cern was the high population of grazing rabbits con-suming mostly succulent forb species (Plummer andothers 1968). These biotic factors do not appear to beas much a problem for range revegetation work asthey used to be because of the decline in rabbit popu-lations and late fall planting and seeding of largerareas. However, rodent depredation of shrub seeds(primarily bitterbrush) is considered as major a prob-lem today as it was in the 1950s (Brown and Martinsen1959; Everett and Stevens 1981; Holmgren and Basile1959). Long-range studies were established usingfourway exclosures to help determine compositionaldevelopment of seeded and native species after chain-ing juniper-pinyon woodlands and how protection fromgrazing then affected deer, rabbits, and livestock.

Restoring wildlife habitat by artificial seeding ofshrubs and broadleaf herbs has been somewhat hin-dered because of erratic germination characteristicsof various species, the inability of shrub seedlings tocompete with herbs, and the lack of equipment capableof operating on steep, mountainous, and undulatingterrain. Considerable progress has been made inselecting and developing useful shrub and forb spe-cies, ecotypes, and cultivars for wildlife and rangeseedings (Plummer and others 1968). Official releasesor cultivars come primarily through cooperative ef-forts of the USDA Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station (now called Rocky Mountain Re-search Station), the Utah Division of Wildlife Re-sources, and USDA Natural Resources ConservationService (McArthur and others 1985; Monsen and Davis1985; Stevens and others 1985c; Stutz and Carlson1985). Today, seed growers know more about seedproduction and how to use marginal croplands toproduce quality seed from official releases, or howcultivars of these selections could become morewidely available in larger quantities and also be lessexpensive to use in wildland revegetation work.

Shrub research has been expanded significantlysince 1960 by numerous scientists, agencies, anduniversities. But, although we have considerableinformation, techniques of shrub plantings and long-term performance of shrub-herb seedings still havenot been thoroughly investigated. Current research istrying to further refine basic principles and tech-niques for the conversion and successful establish-ment of selected species mixtures onto wildlands.Some of these inquiries seek to understand thefundamentals of successional trends for these reha-bilitated communities and how management can alterthese trends for a longer lasting and productive con-version. Other work looks at species relationshipsand how compatible the associations of seeded andnative species are during succession. Researchers seekalternative methods to enhance critical wildlife habi-tats without damaging key species or plant associa-tions that are in poor vigor and density because ofcompetition from unrealistically high densities of un-desirable species.

This book is a compilation of research and experi-ence acquired since the conception of the Great BasinStation. It reflects decades of cooperative work be-tween the Forest Service’s Intermountain ResearchStation, the Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources,and many other agencies and universities. The book isour gift of knowledge and our wish for a productivefuture for our Nation’s rangeland.


Richard Stevens

4Chapter

Plummer and others (1968) proposed 10 principles to followwhen planning and implementing rangeland revegetation pro-grams. These principles—or basic considerations for rangelandmanagers—are applicable to most sites in the Western UnitedStates (Jordan 1981; Merkel and Herbal 1973), and many projectsin the Intermountain area have been conducted successfully byfollowing them. This chapter provides a discussion of each prin-ciple and refers the reader to the other chapters of this bookwhere more information may be found. These should be consid-ered general guidelines and may require modification for local orunusual situations.

Basic Considerationsfor Range andWildland Revegetationand Restoration


Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration

Ten Principles of RangelandRevegetation

Principle 1: The proposed changes to theplant community must be necessary andecologically attainable

See chapters 5, 6, and 7.The general goal of most revegetation projects is to

change a plant community having undesirable char-acteristics to one with desirable characteristics. Landmanagers must determine whether the proposedchanges are necessary or desirable and ecologicallysustainable (fig. 1). Revegetation normally involveschanges in community composition, plant cover anddensity, and reduction in competition from undesir-able species. If the results are to be sustainable, sitestargeted for revegetation must have the ecologicalpotential to support the proposed changes and toinitiate natural successional processes following treat-ment. The goal of many wildland revegetation projectsis to reestablish native species and restore naturalcommunity functions. However, attempts to com-pletely convert one native plant community to an-other or to a community of introduced species areusually not recommended.

Areas that support a satisfactory number of nativespecies will normally recover with proper manage-ment if invasive species are not present. Reduction incompetition is best accomplished by selecting the mostreliable technique that will have the least impact onexisting desirable species. Controlled burning, appli-cation of selective herbicides, and various mechanicaltechniques can be used to remove or reduce competi-tion and permit recovery of understory species.

Principle 2: The terrain and soil mustsupport the desired changes

See chapters 6 and 7.The potential productivity of a site must be consid-

ered when planning revegetation projects. The USDANatural Resources Conservation Service has com-pleted soil classification surveys and soil descriptionsfor most range sites in the Intermountain area. Thesedescriptions provide information that can be used toestimate potential productivity of individual sitesand to select appropriate species for seeding them.Stevens and others (1974) defined various site char-acteristics that significantly affect productivity ofsemiarid juniper-pinyon and sagebrush/grass sites inUtah. The most important features were:

• Depth of the soil surface and subsurface horizons.• Soil texture and the amount of salt in surface and

subsurface horizons.

Figure 1—The maintenance of diverse communi-ties must be a key priority for land managementthroughout the West. Intact communities should notbe altered or disrupted.

Figure 2—Low elevation and arid sites commonlyoccupied by annual weeds are extremely difficultto revegetate. Remedial treatments are requiredto curtail the spread of weeds.

• Occurrence and location of hardpans or restric-tive layers in the soil profile.

Within these plant communities are areas havingcoarse, rocky, shallow, alkaline, or saline soils. Restor-ing native vegetation on these sites may be quite riskyand will most likely require considerable investmentthat may be difficult to justify. Justifications mayinclude controlling erosion, stabilizing disturbances,containing weeds, reducing fire, or providing wildlifehabitat. Extremely large disturbances of such envi-ronments occur in the Intermountain region, and mostcontinue to degrade, usually through weed invasion.These situations must be addressed, and more reliablepractices must be developed to better assure success-ful restoration (fig. 2).



Species presence, age class distribution, and plantvigor can provide an index of soil types and the produc-tivity and potential of an area to support specificspecies and communities. For example, sites with apredominance of small, but older pinyon or junipertrees generally have shallow soils. Likewise, rela-tively low-growing black sagebrush and winterfat oc-cur on specific soil types. The presence or absence ofdifferent species may provide indications of specificphysical or chemical properties of the soil. The pres-ence of certain chenopods, for example, usually indi-cates basic and heavy soil textures.

In many cases, terrain and surface conditions deter-mine whether a site can be treated and the techniquesand equipment that can be used. Treatment of steepslopes is usually more costly than level areas, butsuccessful chaining has taken place on sites with up to65 percent slopes. Plowing, disking, harrowing, bull-dozing, interseeding, transplanting, and other inten-sive treatments are usually confined to sites with lessthan 25 percent slopes.

Principle 3: Precipitation must beadequate to assure establishment andsurvival of indigenous and plantedspecies

Refer to chapters 6 and 7.Water is often the most critical factor affecting

seedling survival and plant establishment in semiaridand arid regions. Generally, revegetation efforts shouldnot be initiated in areas receiving less than 9 inches(230 mm) of annual precipitation. Before selectingspecies for a revegetation project, annual precipita-tion and seasonal distribution of precipitation shouldbe determined (Jordan 1983; Stevens and others 1974).The most critical periods for soil moisture availabilityare those preceding and during germination (Jordan1983). Consideration of annual moisture availabilityon the site must be a major factor in selecting speciesfor planting. Seedling establishment of some speciesmay only be successful during years with unusuallyhigh rainfall during the critical periods. Some speciesmay be slow to establish even though they are commonor dominant species on low precipitation sites.

Principle 4. Competition must becontrolled to ensure that planted speciescan establish and persist

Refer to chapters 5 and 8.Young seedlings of most species are usually unable

to compete with established vegetation. Undesirable,highly competitive species must be removed or re-duced in density to allow seedling establishment of theplanted species (fig. 3). Stands of juniper-pinyon,

cheatgrass, medusahead, red brome, cluster tarweed,and various perennial weeds are some of the competi-tive species that must be reduced in density to betterassure establishment of seeded species. Methods de-veloped to reduce competition include:

• application of selective herbicides• anchor chaining or railing• disking• undercutting• plowing and interseeding• fire

Individual methods usually do not completely elimi-nate all plants but can sufficiently reduce competitionto allow seeds of the planted species to germinate andestablish. Treatments can often be difficult to selectand implement where retention of existing and desir-able species is desired.

Principle 5: Plant and manage siteadapted species, subspecies, andvarieties

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.Factors important in determining which plant

materials should be selected for seeding are:

• Use of site-adapted species and populations.• Presence, density and composition of indigenous

plants.• The availability of seed or planting stock.• Project objectives.

Successful range improvement projects begin withthe selection of species that are adapted to the areaproposed for treatment. One must make certain that

Figure 3—Reducing competition from weedyannuals is essential to increase the probabilitythat seeded species will establish.



only adapted sources and strains are used. Generally,seed from populations growing under climatic andedaphic conditions that are similar to those of theproposed treatment area are most likely to survive.Materials selected for planting must be able to estab-lish, persist, and reproduce on the site.

Care must be taken to prevent overseeding speciesthat may be aggressive and dominate the site. Rapidlydeveloping species are often included in seed mixturesto provide ground cover and forage and to modifymicroclimates while slower developing species becomeestablished. Management should seek to maximizeestablishment of all desired species, whether seededor present in the existing vegetation. Seeding the rightcombination of plants is critical to the ultimate com-munity diversity that develops over a number of years.

Principle 6: A multispecies seed mixtureshould be planted

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.Many early revegetation projects emphasized the

use of a limited number of species. For most wildlandrevegetation projects today, however, there are manyreasons to seed mixtures rather than single species:

• Restoration of native plant communities usuallyrequires the reintroduction of a variety of speciesto provide community structure and function.

• A combination of species is normally required toinitiate natural successional processes.

• A variety of species that are adapted to thediverse microsites occurring within majorseedings should be seeded.

• Mixtures reverse the loss of plant diversity andenhance natural recovery processes followingnatural impacts from insects, disease organisms,and adverse climatic events.

• Chances for successful seeding are often im-proved when mixtures are planted.

• Mixtures can provide improved ground cover andwatershed stability.

• Mixtures produce communities that providegreater potential for reducing weed invasion andfor providing for a balance in the use of allresources.

• Combinations of species can provide better qual-ity habitat including cover and seasonal forage.

• Total forage production and seasonal succulencecan be increased with mixtures.

• Mixtures are generally more aesthetically pleas-ing and match natural conditions.

• Mixtures provide diverse habitats required tosustain wildlife species.

Seeded mixtures should include the various growthforms, that is: grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees thatexisted prior to disturbance. Seeded and indigenous

species must be compatible and able to establish anddevelop together. Successional changes must occurthat will result in the ultimate development of adesirable plant community.

A few special situations such as providing immedi-ate ground cover to stabilize erosion may occasionallydictate the seeding of only one or a few species. Be-cause some shrubs establish and grow much slowerthan many herbs, planting individual woody specieswith plants having similar establishment and growthcharacteristics is recommended. Selectively plantingdifferent species in separate rows or spots is some-times required.

Principle 7: Sufficient seed of acceptablepurity and viability should be planted

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.It is important to calculate seeding rates carefully.

Planting excessive seed is unnecessarily expensiveand increases competition among seedlings and indig-enous species. Low seeding rates, on the other hand,may jeopardize stand establishment.

It is essential that seeding rates be determined on apure live seed (PLS) basis. The number of pure liveseed (PLS) per unit of weight varies greatly amongspecies and seed lots (fig. 4). If an equal number of liveseeds of alfalfa, antelope bitterbrush, slender wheat-grass, and fairway crested wheatgrass were seeded,then average weight would be 1.5 lb (0.7 kg) of alfalfa,20.8 lb (9.5 kg) of antelope bitterbrush, and 3.7 lb (1.7kg) of slender wheatgrass for each pound (0.5 kg) offairway crested wheatgrass.

Seed must be tested for purity and germination andproperly tagged with the current results to enable thebuyer to calculate seeding rates. A certified seed labo-ratory should analyze all seed, including wildlandcollections. Seed stored for an extended period should

Figure 4—Selecting and properly planting high qualityseed is critical to planting success.



be retested before seeding. Care should be taken toensure that all species can be seeded at the expectedrate with the proposed seeding equipment, and thatthe equipment can function properly over the entireplanting site.

Principle 8: Seed must be planted on awell-prepared seedbed and coveredproperly

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.Proper seed coverage is essential for successful ger-

mination and seedling establishment. Depth of plant-ing is generally determined by seed size. However, itis also influenced by special requirements of indi-vidual species. As a general rule, seeds should not becovered more than three times the thickness of thecleaned seed. Seed of certain species includingwinterfat, rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and asters are bestseeded on a disturbed surface with shallow soil cover-age. Indian ricegrass on the other hand, should beseeded 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.6 cm) deep. Soil type andsurface conditions also influence seeding depth. Mostspecies benefit from firm seedbeds, but some do well inloose soils. Heavy soils may crust and prevent emer-gence. Light textured soils are less likely to crust orbecome compact; however, they dry rapidly and, thus,deeper planting depths are recommended.

Principle 9: Plant during the season thatprovides the most favorable conditionsfor establishment

Refer to chapters 12, 17, and 18.Late fall and winter seedings have been most suc-

cessful in the Intermountain West. Advantages of latefall and winter seedings include:

• The inherent seed dormancy of many species isreleased by overwinter stratification.

• Seeds are in place in early spring when soilmoisture is most likely to be available for germi-nation, seedling emergence, and growth. Earlyemerging seedlings are better able to resist highsummer temperatures and drought.

• Seed predation by small mammals and birds isless likely to occur if seeds are planted whenthese animals are less active.

Seeding too early in fall may result in precociousgermination following unseasonably warm periodscoupled with autumn rains. Seed losses to mammalsand birds also can be high during this period.

Transplanting should be completed in early springwhen the soil is wet and before active growth of thetransplant stock or the native vegetation has begun.Fall transplanting is generally not recommended un-less soils are moist and likely will remain moist untilthey freeze.

Principle 10: Newly seeded areas must bemanaged properly

Refer to chapter 16.As a general rule, newly seeded areas should not be

grazed for at least two or three growing seasonsfollowing planting. Poor sites and slow-growing speciesmay require a much longer period of nonuse. Whengrazing does occur, it should be carefully regulated.


Stephen B. Monsen

5Chapter

Introduction _____________________________________

Improvement of vegetative and edaphic conditions on somewildland sites can be achieved through proper management aswell as by manipulative plantings (Vallentine 1980). Sites thathave been subjected to serious abuse or that lack needed cover,habitat, or forage resources can be improved by various methods(Vallentine 1980). Prior to the development of any site improve-ment program, land managers must first discern the resourceneeds and suitability of an area for treatment (Plummer andothers 1968). Then appropriate methods and techniques can bedeveloped.

Proper management is the key to the improvement or mainte-nance of acceptable plant cover and soil stability (fig. 1). Suc-cessful revegetation may dramatically change plant and water-shed conditions. Yet without appropriate management,improvements can be lost (Vallentine 1980). Following are somefactors that influence decisions on whether to improve sites

Restoration orRehabilitation ThroughManagement orArtificial Treatments


Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

through management schemes, artificial measures, orboth. Factors that influence site improvement throughmanagement are discussed first. Factors that are ofspecial concern when considering restoration or reha-bilitation are presented next. Factors that influencemanagement decisions are also important consider-ations in developing planting programs.

Management Considerations ______

Status and Condition of ExistingVegetation

Restoration or rehabilitation projects are not usu-ally contemplated unless the native communities havebeen severely disturbed, resulting in adverse water-shed conditions and loss of desirable vegetation. If an

Figure 1—(A) A seeded area that has been prop-erly grazed. (B) A poorly managed site whereshrubs are low in vigor and the understory is declin-ing in diversity, density and vigor. Matchbrush andcheatgrass are increasing on this site.

adequate composition of desirable species that iscapable of recovery and natural spread remains, arti-ficial seeding is unnecessary (fig. 2). If properly man-aged, plants that have been weakened by excessivegrazing and browsing can normally recover and beginproducing seed within a few years. Plants growing inarid environments may require longer to recover.Protected areas in the blackbrush and Indian ricegrasscommunities of southern Utah require many years torecover following heavy grazing. Some disturbed ar-eas within the Wyoming big sagebrush zone in south-ern Idaho have remained in almost a static conditionfor more than 50 years with protection from grazing.However, considerable improvement resulted follow-ing three unusually wet years. Woody species thatexist in mountain brush communities normally havethe capacity to recover and spread quickly when man-aged correctly. Woody species growing at lower eleva-tions are usually usually exposed to more adverseclimatic conditions and many are less capable of natu-ral spread. Thus, recovery in salt desert shrublandsand low sagebrush foothills is slow.

Many native communities are capable of self regen-eration by natural seeding or sprouting. However,replacing individuals that die naturally is an en-tirely different situation than repopulating a broadarea where most species have been depleted by graz-ing.

A disturbed site may still support some species butnot others. This is quite common on most overgrazedrangelands. The more desirable forage plants are oftenlost by selective grazing (fig. 1). Other remaining,but less desirable species may be capable of recovery,but the important forage species may not reappearwithout some means of artificial seeding. Controlling

Figure 2—Natural recovery of native species5 years following a prescribed fire in a pinyon-juniper community.

A

B



livestock grazing on important game ranges oftenresults in an increase in total herbage production.However, the recovery of important broadleaf herbsfrequently does not occur. Species such as nineleaflomatium, sticky geranium, and bramble vetch usu-ally occurring on specific microsites may not dominatea community, but they are important as seasonalforage. Unfortunately, these same species are ofteneliminated by grazing and do not persist in sufficientnumbers to recover, even when protected for extendedperiods. If desirable species are not present, improve-ment by natural means may be unattainable.

Natural recovery processes must be considered inpredicting secondary successional changes. Althoughsome desirable species may not be present on a dis-turbed site, their reentry may depend on factors otherthan the adverse effects of grazing. For example,some shade dependent plants are not able to surviveif overstory species are not present. The shade tolerantspecies will not appear until overstory plants havebecome established, assuming a viable seedbankremains.

The recovery capabilities of individual species mustbe correctly evaluated to decide on methods of im-provement. Plants of big sagebrush, rubber rabbit-brush, and sulfur eriogonum spread well from seed,even under stressful situations. By contrast, few seed-lings of Saskatoon serviceberry, skunkbush sumac,and true mountain mahogany (fig. 3) are encounteredeven though abundant seed crops are produced mostyears. Some species are site specific, existing as purestands but intermixed with other communities. Suchis the case with curlleaf mountain mahogany. Ifthese stands are eliminated or seriously diminished,natural recovery is extremely slow (fig. 3). Recovery isaffected by limited seed sources, low plant density,and poor distribution of parent plants.

Although more time may be required to achievenatural recovery, this may be the most practical ap-proach. However, land managers must understandthat during the period of recovery the vegetation maynot furnish desired forage and cover. Until a completerecovery of all species is attained, all resource valuesmay not be provided.

Status of the Soil Conditions

Soil and watershed conditions are critical resourcesthat cannot be allowed to deteriorate. If disturbancehas progressed to the extent that soil loss is seri-ous, rehabilitation measures must be implemented(fig. 4). If adequate protection of the soil and water-shed through management is not realized within asatisfactory period, artificial revegetation measureswill be required.

Figure 3—Exclosure (left) established in the 1930s.(A) True mountain mahogany extensively used out-side (right) and recovering somewhat without use inthe exclosure (left) in 1954. (B) Even with removal ofcattle and significant reduction in deer numbers, thecondition of the true mountain mahogany outside theexclosure has changed little by 1995. There is littledifference in the curlleaf mountain mahogany insideor outside the exclosure between 1954 and 1995.

A long recovery can be accepted if the soil andwatershed resources do not deteriorate appreciablyduring the initial stages of natural recovery. However,both the physical and chemical condition of the soilaffect seedling establishment and growth. Soil sur-faces must be conducive to seedling establishment ifthe vegetation is to recover. An open, but stable,surface may exist, but surface crusting (Army andHudspeth 1959) or freezing may prevent seedlingestablishment (Hull 1966). In addition, lowering of thewater table through downcutting of the stream chan-nel can and does influence areas adjacent to thedrainage. Wind erosion and lack of surface organic

A

B



matter (Welch and others 1962) are highly detrimen-tal to seedbed conditions. These and other featuresmust be considered when assessing soil and water-shed conditions.

Protecting the soil resource may be necessary beforeattempts are made to improve habitat or forage condi-tions. This has been a major concern in many circum-stances, particularly along the Wasatch Front, withinthe Idaho Batholith, and in the Colorado River drain-age. The vegetation in these areas can often recoversatisfactorily through protection, but eroding areasmay respond more slowly. In addition, the occurrenceof intense summer storms and other climatic eventscan be expected and can have devastating and long-lasting impacts.

Management Strategy

Wildland sites in good or fair condition are usuallyable to recover through natural processes. However,providing protection from human-induced changes isoften difficult. Big game wintering sites and springand fall ranges may constitute small, but important,portions of a broad geographic area. Attempts to re-strict use of the broad area for sufficient time to allowrecovery of these seasonal ranges may not be practical.In addition, efforts to maintain high populations ofgame animals, or continued livestock use on thesebroad areas may not be compatible with naturalrecovery. A well designed management system toimprove habitat conditions may require a long-termcommitment.

Management strategies must ensure that the fol-lowing conditions are created: (1) the development ofsuitable seedbanks, (2) the creation and protection ofadequate seedbeds, (3) the protection of plants forsufficient time to provide an acceptable composition of

Figure 4—Soil erosion from an area depleted ofvegetation. Establishment of desired species onseverely eroding and unstable surfaces can bedifficult.

species, and (4) the recovery of all sites, especially themost critical areas.

Impacts on Other Resources

Few areas can be managed to support one resource,yet treatment practices are often developed to enhancea single primary resource. In these cases attention mustbe given to the expected impacts on other resources.For example, the value and impact of managementschemes on wildlife populations must be determinedas these schemes influence recreation, livestock graz-ing, and other uses. In addition, management strate-gies that are used to regulate animal distribution,population numbers, and seasonal use must be devel-oped as part of the rehabilitation program.

The decision to artificially treat an area is normallybased on the value of numerous resources. For exam-ple, a site essential in maintaining a viable big gameherd that may also be an important watershed areamight receive treatment priority (fig. 5).

Figure 5—Important watershed and big gamewinter range prior to and 6 years followingchaining and seeding.



Immense Areas

Wildland ranges include extensive and diverse acre-age throughout the Western States (McGinnies 1972),The enormous size of this area simply precludes com-prehensive treatment of all seriously depleted sites.Many sites support a desirable vegetative cover, andattempts to convert or replace native communitiesshould not be made. Some sites support less produc-tive and undesirable weedy species and unsatisfactorywatershed conditions (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984).However, the cost to of correcting these problemsmay not always justify extensive artificial treatments.Site improvement may be better attained throughcareful management.

Numerous sites on steep, inaccessible slopes cannotbe treated with existing equipment. Topographic andvegetative conditions are usually very diverse withinmost areas, and site preparation and planting equip-ment are not always versatile enough to treat allcircumstances. Consequently, some areas cannot beproperly treated.

Climatic Conditions

Many arid or semiarid wildlands that occupy exten-sive areas within the Intermountain States cannot besatisfactorily treated using current revegetation andrestoration measures (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984;Bleak and others 1965). Arid conditions and irregularmoisture patterns may not be conducive to seedlingestablishment. Large acreages are normally treatedand seeded only once. Uniform stands may not de-velop, yet replanting is costly and impracticable. Bleakand others (1965) found sites in regions receiving lessthan 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of annual precipi-tation are the most difficult to treat (fig. 6). Recentstudies have identified and developed promising spe-cies for semiarid sites (Asay and Knowles 1985a,b;Rumbaugh and Townsend 1985; Stevens and others1985c; Stutz and Carlson 1985), however, appropriateplanting techniques for successful planting of thesespecies may not be available. Many semiarid ranges,including sites supporting shadscale, winterfat, Nevadaephedra, and budsage need improvement, butchanges can often be more easily attained throughproper long-term management than through artifi-cial revegetation.

Many species that occupy arid sites are extremelyvaluable plants, and should be retained or enhanced.However, these plants are not easily cultured and arenot well suited to artificial planting. Suitable substi-tute species that could be used in their place are notknown (Hull 1963b; Plummer 1966). Consequently,many arid and semiarid sites must be carefully man-aged to minimize abuse and stimulate natural recovery.

Figure 6—It is difficult to revegetate desert regionsthat receive less than 8 to 10 inches of annualprecipitation.

Artificial RevegetationConsiderations _________________

Similar factors must be considered in determining ifmanagement or revegetation should be employed toimprove a wildland disturbance. However, certainfactors must be looked upon quite differently depend-ing on which approach is used. For example, the sizeof an area requiring restoration or rehabilitation is amajor factor to be considered. A large area may bedifficult to manage due to differences in topography,access, or season of use. Consequently, improvementsmay not be easily achieved by management. Simi-larly, the area may be so diverse that artificial reveg-etation may be difficult to achieve using a singlemethod or closely related methods of site preparationand seeding.

Following are some factors to consider in determin-ing the applicability or practicality of artificial reveg-etation. The list is not considered all-inclusive. Otherissues may also be important, particularly in specificareas. However, the factors discussed below must beconsidered before developing improvement measures.

Site Suitability

Plummer and others (1968) emphasized the impor-tance of correctly discerning the capabilities of a siteprior to treatment. Too often, attempts are made toconvert a vegetative community to a complex of desir-able but unadapted species. The site must be capableof sustaining the selected species. In addition, speciesincluded in the seed mixture must be compatible withone another and with the existing native species.

Some attempts have been made to improveshrublands by seeding grasses, or by introducing other



shrub species. Sites with low precipitation, shallowsoils, or both, that support black sagebrush, bud sage-brush, or shadscale have been plowed and seeded tointroduced grasses. In many cases treatments havefailed and less productive plants have invaded(Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984). Failure to recognizethe suitability or capability of these sites has resultedin the loss of the adapted native plants.

Sufficient information is available to determine theadaptability of many introduced and native species(Asay and Knowles 1985a,b; Barker and others 1985;Carlson and Schwendiman 1986; Davis 1983a;Hafenrichter and others 1968; McArthur and others1985; Monsen and Davis 1985; Monsen and Shaw1983b; Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1983a,1987a; Stutz and Carlson 1985). Some species aredifficult to establish through artificial seeding, andthe desired complex of adapted species is difficult toachieve. However, it is not advisable to seed or plantsubstitute species that are marginally adapted buteasily established.

A site may be capable of sustaining a complex arrayof species. However, initial attempts to reestablishcertain species may be unsuccessful (Jordan 1983).Soil crusting and high salt content in the soil surfaceoften limit seedling establishment of species on sitessupporting black greasewood (Naphan 1966; Rollinsand others 1968; Roundy and others 1983). Rodentforaging seriously limits seedling survival of curlleafmountain mahogany (Dealy l978), antelope bitter-brush (Giunta and others 1978), and Martin ceanothus.Rabbits, livestock, and big game selectively grazesome species, particularly broadleaf herbs, limitingtheir survival even when planted under favorableclimatic and soil conditions. Animals tend to concen-trate on seeding projects if the adjacent wildlands arevoid of an adequate forage cover. Weed infestation(Eckert and Evans 1967) and slow or erratic seedlinggrowth (Jordan 1983) of many seeded species oftendiminish their success. Artificial plantings or naturalseedings of black chokecherry, Woods rose (Monsenand Davis 1985), skunkbush sumac, and green ephe-dra, (Monsen 1975) often are not successful, and at-tempts to restore large areas from a single plantingcannot always be achieved. These factors significantlyinfluence site suitability for improvement either bymanagement or artificial revegetation.

Community development and maturation must alsobe considered when designing a revegetation pro-gram. Newly developed or introduced plant materialsmust be able to establish, and persist and reproduce.If they are unable to reproduce satisfactorily, standsultimately deteriorate. Fourwing saltbush, a highlyproductive and palatable forage plant, has been suc-cessfully established on sites once dominated byWyoming big sagebrush, but it has been short-livedand unable to reproduce by natural seeding.

Similarly, artificial seedings of antelope bitterbrushand Stansbury cliffrose have established satisfacto-rily on cheatgrass ranges if the understory weeds arereduced at the time of shrub planting. Natural seedingby either shrub species has not occurred with compe-tition from the understory weeds, and stands haveslowly disappeared.

Various introduced herbs and shrubs perform favor-ably from initial plantings on wildland sites. However,some have failed to survive when infrequent insectoutbreaks and other unusual stress events occur.Similar situations have been encountered when highlydesirable native species, such as blue elderberry, havebeen planted on sites where the species normally doesnot exist, even when such sites were quite similar tothe origin of collections. Blue elderberry persists whenplanted on big sagebrush sites unless a series ofunusually dry years has occurred. Plants then becomeweak and disappear. Many years may pass beforedrought events cause blue elderberry plants to die.

Some ecotypes of a particular species demonstratespecific site adaptability; unadapted ecotypes maythen be sorted out quite rapidly (Davis 1983a; McArthurand others 1983b). Other ecotypes may be equallysensitive, but climatic or biological events that affecttheir survival may not occur frequently. Consequently,these ecotypes may persist for an extended periodbefore being eliminated.

Perhaps the most critical issue to be considered inrevegetating semiarid and arid sites is the availabilityof soil moisture for seedling establishment (Jordan1983). Attempting to seed areas that receive erraticamounts of moisture is extremely hazardous. Seeds ofmany species require periods of cold-moist stratifica-tion to initiate germination. In addition, developingseedlings must receive sufficient moisture to assureestablishment. Attempting to plant in areas domi-nated by weeds, or during periods when soil moistureis unfavorable for growth, is ill-advised. Seeding spe-cies with different germination and growth character-istics can be successful if the moisture requirements ofall species are met (Shaw and Monsen 1983a). Prob-lem sites may be capable of supporting a specific arrayof species, but current planting techniques are notsatisfactory for planting many sites. Consequently,the site must be suitable for: (1) maintaining theplanted species and (2) applying currently availablemethods of treatment.

Status of Soil and Watershed Conditions

Sites that have been degraded and subjected toerosion are normally the most critical areas requiringartificial restoration. Protection must be provided foronsite and downstream resources. However, barrenand eroding soil surfaces normally are not satisfactoryseedbeds (fig. 4). Recovery of natural revegetation is



Figure 7—Needle-and-thread grass suppress-ing cheatgrass and other weeds.

often prevented because of unstable surface condi-tions and a limited soil seedbank. Artificial seeding,including site preparation, is difficult and costly toachieve on unstable watersheds. Areas should not beallowed to deteriorate to the point that rehabilitationor other costly measures are necessary to reestablisha plant cover.

Soil conditions must be carefully surveyed to assurethat a satisfactory seedbed can be created. Too oftenstands of juniper-pinyon have been allowed to fullyoccupy steep hillsides, and woody and herbaceousunderstory species have been lost. The change in plantcomposition reduces soil protection. Tree competitionmust be reduced to allow recovery of the understoryspecies that have been lost. However, control mea-sures must provide soil protection during the period ofconversion. In addition, soil conditions must be im-proved to provide a suitable seedbed. Chaining pro-vides soil protection by leaving both trees and litter onsite and a satisfactory seedbed is created. Burning canbe used to reduce tree competition, but this controlmeasure does not provide adequate soil protection orcreate a seedbed.

Problem areas may be ranked depending upon theirvalues and the severity of the disturbance. The mostcritical areas may then be selected for treatment. Thefeasibility of treating the candidate sites must beconsidered in developing rehabilitation plans.

Status of the Vegetation and Presence ofWeeds

Regardless of the disturbance, provisions must bemade to control existing weeds or prevent their entryonto prepared seedbeds (Hull and Holmgren 1964).Complete elimination of all weedy species is not essen-tial to planting success. Weed control is necessary toensure seedling establishment; thereafter less desir-able plants can be controlled by natural competition(fig. 7). Control may be necessary to reduce the pres-ence of undesirable weeds or diminish the density andinfluence of desirable natives on establishing seed-lings (Blaisdell 1949). Attempting to control weeds,and yet maintain desirable natives, is a difficult task,particularly when working on wildland situations.

In some situations weedy plants may assume domi-nance and prevent the natural establishment of moredesirable species. The weeds may be annuals such ascheatgrass and Russian thistle, or perennials includingbig sagebrush or Utah juniper. Plant density must besignificantly reduced to ensure establishment of seededspecies. In addition, control measures must be used toprevent the immediate recurrence of weeds.

Cheatgrass is the most severe weed problem en-countered on a wide spectrum of plant types within theIntermountain Region (Klemmedson and Smith 1964;Stewart and Hull 1949). Control is not easily achieved,

but unless competition is reduced to a low level, fewseeded species will establish.

Appraisal of Resource Values

Restoration or rehabilitation projects have beencompleted on various sites to improve wildlife habitator forage production without carefully determiningthe best specific locations where these resources arelocated. Large acreages are often treated assuming“the more acres treated, the more habitat or forageprovided.” This assumption is sometimes incorrect.Chaining and seeding pinyon-juniper sites was doneto improve critical midwinter deer and elk habitat,even though they were not midwintering areas. Theimportant midwinter sites may be exposed slopes andridgetops that may support a limited number of spe-cies (fig. 5). These small confined locations are the onesthat should receive special treatment.

Revegetation projects should be designed to providecover, forage, and protection on sites where the greatestbenefit can be derived. It is obvious that treatmentsmust be done efficiently. Consequently, when chain-ing or using massive equipment, large acreages canoften be treated cheaply. Large tracts of land can betreated easier than isolated sites. However, treat-ments should be designed to accomplish the goals ofthe project, and the needs of targeted animals.

Selective Treatment and Impacts onAssociated Areas

Artificial treatments can be designed to restorecritical areas indirectly. Artificial revegetation canand does benefit both the treated area and adjacentsites. Consequently, areas having good access andhighly productive soils can often be treated, leaving



adjacent sites to recover naturally. However, the un-treated sites must be able to recover. Highly palatablespecies, or plants that provide seasonal forage, can beseeded onto specific sites to attract and hold grazinganimals on adjacent areas (Stevens 1987b). Treatingan area of sufficient size is necessary to disperseanimal use and allow the seeded species and un-treated areas a chance to develop. Not all untreatedsites respond favorably. Areas that are nearly void ofdesirable species or dominated by weedy plants do notgenerally respond to a reduction of grazing.

Selective treatment, an important practice, can beused to promote successional changes, and supple-ment improved habitat, seasonal availability of herb-age, and forage quality (Wight and White 1974). Add-ing an appropriate shrub or herb to the existingvegetation can enhance forage resources, restore spe-cific species, and control weeds. Interseeding selectedspecies into existing stands is an important techniqueto improve large areas without excessive costs.

Management and Control

Treated sites must be managed to retain speciescomposition, plant vigor, and productiveness. Treatedsites may require special protection that cannot beprovided. If this occurs, the value of the project is lost.Treated areas must be of appropriate size to accom-modate seasonal use during the time of plant estab-lishment and over a long-term maintenance period.Areas must be of sufficient sizes and diversity torespond to climatic conditions and associated bioticfactors that influence plant succession. Some treatedareas may be heavily grazed to such an extent thatweeds are able to invade during stressful periods. Thetreated sites must be able to accommodate all formsof use, including somewhat abnormal events such asinsect attacks and drought.

Treated sites should be managed or used as initiallyintended. Too often areas are seeded or treated toprovide big game habitat, but are then used as grazingpastures for livestock, despite the fact that the areasmay not be designed to accommodate these high levelsof use. Treated sites regress if not properly managed.Improper use, particularly during the period of seed-ling establishment, can eliminate certain species anddecrease the overall success of the project.

Availability of Adapted Plant Materials

Rehabilitating ranges to benefit wildlife usuallyrequires the inclusion of various native species in theseeding (Stein and others 1986). Restoration projectsrequire seeding diverse mixtures of native species.Seeds of many native species are not always availableand substitute species are frequently planted. Thelack of adapted ecotypes of many species limits manyplantings. The use of introduced grasses has facili-tated many rehabilitation projects. However, the morecommonly available grasses and broadleaf herbs donot satisfy all resource needs. Seed sources must bedeveloped to assure the use of desirable and adaptednative plants.

Site Improvement Costs

The costs incurred in restoration and rehabilitationultimately determine the site treatment and seedingpractices to be employed. However, it is difficult todetermine the value of stable plant communities;wildlife habitat, including nongame animals; water-shed protection; and recreational uses. Benefits cannotbe calculated wholly on the increased production offorage. All benefits must be considered over the entirelife of the project.


James N. Davis

6Chapter

Our knowledge of the physical requirements of cultivatedplants is far advanced in contrast to that of the native andintroduced species used in range plantings. Cultivated plants areusually grown as single varieties of a species under specificcontrolled conditions to ensure maximum yields. Native andintroduced range plants often grow in species mixtures on sitesthat are more variable than agricultural croplands. Our knowl-edge of the specific requirements of individual species or varietiesmay not always apply with respect to interspecific competition orto the widely varying wildlands now being reclaimed or rehabili-tated. Data obtained by growing native and introduced species inpure stands are only partially applicable to stand mixturesbecause the requirements for a species in a pure stand oftendiffer from its needs when competing with other plant species.At present, we understand little of the effects of competition, letalone the complex interaction of climate, soil, and terrain uponwhich our native plant species grow (Hansen and Churchill1961).

Climate and Terrain


Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

Any site under consideration for rehabilitation orrestoration will have its own peculiar combination ofenvironmental conditions that interact to form a dis-tinctive environment, and thus a unique plant com-munity. Ideally, the use and management of anyresource should be based on extensive knowledge andunderstanding of that resource and its environment.Knowledge of the nature of the potential plant commu-nity to be rehabilitated (table 1) is a prerequisite to anevaluation of a site condition (Passey and Hugie 1962a).Site potential cannot be determined unless one be-comes familiar with the complexity of its environ-mental parameters.

It is not the purpose of this short review to thor-oughly detail all the possible responses that plantsexhibit with respect to their environment. Rather, thisreview is to help make a person, in a general way, more

Table 1—Climatic zones, showing major vegetational types and average annualprecipitation in inches.

Vegetational zone and Average annualClimatic zone associated shrubs and herbs precipitation

InchesLower Sonoran Southern desert shrub: 10

Blackbrush, creosotebush,Joshua tree, red brome, galleta grass

Upper Sonoran Juniper and pinyon pine: 13Green ephedra, big sagebrush,antelope bitterbrush, bluebunchwheatgrass, Indian ricegrass

Northern desert shrub: 10Big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush,Nevada ephedra, bluebunch wheatgrass,Indian ricegrass

Salt-desert shrub: 9Black greasewood, shadscale,Gardner saltbush, bottlebrushsquirreltail, alkali sacaton

Salt-desert grassland: 9Inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton,Nuttall alkaligrass, creeping wildrye

Transition Mountain brush-ponderosa pine: 16Gambel oak, bigtooth maple,black chokecherry, serviceberry

Canadian Aspen-fir (canopy and opening): 25Mountain snowberry, slender wheatgrass,mountain brome, sticky geranium

Hudsonian Subalpine herbland or spruce-fir: 34Red elderberry, western yarrow,letterman needlegrass, mountain brome

Alpine Alpine herbland (above timberline): 40Cushion eriogonum, Scribner wheatgrass,red elderberry

familiar with how complex environmental factors canbecome and what their possible effects on a plant canbe. Billings (1952) felt that the complexity of the inter-relationships between the plant and its environmentand between the various factors of the environment inthemselves was almost enough to discourage any at-tempt at a complete analysis and understanding. Tomake it even more complex, there is, in many cases, anapparent compensation of one environmental factor foranother. This will often occur near the boundaries of aspecies’ range where it allows individuals of a species tooccur in areas that do not appear to be normal habitat(Billings 1952). Since the environmental complex is socomplicated, it has been customary to break up theenvironment into arbitrary factors and then study theeffect of each factor on the seeded and endemic species.This approach is being used in my analysis herein.



Climate ________________________Basically, climatic zones were first identified from

studies of the distribution of vegetation. Various cli-matic values were then selected from within thesevegetative types to determine if there were significantrelationships between any of these climatic valuesand the represented plant community (Thornthwaite1948). Daubenmire (1956) reviewed four of the mostpopular climatic classification schemes (and as pro-posed by Thornthwaite [1931, 1948]) and concludedthat none of the four classifications proved adequateto define what appeared to be climatically determinedvegetation zones located in eastern Washington andnorthern Idaho. He found that each vegetative type(or climatic zone) differed from its neighbors in thedegree of summer drought, except at the wet end ofthe climatic gradient where lower summer tempera-tures became more influential. Therefore, it is gener-ally thought that, within climatic regions or zones,quantity and seasonal availability of soil moisture,especially in the summer, are major limiting factorsfor the geographic distribution of plant species(Blaisdell 1958; Daubenmire 1974; Hansen andChurchill 1961; Krebs 1972; Oosting 1956). Soil mois-ture availability for plant growth is modified by changesin elevation, latitude, slope, or soil type. Thus, certainvegetational zones occur at higher elevations on southslopes or lower elevations on north slopes. Thesevegetational zones also have higher elevational limitson smaller mountains because they tend to interceptless moisture than the larger mountain masses (Westand others 1975). Most dry or desert environmentsshare two characteristics with regard to precipitation:it usually falls in one or two short seasons, and theamount received is unpredictable from year to year(Solbrig and Orians 1977).

Temperature

Temperature is one of the major factors limitingthe distribution of plants (Krebs 1972). Mean annualtemperatures are almost useless for ecological inter-pretations, for they do not indicate seasonal variationand duration. It has been shown that mean maximumand minimum values best describe the effects of tem-perature on plants (Oosting 1956). Temperature ef-fects are modified by complex interactions amongelevation, slope, position on the slope, aspect, and pre-cipitation. Plant injuries from temperature changesare most often the result of freezing. Some species ofbrowse seedlings are especially susceptible to frostdamage. For example, this should be of concern ifbitterbrush is to be planted and late frosts are commonto the area being planted. Temperature variation(extremes) also greatly influence which species canbest survive on a given site. For example, on some

dry desert ranges, soil surface temperatures duringthe summer can range from 140 ∞F (60 ∞C) in the dayto 40 ∞F (4.4 ∞C) at night. We have found that plantselections can be more easily moved from cool to warmenvironments than from warm to cool environments.To further illustrate the important effect that tem-perature has on some groups of plants, Hartley (1950)analyzed the distribution of the grasses of the worldand concluded that temperature was much more im-portant than rainfall in limiting species distribution.He also suggested that winter temperatures wereespecially critical.

Precipitation

Water alone, or in association with temperature,is probably the most important physical factor affect-ing the distribution of plants and plant communities(Krebs 1972) (table 1). Differences in rainfall patterns,whether in seasonal distribution or annual total, arereflected by differences in the naturally occurringplant populations (Daubenmire 1956). The season ofprecipitation, and the form in which precipitation isreceived, are important characteristics to considerwhen planning a wildland restoration or rehabilita-tion project. The vegetation in areas having signifi-cantly different precipitation patterns can be expectedto have only a few species in common (Daubenmire1974; Weaver and Clements 1938). In the Intermoun-tain Region, many areas receive most of the annualprecipitation as snow during the winter. Other areasreceive the bulk of their moisture as rain in the warmseason. In still other areas, precipitation is evenlydistributed between these two periods. Plants selectedfor seeding should have a life cycle compatible withthe precipitation pattern of the planting area. Mostof the annual precipitation in cold deserts is receivedwhen temperatures are too cold to permit growth(Fetcher and Trlica 1980). Therefore, winter precipita-tion is believed to be most important for plant growththe following year (Wein and West 1971). There,adapted species must be able to complete their lifecycle before the winter moisture is depleted or enterinto a dormant state that is tolerant of severe drought.Stevens and others (1974) have shown that May pre-cipitation has a greater significant effect on forageproduction than does precipitation in any othermonths. When most of the precipitation comes duringthe spring and summer, evaporative losses can belarger. If the precipitation arrives in light, scatteredstorms, little may remain available for plant growth.When rain falls in high intensity downpours, heavyrunoff may result and leave little to wet the soil(Weaver and Clements 1938).

Many researchers have shown that the amount ofprecipitation has a direct effect on plant productionregardless of whether the community is dominated



by grasses, forbs, shrubs, or complex mixtures ofthese life forms (Blaisdell 1958; Currie and Peterson1966; Jordan 1983; Kindschy 1982; Martin and Cable1974; Sneva 1977; Stevens and others 1974; Wein andWest 1971). Annual herbage production in arid range-lands can vary by several hundred percent as a resultof variation in precipitation (Hannay and Lacy 1931).

An introduced species that is long-lived and easy toestablish may not have a problem matching its lifecycle to the season in which precipitation is received.Plummer and others (1968) determined that the aver-age annual precipitation must be at least 9 inches(228 mm) before artificial seedings can be expected tobe successful.

Soils __________________________Under a given climatic regime, edaphic factors can

strongly influence the kind and amount of vegetationproduced (Gates and others 1956; Martin and Cable1974; Passey and Hugie 1962a). To illustrate theimportance of soil in plant development, a series ofplants were moved to common gardens, where indi-viduals of several species were grown on each soil type.It was determined that the differences in soil couldaffect plants in the following ways: germination suc-cess; growth, size; erectness of plants; plant vigor;stem woodiness; root depth; amount of pubescence;susceptibility to drought, frost and parasites; numberof flowers; and date of flower appearance (Marsden-Jones and Turrill 1945). One could consult otherliterature and probably extend the list indefinitely.The concept to emphasize is that soil conditions canand do affect many aspects of plant development.

Most rangeland soils are normally low in nitrogen,phosphorus, and sulfur (Eckert and others 1961a;Evans and Neal 1982; Wagle and Vlamis 1961). Wagleand Vlamis (1961) found that because bitterbrushwas able to fix nitrogen, soils low in nitrogen did notappear to impair that plant’s performance, but soilslow in phosphorus and sulfur did. Therefore, properlyinoculated species capable of fixing nitrogen shouldnot need N-fertilizer in soils deficient in nitrogen.Such species could also be of benefit to associatedspecies that do not fix nitrogen. Mineral uptake can beexpected to be affected not only by the chemical natureof the soil, but by temperature, soil moisture, light,and soil texture as well (Ames and Kitsuta 1933).

Under conditions of similar management and pre-cipitation, fine textured soils characteristically sup-port more perennial grasses and fewer shrubs thando coarse soils (Martin and Cable 1974). Wyckoff(1973) found that the primary factor limiting plantspecies diversity in a desert grassland appeared to besoil texture. He said the loamy soils consistentlysupported more species than adjacent sandy soils

because of the probable increase in microenvironmentdiversity associated with the heavier soils. However,soils with either too high silt or clay content, or both,retard growth by increasing the extent and degree ofbranching of roots (Weaver 1919).

With regard to soil texture and related soil moistureavailability for plant growth, sandy soils have themost favorable regime in arid regions. For a givenamount of added free water, they are wetted moredeeply, release more of the absorbed water to plantroots, lose less moisture to evaporation, and have lesssurface runoff. Therefore, 80 percent of moisture infil-trating sand is available for transpiration of plants(Daubenmire 1974).

High amounts of soluble salt in the soil reduce wateruptake and may inhibit uptake of magnesium (Mg),potassium (K), and phosphorus (P). Nitrogen deficiencysymptoms may also appear (Kleinkopf and others1975). Gates and others (1956) found that the majorsignificant difference between some Great Basin plantcommunity types was the amount of salt in the soil.Plummer and others (1968) determined that soils withmore than 1 percent soluble salts are usually notsuitable for revegetation efforts.

The effective depth of the soil may be shallow, orsomewhat restricted by the presence of a hardpan.Hardpan can form from clay, calcium carbonate, cal-cium sulfate, oxides of iron, aluminum, or silicon.Hardpans are common in soils of the drier areas ofthe Intermountain area (Daubenmire 1974). Becausehardpans are essentially impervious to roots, theyoften determine the effective soil depth and types ofplants that grow in a particular habitat. The growthrate of trees tend to vary directly with the depth ofloose soil above a hardpan layer (Coile 1952).

Terrain ________________________Elevation will have a direct effect on temperature

by lowering it approximately 3 ∞F (1.1 ∞C) for each1,000 ft (305 m) rise in elevation (Oosting 1956).Elevation also has a direct effect on precipitationreceived. Lull and Ellison (1950) determined that incentral Utah, one should expect to receive an addi-tional nearly 5 inches (127 mm) of precipitation foreach 1,000 ft (305 m) rise in elevation.

When precipitation is received, slope, smoothnessof slope, position on slope, vegetation, and soils inter-act to control the amount of runoff and water infiltra-tion, which in turn affect plant growth and survival.Slope aspect and steepness also affect solar radiationreceived and thus the temperature at and near theground surface (Farnes and Romme 1993).

Slope and exposure also influence amount and typeof soil accumulated. Southern slopes usually havecoarser soils with lower water-holding capacity than



the finer textured northern slope soils (Krebs 1972).For example, in two or more areas, essentially thesame in soil, cover, and precipitation, differences insoil water content were directly determined by differ-ences in slope (Krebs 1972; Oosting 1956). Conse-quently, topography affects vegetation indirectly bymodifying other factors of the environment (Oosting1956). Different combinations of slope and exposurehave great effects on the temperature of arid soils.

The mountains will modify precipitation patterns,airflow, and wind exposure. Local topography, with itsdifferent slopes, bluffs, ridges (with different expo-sures), lowland drainage lines, and depressions pro-duce different combinations of light, temperature, andmoisture that combine to produce local divergence ofplant life forms and species in the IntermountainWest.

Most wildland rehabilitation or improvementprojects have been undertaken on fairly flat terrain,or on slopes of less than 30 percent. In recent years,steeper, rocky slopes are being rehabilitated. Topo-graphic variation complicates the formulation ofseeding mixtures and the prediction of composition ofthe new plant cover.

Discussion _____________________Many researchers have concluded that plant dis-

tribution is primarily controlled by varying combina-tions of climatic factors and secondarily by edaphicfactors (Billings 1951; Gates and others 1956; Mason1936; Shantz 1938). Mason’s (1936) conclusion thatsingle factors or combinations of several factors couldrestrict the range of a species must be considered byrevegetation scientists.

The effects of habitat on the plant, and of the planton the habitat, are mutually complementary andoften very complex (Weaver and Clements 1938). Aplant is at once affected by the amount of heat, light,moisture, and nutrients available to it. Its life pro-cesses must go on under numerous and fluctuatingvariations in the environment. Plants selected forrevegetation must be adapted to an ever-changing,wide range of environmental conditions. Becausenumerous factors operate on an organism simulta-neously, each life function is a multiconditional pro-cess (Daubenmire 1974). With identical combinationsof environmental conditions repeated only at rareand irregular intervals (Livingston 1934), a plantmust have broad tolerance limits to be consistentlycompetitive. The intensity of most environmental fac-tors varies with the hour, day, and season; the rate ofchange, duration, and intensity of extreme values areall ecologically important aspects of the environment.

Competition undoubtedly is greatest between seed-lings because of the restricted environment near the

soil surface. Seedlings are especially vulnerable to thevagaries of environment. This is why many wildlandplants have evolved the characteristic of seed dor-mancy. Successful growth of container grown plants isnot a safe guide to success of seeding of these specieson the same site.

Normally, successful plant establishment in an areadepends on recognition of factors (climate, soil, andterrain) critical for seedling establishment. Propercomposition of the species mixture sown will alsoaffect the success of revegetation at any site.

How can one determine if the environmental condi-tions are adequate for the species in question? Withan increase in altitude, there is an increase in precipi-tation and a decrease in temperature that is reflectedin the natural altitudinal zonation of native vegeta-tion. There are also zones of vegetation that reflectdifferential response to increasing concentrations ofsoil salts as one goes from higher to lower elevations.These two factors interact (elevation and salinity) andgenerally parallel each other as one descends into anyone of the many closed basins within the Great Basin.Branson and others (1967) also noted that in additionto increased aridity and salinity with the descent intoeach basin, soil-particle sizes tend to become smalleras one approaches the playas. Fine textured soil can beexpected to produce more severe soil moisture stresses(Branson and others 1967, 1976).

It is generally understood and has been demon-strated (Billings 1949; Fautin 1946) that shadscale isusually indicative of climatically dry, as well as physi-ologically dry soils. Billings (1949) showed the rela-tionship between the presence of big sagebrush andhigher available soil moisture. His data indicated thatfrom central Nevada to eastern California, the meanannual precipitation for the shadscale zone was onlyabout 5 inches (127 mm), while the mean annualprecipitation for the sagebrush zones in northern andwestern Nevada was about 9 inches (229 mm) or more.

Conclusions____________________How can one put all these interacting factors into

some kind of logical approach to help determinewhether a site may warrant rehabilitation efforts?First, and most important, the amount and timing ofprecipitation in association with the occurrence ofindicator species are important guides to species thatmay be successfully planted.

The presence of juniper and pinyon indicates theavailability of adequate moisture for most of thecommonly seeded species. Juniper-pinyon woodlandnormally occurs from 4,500 to 5,000 ft (1,400 to1,500 m) to 7,000 to 7,500 ft (2,100 to 2,300 m) eleva-tion (Springfield 1976; Woodbury 1947). The extreme



range can be as low as 2,500 to 3,200 ft (760 to 980 m)(Franklin and Dyrness 1969; Johnsen 1962; Woodbury1947), and the upper limit approaches 10,000 ft(3,000 m) (Lanner 1975; St. Andre and others 1965).There is a general tendency of junipers to extend belowthe pinyon component (Lanner 1975). The lower ele-vational limits appear about where the precipitationreaches the 10 inch (254 mm) point (Woodbury 1947).Generally, the annual precipitation is about 12 to13 inches (305 to 330 mm) (Phillips 1977; Plummerand others 1968). The annual mean can range fromabout 8 to 10 inches (203 to 254 mm) (Dealy and others1978; Phillips 1977; West and others 1975) to 20inches (518 mm) (Dealy and others 1978; West andothers 1975). The best developed woodlands occursbetween 12 and 18 inches (305 to 457 mm) of precipi-tation (West and others 1975). Sagebrush not onlyoccurs at elevations that juniper-pinyon occurs, butusually at higher and lower elevations beyond itsnormal limits (Woodbury 1947).

As the relative importance of pinyon increases, pre-cipitation can usually be assumed to increase. Con-versely, as the importance of pinyon decreases onundisturbed sites, the amount of precipitation can alsobe assumed to decrease.

The presence of appreciable numbers of shrubsthat normally occur in the mountain brush zone (thiscould include Gambel oak, true mountain mahogany,and mountain snowberry) usually indicates favorablemoisture conditions for most seeded species. Above orwithin the mountain brush zone, moisture is notusually a problem. At higher elevations the primaryproblem is selection of species tolerant of the coolertemperatures.

As one approaches the lower bounds of the juniperwoodland association, potential available moisturecan be predicted from the associated subspecies of bigsagebrush. Winward (1983) showed that the subspe-cies of big sagebrush can be used to indicate the degreeof droughtiness of a site. Wyoming big sagebrush isthe most xeric of the group, followed by basin bigsagebrush, and then mountain big sagebrush. Thepresence of Wyoming big sagebrush also indicatesthat the soils are relatively shallow and well drainedwith conditions that are generally warmer than thoseexperienced by the other two subspecies. When blacksagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush are found inthe same area, it indicates a more shallow or restrictedsoil than would normally occur in the Wyoming bigsagebrush type only (Hironaka and others 1983). Basinbig sagebrush generally grows on deeper soils thatare well drained. If it is found growing adjacent tostands of Wyoming big sagebrush, it will occupy themore mesic sites. Mountain big sagebrush is foundthroughout the upper foothill and mountain areas.Some populations will grow on the lower foothill andbench areas where soil moisture is available for mostof the summer. It is not uncommon to find 40 or moreplant species associated with mountain big sagebrush.Where sagebrush is displaced by dwarfed salt-desertshrubs, either shadscale or Gardner saltbush, the sitewill probably be too dry to justify rehabilitation meas-ures. Where available moisture is near the minimumlimit, species that can be seeded successfully are lim-ited. At such sites, one should be cautious with selectionsof species, site preparation, and seeding equipment.


Arthur R. TiedemannCarlos F. Lopez

7Chapter

Soil factors are an important consideration for successfulwildland range development or improvement programs. Eventhough many soil improvement and amelioration practices arenot realistic for wildlands, their evaluation is an important stepin selection of adapted plant materials for revegetation. Thischapter presents information for wildland managers on: theimportance of soils physical, chemical, and nutrient consider-ations in wildland restoration and rehabilitation; the basis forevaluating wildland soil suitability for plant growth; effects ofmanagement activities on soil factors; assessment of soil nutri-ent deficiencies in terms of plant needs; development of a fertil-izer prescription; and principles of fertilization of wildlands.

Assessing SoilFactors in WildlandImprovementPrograms


Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

The Need for Soil Improvement andNutrient Amelioration ____________

The Resources Planning Act document (USDA1980a) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act(U.S. Laws and Statutes 1978) indicate that publicrangelands are producing less than their potentialand many are in unsatisfactory condition. These con-ditions pose a risk of soil loss, desertification, andlowered productivity for large areas. Both the Re-sources Planning Act and Public Rangelands Improve-ment Act stress the need to correct the unsatisfactoryrangeland conditions through intensified manage-ment and improvement techniques. Accomplishingthe goals set forth in Resources Planning Act (USDA1980a) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act(U.S. Laws and Statutes 1978) will require rehabili-tation of depleted wildlands and perhaps the develop-ment of marginally productive wildlands.

Intermountain wildlands—in particular range-lands—are no exception to the conclusions drawn bythese two laws regarding lands producing belowtheir potential. Managing for improvement of Inter-mountain wildlands, to date, has stressed: livestockgrazing strategies, manipulation or elimination ofshrubby species of vegetation to improve range pro-ductivity and wildlife habitat, and restoration ofwatershed stability. Management of soil factors thatlimit plant establishment and productivity has re-ceived little attention. Soil management has beenlimited because of possible negative cost-benefit ratios.

Wildland soils, especially those where water is themain limiting factor are not usually cultivated,amended by fertilization, or treated to improve theirphysical or chemical condition. Except for stabiliza-tion of human-degraded sites such as surface minedareas, or areas where downstream values are threat-ened, soil management on unstable areas of inherentlow productivity has not been warranted because ofexcessive costs.

Rehabilitation of sites impacted by surface miningand the resultant spoils has required techniques suchas topsoil replacement, terracing, liming, organic soilamendments, irrigation, and transplanting matureplants with specialized equipment. Another problemin the application of soil management technology towildlands has been the fact that most of the informa-tion has been developed for the more fertile, produc-tive, arable lands.

Basic Factors Influencing SoilFertility, Productivity, andReclamation Potential____________

Soil development is a function of climate, organisms,relief, parent material, and time (Jenny 1941, 1980).The ability of a specific site to produce vegetation is

determined by the factors that influence soil forma-tion as well as the history of land use (Klemmedsonand Tiedemann 1995a). Suitability of the soil forplant growth is determined by those qualities andproperties of the natural soil that physically, chemi-cally, and biologically provide the necessary waterand nutrients for growth and development of plants.Assessment of the soil’s physical state will determineif the soil is suitable for improvement efforts. Oneroded lands, for example, the loss of considerablequantities of soluble organic and mineral matter andnutrients accompanies the removal of surface soillayers (Klemmedson and Tiedemann 1995a). In addi-tion to a loss of nutrient capital, removal of the morefertile surface soil layer may expose subsurface soilshaving abnormal pH (high or low) that can adverselyaffect nutrient availability.

Erosion also causes changes in productivity thatmay be difficult to compensate by additional fertilizerapplication. Such changes are caused by decreasedwater infiltration, decreased water-holding capacityof the soil, a less favorable root environment, andchanges in soil temperature due to a difference inalbedo and other factors. The quantitative effects ofsuch changes are not well known (Flach and Johannsen1981). Thus, assessment of soil factors will determinewhether or not improvement would be beneficial oreven feasible.

Soil physical properties are related to depth, tex-ture, structure, bulk density, permeability to water,capacity to hold water, and depth to limiting layers.Slope, although not a soil physical factor, is an impor-tant consideration in determining the suitability of asite for revegetation and its productivity potential.

Chemical characteristics exert physiological stresseson plants through their effects on plant water rela-tions, nutrient availability and uptake, and toxicityeffects related to excess concentrations of certain chemi-cal elements. Chemical characteristics that can beused to determine soil suitability include pH, salinity,and exchangeable sodium percentage. Concentrationsof total and available essential plant nutrients in thesoil are also an important determinant of soil fertility.

Measuring as many of these factors as possible willassist the land manager in determining wildland soilproductivity potential and will provide the means toassess possible success or failure of proposed manage-ment or improvement efforts. Although a site maygrade as “high” in all categories except one, positiveresults will not necessarily be realized. In fact, theone factor graded as “low” such as exchangeablesodium percentage or acidity might very well impedeor prohibit all efforts to improve or rehabilitate aparticular site.

In situations where rehabilitation is mandated, as infire- or flood-ravaged watersheds, mined areas, or othermassive disturbances, table 1 defines soil chemicaland physical factors that must be considered if reveg-etation is to be successful. It will become apparent to



Table 1—Table for evaluating soil characteristics for productivity potential and possible improvement.

Level of suitabilitySoil Low

property (essentiallyor quality unsuitable) Moderate High Reference

USDA Loamy sand, Clay, silty, Sandy loam, Brady 1974 texture sand clay, sandy clay

(<18% clay) (>35% clay) loam, loam,clay loam,silty clay,loam (18-35% clay)

Soil Massive, Platy, blocky Granular Soil Survey Staff 1962 structure single grain prismatic

Bulk density >1.6 cc 1.4-1.6 <1.4 Daddow and Warrington 1983; (g/cm3) Russell 1973; White 1979

Permeability (<0.5) or 5.0-15 and 0.6-5.0 Soil Survey Staff 1962 (cm/hr) (>15.0) 0.5-1.5

Available <0.08 0.08-0.16 >0.16 Brady 1974; Broadfoot and water-holding Burke 1958 capacity (cm H2O/ cm soil)

Coarse frag >35 15-35 <15 Soil Survey Staff 1962 content (%)/wt

Depth to <50 50-100 >100 Soil Survey Staff 1962 limiting layer (cm)

Slope % 20-30 10-20 <10 USDA 1965a;Forest Service Handbooks2209.21 and 2209.31

Organic <0.5 0.5-2.0 >2.0 Donahue and others 1977; matter (%)/wt Foth 1978; Hendricks and surface soil Alexander 1957

pH (<5.1) (5.1 to 6.5) or 6.6 to 7.3 Soil Survey Staff 1962(>8.4) (7.4 to 8.4)

Salinity >8 4-8 <4 Richards 1954 (mmhos/cm)a

Exchangeable >15 2-15 <2 Richards 1954 sodium percentage (ESP)b

a Measured in terms of conductivity of saturated soil extract.b ESP refers to exchangeable sodium percentage.



the reader that many of the soil characteristics are notfeasible or practical to amend on wildlands despite thefact that reclamation technology may be presently inuse in arable cropland settings.

Seeding or planting adapted species will be theprimary feasible means for restoring vegetation, andhence soil stability, to most wildland sites. Despite ourinability to alter some of the soil or site conditions,awareness and characterization of soil and site factorsis one of the first steps in selecting adapted species.

The importance of each of the various propertiesthat can be used to determine soil suitability (table 1)are discussed.

Soil Texture

The percentages of sand, silt, and clay determinethe texture of the soil. Particle size and the percentagecomposition affect the packing arrangement and theamount of actual surface area per given unit volume ofsoil (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979; Millar and others1958). The amount of surface area varies inverselywith the size of soil particles.

Because most of the important chemical reactions insoils take place at the surface of the soil particles(Jenny 1980), the amount of surface area per unitvolume of soil is important in determining the interac-tion between plant roots and soils. The surface tovolume ratio increases with decreasing particle size(Fairbridge and Finkl 1979; Millar and others 1958).

Texture also controls the rate at which water movesinto the soil and the amount of water that can bestored in a given thickness of soil for plants to use.Clay provides the highest surface area, but if claycontent is great enough to restrict air and watermovement, these critical variables may limit produc-tivity. Soils in the pure sand range have high rates ofwater infiltration but are low in productivity becausethey do not retain water or nutrients. The ideal sub-strate is texturally balanced soil in the loam range.Loam allows for a volume composition which leads toadequate surface area for nutrient exchange siteswithout compromising air and water space.

Texture can be measured qualitatively in the fieldby feeling slightly moistened soil. With training, anindividual can learn to distinguish the major texturalgrades by this method. However, the most accurateprocedure is to measure texture in the laboratory.For appropriate laboratory methodology, the readeris referred to Methods of Soil Analysis (Black andothers 1965a,b).

Soil Structure

Soil structure refers to the “aggregation of pri-mary soil particles (sand, silt, clay) into compoundparticles, or clusters of primary particles which areseparated from adjoining aggregates by surfaces ofweakness” (Millar and others 1965). The grouping or

arrangement of particles exerts considerable influ-ence on overall soil productivity through effects onwater movement, heat transfer, aeration, bulk den-sity, and porosity.

Variations in soil structure are: granular, crumb,platy, blocky, prismatic, and columnar, with a rangeof intergrades (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Struc-tureless soils are either massive or single-grained.Massive soils are more or less compacted, restrictingair or water movement. Single-grained soils, are gen-erally excessively drained and low in nutrients. Soilswith weak structure are susceptible to raindrop ac-tion and are potentially more erosive than soils withgood aggregation.

Management considers structure to be one of themost sensitive of the soil characteristics. Machineryand grazing animals both have the potential to ad-versely affect the structure of the soil (Fairbridge andFinkl 1979; Gifford and Hawkins 1978; Soane andothers 1981). In the case of soils high in clay, operatingheavy machinery or livestock trampling may puddlethe soil. When puddled soil dries, it may becomeimpermeable to moisture, resulting in increased ero-sion potential and reduced availability of moisture toplants. Destroying structure of coarser soil materialsalso leads to increased erosion potential.

When prescribed fire is used as a management toolto eliminate residues, reduce competition, or elimi-nate unwanted vegetation, structure of the soil canbe affected if the heat of the fire is great enough toremove litter and duff and expose the mineral soil topuddling and baking of the surface (Wells and others1979). Prior to initiation of prescribed burning, itwould be wise to conduct at least a field evaluationof the soil to determine if it may be susceptible toadverse changes in structure by fire management.

When structure is adversely affected by manage-ment, there are generally no economically feasibletechniques for correcting the damage except elimina-tion of the cause of the damage and allowing timefor restoration of structure. Establishing vegetationon denuded sites will aid in restoration of structure(Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Soil structure problemson small areas may be amenable to organic matteramendments to improve structure (Fairbridge andFinkl 1979).

Structure can be determined by trained personnel inthe field where the overall characteristics of arrange-ment and aggregation of the soil separates in a profilecan be assessed. But the most accurate assessmentis by laboratory analysis.

Bulk Density (Volume Weight)

An important land management concern is the pos-sibility of reduced vegetation productivity due to soilcompaction (increased bulk density) by recreational



vehicles, machinery, and livestock. Studies haveshown the detrimental effects of soil compaction onthe establishment and growth of range plants(Adams and others 1982; Lull 1959; Wilshire andothers 1978). Bulk density of fine textured soils underheavy grazing use in Northeastern Colorado was1.52 g/cm3 compared to 1.34 g/cm3 under light grazing(Van Haveren 1983). On coarse-textured soils, therewas no difference between light and heavy grazing.Willatt and Pullar (1984) observed a direct relation-ship between stocking rate and bulk density.

Effects of soil compaction on plant growth are dueto a complex interaction between many soil and plantproperties, but for many situations there seems tobe an upper limit or threshold bulk density value atwhich resistance to root penetration is so high thatroot growth is essentially stopped (O’Connell 1975).Restricted root penetration and elongation also re-duces the volume of soil that can be exploited by aplant for essential nutrients and water, therebycausing a reduction in total growth. The establishedlimits (table 1) are averages for intermediate texturalgrades (Daddow and Warrington 1983; Russel 1973).Bulk density threshold limits have been establishedfor the various textural grades. The reclamation spe-cialist is referred to Daddow and Warrington (1983)for limits based on specific soil textures.

Bulk density is easily measured in the field bytrained personnel. See Black and others (1965a) formethodology. Laboratory procedures also determinebulk density.

Permeability

Permeability expresses the rate at which water istransmitted through the soil (Fairbridge and Finkl1979). In the absence of precise values, soils may beplaced into relative permeability classes throughstudies of bulk density, structure, texture, porosity,cracking, and other characteristics of the horizons inthe soil profile in relation to local use experience. Soilswith excessively high (>15 cm/hr) or low (<0.5 cm/hr)permeability are low in productive potential. Highpermeability soils have low water and nutrient reten-tion capacity. In soils with low permeability, water haslimited opportunity to enter the soil and the potentialfor surface runoff and erosion could be increased.

Operation of machinery and trampling by livestockhave the potential to reduce permeability throughtheir effects on soil structure and bulk density (Giffordand Hawkins 1978; Soane and others 1981). A reviewby Gifford and Hawkins (1978) indicates that graz-ing in some situations causes a marked reduction ininfiltration rates of soils. Fire, in addition to alteringsoil structure, may result in the formation of waterrepellent layers that reduce infiltration and result inincreased surface runoff (Tiedemann and others 1979;

Wells and others 1979). In addition to increased ero-sion, reduced infiltration means less water availablefor plant growth. Prior to the use of prescribed fire,the potential for development of water repellencyand other soil permeability problems should be evalu-ated. This would necessitate determining the soiltexture to detect soils high in clay where soil sealingand puddling problems may arise from elimination ofthe litter and duff layers.

Permeability can be increased by mechanical treat-ments such as contour furrowing, terracing, pitting,and water spreading (Vallentine 1971). Specializedmachinery such as the rangeland imprinter (Dixonand Simanton 1977) has also been used to promoteincreased water infiltration.

Permeability is best measured in the field withinfiltrometers. Infiltrometers are generally of two types:double ring and rainfall simulators (Wisler and Brater1959). The double ring infiltrometer is the easiest toset up, use, and interpret.

Available Water-Holding Capacity

Available water is the portion of stored soil waterthat can be absorbed by plant roots to sustain life. Itis that portion of the water that remains in soil afterexcess water has drained away and the rate of down-ward movement has decreased materially (Veihmeyerand Hendrickson 1950). Available water-holding ca-pacity depends on bulk density, soil texture, andcoarse fragment content (Broadfoot and Burke 1958).See tables in Broadfoot and Burke for specific infor-mation on available water-holding capacity with soilsof differing texture, bulk density, and percent coarsefragments. Soils in low and moderate ranges areinhibited from being highly productive simply becauseof their inability to store water and retain nutrients forplant use. Low water-holding capacity would be par-ticularly restrictive to plant productivity in low tomoderate precipitation zones or zones with irregularprecipitation, especially when dry periods are longand unpredictable in their occurrence. This is the casein many areas throughout the Intermountain West.

Through effects on permeability, any managementpractice that results in reduced infiltration will causean increase in surface runoff with the end result ofreduced soil water storage.

The determination of available water-holding ca-pacity is a laboratory procedure requiring specializedequipment.

Coarse Fragment Content

Coarse rock and gravel in soils include fragmentsgreater than 2 mm in diameter. The size and amountsof coarse fragments in the soil influence nutrientstorage capacity, root growth, moisture storage, water



infiltration, and runoff, primarily through their dilu-tion of the mass of active soil. The basis for thearbitrary limits (sizes and percentages) have beendetermined, taking into consideration interferencewith agricultural machinery (table 1). Thus, limitsmay not be as restrictive for seeding methods used toreclaim some rocky or stony wildlands.

Coarse fragments are easily measured using sievingscreens of known dimensions.

Depth to Limiting Layer

The depth of soil available for root developmentwill have considerable influence on the forms andtypes of plants that can inhabit a site (Jenny 1980;Kramer 1969). Shallow soils with restrictive layersnear the surface generally can support only drought-tolerant or drought-avoiding plants that normallyhave shallow roots. A depth restriction may be bed-rock, a hardpan or caliche layer, a high water table, amarked textural change (such as loam over gravel), orsoil horizons having a limiting effect due to high bulkdensity or toxicity, such as high salinity.

Physical barriers such as carbonate layers (caliche)that develop in arid regions, and clay layers, can bebroken up by ripping or deep chiseling (Vallentine1971).

Slope

Slope is an important variable in the ability of asite to absorb and retain moisture. It follows that slopeis a major determinant of the erosivity of a site—asslope increases, erosion potential increases. Also, asslope increases, the ease with which vegetation isestablished diminishes.

Slope steepness aggravates effects of manage-ment on soil characteristics. Changes in protectivesoil cover, structure, permeability, and bulk densitythat would not cause increased surface runoff anderosion on gentle slopes (<10 percent) could pose aserious threat to soil stability as slopes approach 30percent. Effects of fire on physical soil characteristicsand erosion are also amplified by increasing slopesteepness (Tiedemann and others 1979; Wells andothers 1979; Wright and Bailey 1982).

Organic Matter

All materials of vegetable and animal origin formedin or added to soil are collectively referred to asorganic matter (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Most ofthe organic matter added to soils originates from deadplant parts in the form of litter on the surface anddecomposition of roots below the surface (Fairbridgeand Finkl 1979). Cultivated soils contain only 1 to5 percent organic matter and Intermountain Great

Basin semi-arid wildland soils would generally con-tain less than 3 percent (Foth 1978; Hagin and Tucker1982). However, the small amount present can modifythe soil’s physical properties and can strongly affectits chemical and biological properties.

Organic matter is responsible for desirable soilstructure. It increases soil porosity, improves waterand air relations, and reduces erosion by wind andwater. Chemically, organic matter is the soil store-house and cycling center of most of the nitrogen (N),5 to 60 percent of the phosphorus (P), and up to 90percent of the sulfur (S) (Kowalenko 1978). Availabil-ity of nutrients, of course, depends on the rate atwhich organic matter is decomposed and incorporatedinto mineral soil. Also of importance is the capacity oforganic matter to hold nutrient elements such aspotassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg),similar to the way that clays hold these elements inbase exchange equilibria (Brady 1974). In addition,organic matter, by release of acid humus, aids in theextraction of elements from primary and secondaryminerals.

The ratio of carbon (C) to nitrogen is an importantdeterminant of nitrogen availability. The normal ratioin undisturbed surface soil (upper 15 cm) is 10 or 12 to 1(Tisdale and Nelson 1975). As the C:N ratio widens,nitrogen availability is reduced because microbes re-sponsible for organic matter mineralization utilize theavailable N. Nitrogen fertilization should be consid-ered when this ratio exceeds 12:1.

Depletion of soil carbon by long-term cultivationhas been well documented for croplands (Jenny 1933).However, the picture for carbon depletion associatedwith grazing is not as definitive. Milchunas andLauenroth (1993) compared soil carbon in grazedareas with that in ungrazed areas for 37 sites aroundthe world. Soil carbon in grazed sites was greater orequal to that in ungrazed for about half of the sites.

Operation of machinery on wildland soils would beexpected to incorporate surface accumulations of or-ganic matter in the form of litter and humus. In-creased mineralization of this organic matter wouldtend to create a wide C:N ratio, resulting in short-termreductions in N availability. Thus, it may be necessaryto amend the soil with N fertilizer.

Intense fires have generally been shown to reduceorganic matter content of the soil surface to a depth of2 cm, but light or moderate intensity fires cause nochange (Wells and others 1979).

There is presently no economically feasible or prac-tical means for amending organic matter content ofwildlands on a large scale. Restoration of vegetativecover by reducing grazing, or complete rest of heavilygrazed lands, will help restore the organic matterlevel over time. Although untested on wildlands, nitro-gen fertilization has proven effective in the cropland



setting for maintaining organic matter levels (Tisdaleand Nelson 1975). The potential for organic amend-ments to alter plant succession was demonstrated byKlemmedson and Tiedemann (1994, 1998). They stud-ied areas inside and outside an abandoned sheepcorral on degraded subalpine range of the Wasatchplateau in Utah to determine the influence of 37 yearsof use of the corral on soil and plant development. Thecorral had been abandoned for 15 years at the time ofthe study. Organic matter additions by animal dungsignificantly increased storage of organic carbon invegetation, litter, and the 0 to 5 cm and 15 to 30 cmsoil layers. Cover of meadow barley (Hordeum brachy-antherum), a component of the predisturbance vegeta-tion of the plateau was nearly 12 times greater insidethe corral than outside. On a larger scale, addingsewage sludge to rangelands shows promise as ameans of increasing production and ameliorating or-ganic carbon of the soil (Fresquez and others 1990).

Organic matter must be measured in the laboratoryby a qualified chemist or laboratory technician. It ismeasured as organic carbon by combustion proce-dures. With soils high in pH, it is important to distin-guish organic carbon (that associated with organicmaterials) from the inorganic carbon associated withcarbonate salts.

Soil Reaction

The pH, or degree of acidity of the soil, is an indicatorof the chemical condition of the soil as it relates toplant nutrition (Allaway 1957). The full impact of lowor high pH can be fully realized if it is understood thatit represents the negative log of the hydrogen ionconcentration. A pH of 4 has a 10-fold greater hydro-gen ion concentration and acidity than pH 5. OptimalpH for nutrient availability is between 5.0 and 7.5,with greatest availability at about 6.5. High and lowpH have a significant effect on nutrient availability(table 1). At low pH levels, mineralization of nitrogenis decreased and limited primarily to the formation ofNH4-N as the only available N source (Dhaube andVassey 1973).

In strongly acid soils (pH <5.0) plant establishmentand growth may be adversely affected by toxic levels ofaluminum (Al), manganese (Mn), and iron (Fe), and bydeficiencies or low availability of calcium (Ca), mag-nesium (Mg), and molybdenum (Mo) (Donahue andothers 1977) (fig. 1). In highly alkaline situations (pH8.0 and above) the availability of certain other nutri-ents is depressed.

From a soil nutrient amelioration standpoint, Pand iron (Fe) are likely to present more problems thanother nutrients that become limiting such as Mn, copper(Cu), zinc (Zn), and boron (Bo) (Black 1957). The nativesupply of the latter four nutrients is apparently ad-equate to offset effects of low pH on availability.

Nitrification is reduced at pH levels of 4.5 resulting inreduced nitrogen availability (Stevenson 1965). Then,too, at a higher pH unacceptable amounts of Mo will bereleased (Blackbourn 1975).

Fire is the principal management practice that ex-erts an impact on soil pH. Soil acidity is reduced inthe surface soil by burning as a result of release ofbasic cations by combustion of organic matter andheating of minerals (Wells and others 1979).

The effect of pH on nutrient availability emphasizesthe importance of this factor. Whether or not a pHadjustment can be accomplished practically may bethe deciding factor for reclamation of a depleted wild-land site from a soil improvement perspective. Prob-lems with excessively low pH (rare in Intermountainrangelands) can be corrected by liming. For exam-ple, to increase the pH of a sandy loam from 5.0 to6.5 would require approximately 3 metric tons/ha.See Fairbridge and Finkl (1979) for liming ratecalculations.

More common to the Intermountain region are areasof soils with high pH. Most practically, these soil typesare treated by selecting adapted species to seed orplant. If it is determined that a high pH is unaccept-able, soils can be treated by acid or acid-formingcompounds such as sulfur. Sulfur is slow but inexpen-sive and reasonably permanent. Alkaline soils areoften harder to correct than acid soils because theymay not only present problems due to the high pH, butare often saline (Tinus 1980). The reclamation ofsalt-affected soils may not be practical on arid wild-lands since a large amount of water is required toleach salts.

The pH of a soil can be measured in the field with acolorimetric test kit or with a portable pH meter. It isone of the easiest and least expensive field measure-ments of soil chemical characteristics that can bemade.

Salinity

The failure of plant establishment or depauperate,patchy growth of plants on salty soils has beenrecognized since man began to grow crops. Salts det-rimentally influence plants by: limiting the availa-bility of moisture (Miller and Doescher 1995), byosmotic inhibition (Bernstein 1961, 1963; Slatyer1961), and by specific toxic effects on metabolic pro-cesses (Miller and Doescher 1995; Richards 1954).Availability of water is reduced because of the increasein solute suction of the soil water as salinity increases.Osmotic inhibition is thought to influence plant growthbecause of an excess of salts taken up from soils highin salinity (Bernstein 1961, 1963; Slatyer 1961). Spe-cific toxicity is a detrimental effect on plant growthbecause of excessive accumulation of certain ions.



Ions that are frequently found in high concentra-tions in saline soils include chloride, sulfate, andbicarbonate. At excessive levels, the influence of theseions on plant growth involves biochemical interfer-ences and nutrient deficiency (Hagin and Tucker 1982;Miller and Doescher 1995). The effect of salinity onplant growth is scaled and based on agricultural crop

Figure 1—Effect of pH on nutrient availability. Modified afterUniversity of Kentucky Agricultural Station Soils Staff (1970).

response to various levels of salts (table 1) (Richards1954; Scofield 1940). This classification of plantgrowth in relation to various salinity levels refers tothe salt status of the soil in the active root zone.Surface layers may be highly contaminated by surfaceincrustations of salt, which is not a problem to estab-lished plants as long as salts are not later translocated



to the root zone. Surface concentrations of salinitymay, however, inhibit seedling establishment (Levitt1980).

In agricultural cropping systems, fertilization ofplants in saline soils may be beneficial by reducingthe yield-depressing effects of salts, as long as thesalinity level is within a low or medium range. Ingeneral terms, when the salinity is high enough todepress yield by 50 percent or more, fertilization willyield low returns (Bernstein and others 1974). How-ever, an overall negative effect may result if fertil-izers are not carefully selected. The added fertilizersmay contribute to an increase in osmotic pressure ofthe soil solution because of added salts (Champagnol1979). In the wildland setting, salinity problems arebest solved by selecting plant materials that areadapted to grow well in those environments (Millerand Doescher 1995). Where there is a heavy crust ofsurface salt, it may be necessary to use container orbare-root planting stock since young plants develop-ing from seed may be killed by high osmotic pres-sures. Soil tillage may also be used to incorporatethe highly saline surface layer into the lower layersthereby diluting the osmotic effect and providing amore acceptable surface layer for seeding.

Salinity can be readily measured in the field with aportable solu-bridge test kit.

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP)

ESP refers to the proportion of the adsorption com-plex of a soil occupied by sodium. It is expressed asfollows:

ESP = exchangeable sodium (milliequivalents/100 gsoil)/ cation exchange capacity (cec) (milliequivalents/100 g soil) x 100

If a high proportion of the exchange sites are occu-pied by sodium ions, soils can become very alkaline(pH 8.5 to 10.5). The effect on soil structure is disinte-gration and disbursement that can lead to slow ratesof infiltration or to impermeability. The exchangeablesodium percentage at which soils disperse is corre-lated to clay type. An ESP of 15 is a good approxima-tion of the level at which dispersion occurs for mostclays (Donahue and others 1977). Soils with ESP of15 are referred to as sodic soils (formerly called blackalkali soils). Soils within intermediate levels (2 to 15percent) are rated as fair in terms of suitability. Sodicsoils are the most difficult to reclaim and least likelyto be worth the cost (Thompson and Troeh 1978).Therefore, selection of adapted plant species ratherthan soil management becomes the most applicablemanagement tool. See USDA Agricultural HandbookNo. 60 (Richards 1954) for methods of reclamation.

Exchangeable sodium requires a laboratory proce-dure for measurement.

Other Factors that InfluenceReclamation Potential and SoilSuitability ______________________

Other variables such as parent material and as-pect influence potential site productivity and theease or difficulty of revegetation. Because there areseveral variables that affect soil development (andsubsequent productivity), an individual variablesuch as parent material is difficult to quantify. How-ever, as a general ranking, we would suggest a produc-tivity potential array as: pumice<sand and sand-stone<limestone<granitic and gneiss<volcanicash<basalt.

Productivity potential by aspect (exposure) is alsoa complex parameter to quantify because it dependson the steepness of slope, latitude, and elevation.Exposure influenced soil moisture, nitrogen, organiccarbon, and soil water retention in the Snake RiverPlains of Idaho (Klemmedson 1964). Northerly expo-sures were more favorable for plant growth thanwere southerly exposures as manifested in highercontents of nitrogen and organic C and higher levelsof soil moisture and moisture retention. The interac-tion of slope position and exposure was more complex.

For the Intermountain area at low to mid-elevations,northerly and easterly aspects would be expected to bemore mesic and, therefore, more productive than thesoutherly and westerly exposures. These exposuresshould also be easier to revegetate. However, athigher elevations such as the alpine and subalpine,this trend may be reversed because the southerly andwesterly slopes receive more solar radiation result-ing in a longer growing season than the north andeast aspects.

Certain soil types are generally associated with agiven vegetative complex. A detailed discussion ofthe soil/vegetation community or habitat type rela-tionship is beyond the objectives of our effort in thischapter. The reader is referred to Daubenmire (1970),Klemmedson and Smith (1978), West and others (1978),Passey and others (1982), and Steele and others (1981).

Importance of Soil Nutrients to PlantGrowth ________________________

Plant growth requires an adequate supply of allnutrients essential for the formation of tissue and forthe various processes related to photosynthesis, en-ergy transformation, respiration, and reproduction.Functions of the essential elements in plant metabo-lism are varied and complex with none having asimple, single function in the economy of plant growthand establishment. For example, nitrogen is a compo-nent of amino acids (proteins), vitamins, alkaloids,and chlorophyll. Nitrogen also controls growth and



fruiting of most plants (Chapman 1966; Epstein 1972;Russell 1973). The micronutrient, iron, is a compo-nent of enzymes, oxidases, and peroxidases; it acts asa catalyst in the synthesis of chlorophyll; and it is anactivator of biochemical processes such as respira-tion, photosynthesis, and symbiotic N fixation (Holmesand Brown 1957; Shaw and others 1975; Tisdale andNelson 1975).

Past Research on Fertilization _____Fertilization has been the most extensively studied

of the soil management tools available to the landmanager. Soil fertility is one of the few factors inher-ent to a site that can be implemented on a large scaleas part of a wildland improvement program. How-ever, fertilization of wildland sites on a large scale hasnot been practiced to date. High cost-benefit ratiosare largely responsible for the limited use of fer-tilization on an operational basis. Herbage yield hasbeen the primary basis to date for determining cost-benefit ratios. Other benefits have largely been over-looked. Consideration of other benefits may not bringfertilization of wildlands into profitability but theydeserve consideration in decisions concerning the pos-sibility of fertilization to improve productivity.

Fertilization may be helpful in emergence and sur-vival of seeded species (Clary and Tiedemann 1984;Klock and others 1975a), but results are highly vari-able among species and climatic regimes (Vallentine1980). Other potential benefits should be considered:

• Increased soil protection because of enhancedfoliar cover and root mass (Carpenter and Williams1972; Cook 1965; Tiedemann 1983)

• Enhancement of plant nutritional quality(Carpenter and Williams 1972; Duncan andHylton 1970; Duvall 1970; Vallentine 1980)

• Improved plant vigor (Carpenter and Williams1972)

• Desirable alterations of botanical composition(Duncan and Hylton 1970)

• Aid in the management of use patterns and move-ment of livestock and wildlife through improvednutritive value and palatability of forage (Brownand Mandery 1962; Carpenter and Williams 1972;Hanson and Smith 1970)

• Extension of the period of green forage (Hansonand Smith 1970; Holt and Wilson 1961; Vallentine1980)

Of the studies we reviewed, there was little incommon among them with respect to nutrient com-binations, rates of application, test species, or lengthof study. Nor was there consistency in assessment ofthe soil nutrient status prior to treatment to deter-mine the potential for obtaining a positive response.Responses vary by site, soil, and climate. Impressive

responses in yield, forage quality, and plant vitalitywere observed in field trials by Eckert and others(1961a), Cook (1965), Bowns (1972), Baldwin andothers (1974), Carpenter (1979), and Tiedemann (1983).Responses to fertilizers were positive in pot trial stud-ies by Eckert and Bleak (1960), Hull (1962), Johnson(1969), Klock and others (1971, 1975a), Tiedemann(1972), and Tiedemann and Driver (1983). Carpenterand Williams (1972) provided a comprehensive synop-sis of fertilization of rangelands. Vallentine (1980) isalso an excellent source of information about rangefertilization.

The application of fertilizer to wildlands has notconsistently resulted in increased dry matter produc-tion. Some fertility studies have indicated negativeresponses related to plant competition and moistureavailability. Depleted soil moisture reserves due torapid growth of annual species were reported bySneva (1978), Wilson and others (1966), and Kay andEvans (1965). In these trials the applied N increasedcompetition between the annual grass, cheatgrass,and native perennial species which resulted in retro-gression of the native species and increases in annu-als. McKell and others (1959) noted the necessity ofadequate soil moisture for plant growth on annualranges. Applications of nitrogen made early in thegrowing season stimulated plant growth which inturn led to a faster depletion of available soil moisture,in fact, enough to retard the growth of summer grow-ing plants. Addition of nitrogen to disturbed sage-brush steppe slowed the rate of succession and allowedannual plants to dominate through the fifth year(McLendon and Redente 1991).

Many of the fertility trials reviewed were under-taken without the benefit of soil nutrient concentra-tion or availability assessments or characterization ofsoil physical and chemical properties. The lack ofinformation on the status of nutrients other than thosebeing tested and physical and chemical characteristicsof the soil could lead to an unbalanced fertilizationprescription. Because N is often the nutrient mostlimiting for plant growth in wildlands (James andJurinak 1978), attention should be directed to enhanc-ing the N capital. In addition to N, other macronutri-ents P and K and a secondary nutrient S are likewiseimportant (Klock and others 1971, 1975). Fertilizersare most generally applied for their content of thesefour elements.

When single superphosphate is applied to amendphosphorus deficiencies, sulfur in the form of calciumsulfate is an accompanying, often overlooked, benefit.Single superphosphate contains 12 percent S. Treblesuperphosphate has only 1 percent S (Shaw and others1975). In a series of field trials conducted by Cook(1965) to determine the effect of fertilizers on yieldincrease and forage quality, increases of the variousfactors measured were attributed to the primary



nutrients. When complementary additions of N andtreble superphosphate were applied, differences insome of the characteristics were striking: yield ofcrested wheatgrass was 18 percent over the N-onlytreatment, protein content 19 percent over the N-onlytreatment, and total digestible nutrients 16 percentover the N-only treatment. Smaller responses for theN-only treatments suggest further increases weredeterred by lack of P or, perhaps, another limitingnutrient. Synergistic effects in the multielement treat-ments were undoubtedly occurring, but because pre-test levels of available nutrients were not assessed, itis not known which nutrients were limiting. Actualamounts of S applied in these trials ranged from 1.5 to6 lbs/acre (treble super-phosphate is 1 percent S).These amounts would be sufficient to amend low tomarginally low sulfur deficiencies in soils (Tiedemannand Lopez 1983).

In a study by Bowns (1972) in which no soil nutrientassessment was made, large amounts of sulfur wereadded along with the primary nutrients, N and P, asammonium sulfate and treble super-phosphate. In-creased biomass, gross energy, and crude protein wereattributed to N and P whereas S may well have beenas important as a limiting nutrient. In the interiorPacific Northwest, sulfur has been shown to be almostas limiting as N (Klemmedson and Ferguson 1973;Klock and others 1971, 1975a; Tiedemann 1972).

One aspect of wildland fertilization that has re-ceived little emphasis is the differential nutrient re-quirements of various native plant species. Tiedemannand Klemmedson (1973) noted differential responsesof four native grasses to deletion of individual nutri-ents in pot trials. In later trials, there were substantialdifferences in responses of a native grass Arizonacottontop and annual rye (Klemmedson and Tiedemann1986). In pot trials with snow eriogonum, the onlyresponse was to the addition of N in soils that wereseverely deficient in both N and S (Tiedemann andDriver 1983).

Determining the Adequacy of SoilNutrients ______________________

The complexity of soil chemistry and the necessity ofproper and judicious use of chemical fertilizers sup-port the need for soil assessment. A complete assess-ment also allows for characterization of site potentialas it relates to specific plants and their range ofadaptability—essential for planning best managementpractices to realize maximum sustained yield. Thus,the chemical and physical inventory serves to charac-terize wildlands and delineate those having potentialfor reclamation or improvement.

If there is assurance that other soil and environmen-tal factors discussed in Section II: Basic Considerations

are at reasonably optimal levels, the first step indevelopment of a fertilizer prescription is determina-tion of the total concentrations or availabilities ofindividual nutrients. Many fertilizer amendmentstudies and operations proceed with little informationon concentrations of total or available soil nutrients.The result may be an erroneous interpretation ofthe results of such studies or operations. Liebig’s lawof the minimum and the Mitscherlich law (Stalfelt1972) are often disregarded in decisions regardingfertilization (Klemmedson and Tiedemann 1995). Theessence of these laws is that growth of a plant isdependent upon the amount of nutrient presented toit in minimum quantity (Odum 1959).

If more than a single nutrient is limiting in supply,the addition of one alone may produce only smallincreases in growth as compared to the addition ofall that are limiting (Dean 1957). The added indi-vidual nutrients are effective only until another be-comes limiting. The combined addition may actuallyproduce a synergistic effect. A greenhouse pot study oforchardgrass yields as a function of three incrementsof N as urea, with and without addition of 57 ppm ofS (fig. 2) demonstrates Liebig’s law of the minimum

Figure 2—Cumulative yield of orchardgrassin response to several levels of urea and ureaplus sulfur from Klock and others (1971).



(Klock and others 1971). All treatments received ad-equate P and K. Orchardgrass yields with additions ofN at 50, 100, and 200 ppm as urea were the same asthe control (check) treatment. When S, at 57 ppm, wasadded with increments of 50, 100, and 200 ppm ofurea, there was a continuous increase in plant yields.Similar results were obtained with bitterbrush ongranitic soils by Klemmedson and Ferguson (1973).These studies highlight the importance of deter-mining the supply of all soil nutrients prior to appli-cation of fertilizer amendments.

As with deficiencies, excesses of one or more ele-ments, whether naturally occurring or induced, canhave deleterious or negating effects in the nutrition ofplants. Excessive application of fertilizers is avoidedby assessing the soil fertility status beforehand.

Soil nutrient analyses are usually made by StateAgricultural Extension Service Laboratories. Theselaboratories will provide instructions on samplingmethodology, number of samples to collect, and prepa-ration of samples for shipment. State Extension Agentscan assist in the determination of the nutrients thatneed to be measured based on their experience. Theycan also assist with the interpretation of the resultsof soil analyses for nutrient content.

Total Nutrient Concentrations

Evaluation of total concentrations of soil nutrientsprovides an estimate of the long-term nutrient-supplying capability of a given soil. The soil substrateor parent material is the source of most elementsrequired for plant growth. Among these are phos-phorus (P), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), magnesium(Mg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper(Cu), and cobalt (Co). Decomposition and relativeamounts of individual nutrients released depend onthe nature of parent and soil material, climate, and thepresence of organisms important in decompositionprocesses (Buol and others 1973; Hallsworth andCrawford 1965).

Soil phosphorus and sulfur, in addition to theirimportant role in plant growth and physiologicalfunction, are important in the accrual of organiccarbon and nitrogen (Walker and Adams 1958).

Nitrogen is unique in its accrual to the soil nutri-ent capital. Atmospheric nitrogen gas is the primarysource of nitrogen for the soil (Stevenson 1965). How-ever, the major storehouse of N is soil organic matter(Kowalenko 1978) and since organic matter is lim-ited in semi-arid environments (Hagin and Tucker1982; Klemmedson 1989), N is usually the majorlimiting nutrient. Nitrogen accrual to the soil occursprincipally through the N-fixation process, wherebyN is converted from the gaseous form in the atmo-sphere to forms usable by higher plants. Blue-green

algae (Nostoc and Anabaena) in the surface soil,free-living bacteria (Rhodospirillum, Clostridium, andAzotobacter), legume symbiosis with Rhizobium, andactinomycete nodulation of several genera of wild-land plants are principally responsible for this sourceof N accrual (Stevenson 1965). Klemmedson (1979)indicates that N-fixation by actinomycete nodulationoccurs in species of eight western genera—alder,ceanothus, mountain mahogany, dryas, elaegnus,wax-myrtle, bitterbrush, and buffaloberry. Actino-mycete nodulation and N-fixation also occurs in cliffrose(Nelson 1983).

Precipitation appears to represent a minor part ofnitrogen accrual to agricultural soils—7 to 20 kg/ha/year (Stevenson 1965)—but may be important forwildland soils where N requirements are less. In someparts of the United States, however, the input of N byprecipitation may be much lower—less than 2 kg/ha/year in the interior Pacific Northwest (Tiedemann andothers 1978, 1980).

The atmosphere is an important source of sulfurfrom burning of fossil fuels and geothermal discharge(Strahler and Strahler 1973), with resultant deposi-tion as dry fallout and precipitation.

While the normal ranges of total concentrations ofnutrients in agricultural soils of the United States isreadily available (table 2), such information is notgenerally available for wildland soils. However, levelswould be expected to be at the lower end of the rangegiven for agricultural soils, with the exception of suchelements as Mg and Ca in arid land environments,where large reserves are held in the soil storehousebecause of minimal leaching (Charley 1972). Thereare also exceptions for total N. Tiedemann andFurniss (1985) found N levels in excess of 0.7 percentin surface soils of curlleaf mountain mahoganystands. Tiedemann and Clary (1996) observed totalN concentrations in excess of 0.4 percent in the upper12 inches (30 cm) of soil in Gambel oak stands in north-central Utah.

Available Nutrient Concentrations

Of more immediate utility than total concentrationsof individual nutrients is the determination of theavailable concentrations. Available nutrients nor-mally represent only a minor proportion of the totalnutrient capital. Available N (nitrate- and ammo-nium-N), for example, may represent 1 to 2 percent ofthe total organic N capital of the soil (Stevenson1965). For available cations, the gap between totaland available concentrations are usually much greater.

Table 3 presents values of low, marginal, and highavailabilities for all of the soil nutrients essential forplant growth. Values are also presented for unaccept-able levels that may be toxic to plants or in excess of



Table 2—Normal range of total concentrations of nutrients occurring in agricultural soils and soil factors for determiningdeficiency and excess (adapted from Tiedemann and Lopez 1983).

Soil type in whichElementa Total in soils deficiency is likely Notes Reference

N 0.05 percent to Sandy, especially in Rate at which N becomes available Harding 1954;slightly more high ppt. area; low varies greatly and, hence, analysis Jones 1966than 0.5 percent in organic matter for total N is usually of little help inin mineral soils determining immediate fertilizer

practices. Excessive N can resultin salt buildup.

P 0.09-0.13 Weathered and Bingham 1966;percent acid; calcareous Jenny 1930

K 1.7-2.5 Light, sandy; Parker and otherspercent acid; organic 1946; Ulrich and

Ohki 1966

S 0.01-0.06 High S concentrations occur in Burns 1967;percent gypsiferous soils; neither total Eaton 1942

S nor reducible S significantlycorrelated (p = 0.05) with eitherplant yields or S uptake.

Ca 0.1-2.0 percent Humid, sandy Soils vary widely in content. Chapman 1966;in soils free of Millar 1955Ca carbonate;1-25 percent incalcareous soils

B 2-100 ppm B excesses occur in soils derived Bradford 1966;from marine sediments and in Krauskopf 1972arid soils.

Cu 2-140 ppm Alkaline and calcareous; Excess Cu can occur in soils derived Chapman 1966;leached, sandy soils; soils from Cu-ore sources. Mitchell 1948;fertilized heavily with nitrogen; Reuther 1957;leached, acid Reuther and

Labanauskas 1966;Swain 1955

Fe 10,000- Calcareous, poorly drained Krauskopf 1972;100,000 ppm manganiferous Wallihan 1966

Mg 5,000 ppm Acid, sandy; imperfectly Mg excess can occur in soils where Embleton 1966;drained; alkaline more than 90 percent of CEC is Kelley 1948;

saturated with Mg. No correlation Prince and othersbetween total Mg and a soil’s 1947; Reichle 1970crop-producing potential.

Mn 0.2-3,000 ppm Calcareous; heavily manured Total Mn is not a good measure for Krauskopf 1972;and limed; very sandy-acid plant availability. Labanauskas 1966;

Swaine 1955

Mo 0.2-10.0 ppm Highly podsolized soils with Availability of Mo highly dependent Johnson 1966;low Mo retention capacity on pH. Krauskopf 1972;

Robinson andEdgington 1954

Zn 10-300 ppm Acid-leached, sandy; Zn availability is pH dependent; Chapman 1966;alkaline; granitic, gneisses; decreases 100-fold for each unit Lindsay 1972;organic soils; clays with increase in pH. Swaine 1955low Si/Mg ratio

aB = Boron; Ca = Calcium; Cu = Copper; Fe = Iron; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; Mn = Manganese; Mo = Molybdenum; N = Nitrogen;P = Phosphorus; S = Sulphur; Zn = Zinc.



Table-3—Proposed guidelines for assessing fertility status of wildland soilsa (adapted from Tiedemann and Lopez 1983).

Unacceptablelevels of

Availability selected ExtractionNutrientb Low Marginal High elements method References

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ppm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Nitrate

N <9 9-18 >18 Water extract Massee and Painter 1978;Stroehlein 1980

P 0-15 16-30 >30 Bray Thomas and Peaslee 1973

P <6 6-11 >11 Sodium bicarbonate Ludwick and Rogers 1976;Massee and Painter 1978;Thomas and Peaslee 1973

K <60 61-120 >120 Ammonium acetate Ludwick and Rogers 1976or sodium acetate

SO4S <6 6-15 15-30 >30 Ensminger and Freney 1966;Massee and Painter 1978;Reisnauer and others 1973

B <0.5 0.5-1.00 1.0-5.0 5-8 Hot water Reisnauer and others 1973;Sensitive crops Schafer 1979; Stroehlein 1980

may have visible injury

Cu 0-0.2 0.2 10-40 DTPA Reisnauer and others 1973;Schafer 1979; Stroehlein 1980

Fe <2.0 2.0-4.0 >4.0 DTPA Ludwick and Rogers 1976;Viets and Lindsay 1973

Mg <25 25-50 >50 Ammonium acetate Doll and Lucas 1973

Mn 0-0.75 >0.75 10-60 DTPA Ludwick and Rogers 1976;Schafer 1979; Stroehlein 1980;Viets and Lindsay 1973

Mo <0.1 0.10-0.20 >0.3 Reisnauer and others 1973;(pH 6) Schafer 1979

Se >2.0 Schafer 1979

Zn <0.5 0.5-1.0 >1.0 20-40 DTPA Ludwick and Rogers 1976;Schafer 1979; Viets andothers 1979

aSelected trace elements should be analyzed from this list if they are a demonstrated regional problem. Many quantitative limits shown in thissection are not supported by research findings.

bB = Boron; Cu = Copper; Fe = Iron; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; Mn = Manganese; Mo = Molybdenum; N = Nitrogen; P = Phosphorus;Se = Selenium; SO4S = Sulphate-sulphur; Zn = Zinc.

legal limits. Toxic levels will often be a consequence ofpH problems and can be moderated with liming amend-ments to adjust pH to acceptable levels. To determinethe available supply of an element, concentration (ppm)must be converted to the decimal value by multiplyingby 1 x 10–6. This value is then multiplied by the weightof the surface 15 cm of soil, which is estimated at 2.2 x106 kg/ha. For available N (from nitrate), a high levelof supply would equal 18 ppm (table 3). Multiplying18 ppm by 1 x 10–6 and by 2.2 x 106 kg/ha would equal

40 kg/ha of nitrate-N. Assuming 2 percent total N inplant tissue, this level of nitrate-N is adequate forproduction of about 2,000 kg/ha of forage.

Other procedures assess the adequacy of soil nutri-ents, but a detailed discussion is beyond the scope ofthis text. These other methods are briefly describedbelow.

Visual Symptoms—Certain visual symptoms inplants are indicative of nutritional deficiencies.Some of these are easily diagnosed such as change



in leaf color, leaf scorching, or leaf deformation. Be-cause they have similar nutrient requirements, defi-ciency symptoms within a specific plant family aregenerally quite similar. Plants of the goosefoot andmustard families, for example, have a high require-ment for boron; members of the legume family arevery sensitive to a deficiency of potassium (Donahueand others 1977). Pictorial descriptions of deficiencysymptoms in plants for the essential elements arewell documented; see Chapman (1966).

Tissue Analysis—For established plantings, tis-sue analysis may be used in conjunction with soilstests to develop a fertilizer prescription. Interpre-tation of tissue analysis results is more complicatedthan for concentrations of total and available soilnutrients. Also, information on nutrient concentra-tions in wildland plants and the relationships tosoil nutrient status (sufficiency or deficiency) is negli-gible. Concentrations in tissue vary widely amongspecies, plant part, and season. Interpretation mayalso be confounded by luxury consumption of certainelements. See Ulrich (1952) and Walsh and Beaton(1973) for more detailed information on tissue analy-ses and interpretations.

Greenhouse Bioassy—Another procedure for deter-mining nutrient availability is greenhouse bioassy,such as the technique of Jenny and others (1950),commonly referred to as a pot trial study. This proce-dure is a practical way of determining nutrient needsfor individual plant species using actual field soilsamples. Although particularly applicable for study ofmacronutrient availabilities, it can also be used toassess micronutrients. This test involves determiningbiomass yield of a test species in response to deletionof individual nutrients from a full nutrient treatment.A control treatment (no added nutrients) is alsoestablished. Bioassay nutrient availability trials havethe advantage that quantitative fertilizer prescrip-tions can be tailored to a particular species or mix ofspecies being considered for revegetation purposes. Alimitation of this method is that the effect of soilphysical characteristics is not taken into account (suchas permeability, bulk density). It also does not ac-count for moisture limitations and the moisture/nutri-ent interactions that are encountered in the wildlandsetting. For a detailed discussion on methods andassessment of results for this technique, see Tiedemannand Lopez (1983).

Field Trials—Field experiments are a means ofdetermining nutrient needs by actual on-site trials.Calibrating nutrient requirements to yields can beaccomplished by carefully planned and executedoutplantings. However, it should be kept in mind thatrecommendations based on field trials are site specific

for the plant species tested. Standard guides to inves-tigations of this type are available; see Hauser (1970)and Mukerjee (1960).

Development of a FertilizerPrescription ____________________

The simplest procedure for developing fertilizeramendment needs is to match soil test results withthe values presented in table 3. The amount of eachelement that needs to be supplied for low, marginal,and high levels of nutrient availability have been de-veloped (table 4). To convert these values to actualrates of fertilizer application, the decimal value of theelemental concentration of a particular nutrient in thefertilizer is divided into the desired application rate ofthat element. For example, with N at low availabil-ity, there is a need to supply 56 kg/ha (table 4). Theamount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer that must beapplied is 56/0.32 = 172 kg/ha of actual fertilizer.

If more than one element is at a low level of availa-bility, it will be desirable to apply a single fertilizerthat contains as many of the limiting nutrients aspossible. It should be noted that rates of more than oneelement cannot be controlled. We suggest keying ap-plication rate of other nutrients to the needed rate ofapplication of N, P, or K to assure adequate amend-ment of these macronutrients. For example, in a situa-tion where both N and S are at low availability, if therate of ammonium sulfate application were basedon sulfur needed (6 kg/ha), it would be equivalent to25 kg/ha of fertilizer. Since this fertilizer contains21 percent N (table 5), the rate of N application wouldonly be 5 kg/ha—a 90 percent reduction from actualneeds of 56 kg/ha. Ammonium nitrate could be used(in addition to ammonium sulfate) to achieve theproper level of N fertilization.

One important point to highlight in application offertilizers is the need to maintain a balance of fer-tility. Application of an excess of one element willlikely result in rapid depletion and limited availabilityof other elements. Voisin (1964) proposed a “law ofcorrection of soil imbalances” that states that “anyimbalance of available mineral elements existing orappearing in the soil because of the nature of thelatter, as a result of removal in harvested crops,because of fertilizer application or for any other cause,must be corrected by application of the necessaryfertilizing elements so that optimum balance amongthe soil elements is restored, producing high biologi-cal quality in the plant and the maximum yield com-patible therewith.” In essence, any nutrient that isexhausted must be replenished and imbalances mustbe corrected.



Table 4—Fertilizer recommendations based on inherent status (table 3) (kg/ha) to be applied based on average soil bulkdensity (= 1.35 g/cm3) (adapted from Tiedemann and Lopez 1983).

Nutrienta Low Marginal High Notes References

N 56 17-22 0 Amburgey 1964; Masseeand Painter 1978

P 29 22 15 To convert from P to P205 Amburgey 1964multiply by 2.25.

K 32 16 0 To convert from K to K20 White 1979multiply by 1.20.

S 6 2 0 Massee and Painter 1978

Ca 6 Viets and Lindsay 1973

B 1.7 0.8 Reisnauer and others 1973

Cu 5 Murphy and Walsh 1976

Fe 30 15 For acid soils—FeEDTA; Wallihan 1966for neutral soils—FeHEEDTAor FeDTPA; for alkaline soils—FeDTPA or FeEDDHA.

Mg 7 3.5 0 Sirker 1908; Stone 1953

Mn pH <7.0 pH <7.0 pH <7.0 Lime induced Murphy and Walsh 19726 3 5 deficiency can

pH >7.0 pH >7.0 be corrected11 5 by acidification.

Mo 0.11 0.03 Murphy and Walsh 1976

Zn 11 6 0 Murphy and Walsh 1976

aB = Boron; Ca = Calcium; Cu = Copper; Fe = Iron; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; Mn = Manganese; Mo = Molybdenum; N =Nitrogen; P = Phosphorus; S = Sulphur.

Table 5—Elemental composition of some common available fertilizers.

Materiala N P K S Mg Ca References

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ammonium nitrate 32.5 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Ammonium phosphate 11.0 48 3 Sulphur Institute 1982Ammonium sulphate 21.0 24 Sulphur Institute 1982Ammonium

phosphate-sulfate 16.0 20 15.4 Sulphur Institute 1982Calcium nitrate 15.5 1.5 19.3 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Copper sulphate 11.8 Sulphur Institute 1982Phosphoric acid

(liquid) 23-24 0.2 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Potash

(potassium-chloride) 52 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Potassium magnesium

sulphate 15-18 18-23 11 Donahue and others 1977Potassium sulphate 44 18 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Single super phosphate 8-9 12 13-15 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Trebel super phosphate 18-20 1 9-13 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979Urea 42-46 Sulphur Institute 1982Zinc sulphate 13-18 Sulphur Institute 1982

aCa = Calcium; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; N = Nitrogen; P = Phosphorus; S = Sulphur.



Application of Fertilizers onWildland Soils __________________

Plant nutrients differ in the way they may beapplied most effectively as fertilizers because of differ-ences in their chemical properties, amounts requiredby plants, chemical and biological activity in the soil,and solubility, which varies according to their for-mula and physical condition (Cook and Hulbert 1957).The emphasis on proper application of fertilizersshould be considered equally critical to the selection offertilizers. Four reasons for this emphasis are elabo-rated upon here:

First, optimum time of fertilizer placement shouldcoincide with adequate moisture availability. Nutrientsare ineffective in dry soil. If leaching by water will notbe the means by which nutrients are translocated tothe root zone, fertilizers should be placed where rootshave access to the nutrients (Cook and Hulbert 1957).For the Intermountain West, surface applications offertilizers are most effective if applied in late fall aftersome precipitation has been received. This allowsample time for microbial transformations of fertilizercompounds such as urea and assures movement ofmobile ions into the rooting zone.

Second, mobility of fertilizer elements and nutrientabsorbing characteristics of the vegetation must beconsidered. For example, surface applications ofphosphorus (an immobile nutrient) are likely to bemore effective with shallow, fibrous-rooted speciessuch as perennial grasses than plants with taprootssuch as forbs and shrubs. For fertilizer compoundswith nitrate-N and sulfate-S, two relatively mobilenutrients, surface applications would be effective forperennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Third, in fertilizer placement, a plant’s demand forvarious nutrients at different stages of growth shouldbe taken into account. Maximum demand for nutri-ents occurs in the young plant and early growth stagesof perennials. Rapid growth can only take placewhen adequate enzymes are present and, therefore,only after the plant has absorbed a sufficient quantityof the minerals necessary for correct enzymatic func-tion. However, the demand never ceases completely.Should some of the minerals become limiting at a laterstage, damage and eventual plant death may occur.Seedlings should have ready access to nutrients forearly growth yet direct contact with fertilizer could bedetrimental because of the osmotic effect of saltsdepriving the seedling of water.

Fourth, application with regard to physical andchemical soil factors must be considered. The effect ofpH on nutrient availabilities illustrates the impor-tance of considering soil chemical properties. Fertiliz-ers applied to soils with pH less than 5.1 or greaterthan 8.4 will not likely be effective in promoting plant

growth because nutrients will become unavailable.Soil physical properties can also affect fertilizer effec-tiveness. A soil with a very slow infiltration rate, forexample, may impede overall nutrient availability toplants, because little of the fertilizer will be trans-mitted to the root zone and will be vulnerable toremoval by surface runoff.

Much of what we know about fertilizers and fer-tilization is based on agricultural practices that maynot be suited to the wildland situation. Nevertheless,the basic concepts of plant-soil relationships areapplicable. If it is decided that a fertilization programwill be done, proper application is essential.

A number of application methods are available tothe land manager. However, many of these are notpractical in wildland settings. Broadcasting on thesoil surface has been the most widely used method ofapplying granular fertilizer (Vallentine 1980). Wherechaining, or other vegetation-clearing, soil-disturbingpractices is employed, the prescribed fertilizerscould be spread prior to clearing, thus allowing forsome incorporation caused by the soil disturbance.The same recommendation would be appropriate forareas to be reseeded by drilling. Soil incorporation isparticularly important for phosphorus fertilizers.

On annual grassland in California, helicopter ap-plication was considered fast and practical on range-land too steep for ground application (Duncan andReppert 1966). Spreading of granular and foliar fertil-izer by airplane has likewise been a practical meansof fertilizing wildlands, and at a much lower costthan with helicopters.

Foliar application of micronutrients and secondarynutrients in a wildland setting may be a practical andlogical method for improving impoverished areaswith identified deficiency symptoms. Foliar applica-tion may be particularly beneficial where nutrientuptake through the plant roots is restricted or wheresoil incorporation is prohibitive. Also, foliar applica-tion is the fastest way to correct deficiencies of micro-nutrients. Attempts to supply the major nutrient re-quirements such as N, P, and K by foliar applicationmay not be successful because of the required highrates and repeated applications causing foliage scorch-ing and increased expense (Hagin and Tucker 1982).

The addition of specific secondary nutrients ormicronutrients to amend specific needs requirescareful planning in their application because of thehigh cost involved and adverse consequences oftoxicity due to excessive, uneven application. Theseminor and secondary elements are applied most eco-nomically at the same time as macroelements. Theamounts needed (table 4) are generally so small thatseparate applications are difficult. One word of cau-tion: the addition of specific micro- and secondaryelements to take care of specific needs is applicable



only in areas where soils are known to be severelydeficient. The consequences of improper applicationcan be devastating and protracted.

Some plant nutrients have been successfully ap-plied by seed coating (Murphy and Walsh 1972). Anumber of benefits are realized: (1) even distributionof nutrients over treated areas; (2) nutrients readilyavailable for a more even emergence and survival ofseedlings; (3) assurance of more uniform stand estab-lishment, often with less seed per acre; (4) most effi-cient in terms of labor and other application costs.One disadvantage is that seed coating cannot be usedto build soil nutrient reserves. It is used primarily forearly emergence and survival.

Conclusions____________________The foregoing information was given to provide an

overview of the soil factors that affect the potentialsuccess of wildland rehabilitation efforts. It is obviousthat it is not economically feasible to correct some soilconditions on wildlands. Even though there may be noeconomically feasible treatments for overcoming ad-verse soil conditions, it is important for rehabilitationspecialists to be able to recognize these problems, andin some cases be able to quantify their magnitude.Although fertilization is a readily available techniquefor amending soil nutrients, it is considered to be a“high input” option (Marschner 1986). “The low inputoption, and perhaps the most feasible means of man-aging nutrient stress is to encourage the developmentof species that are either adapted to or can tolerate lownutrient levels, or those that can ameliorate N limita-tions by symbiotic N fixation” (Klemmedson andTiedemann 1995).

There is a rapidly emerging understanding of themorphological and physiological features of plants thatare adapted to grow and survive in nutrient-limited

environments. Consideration of these adaptations inthe process of selecting plants for revegetation shouldgreatly improve chances for success in revegetation ofnutrient-limited sites. Most species of a stress tolerantstrategy tend to be small in stature (Grime and Hunt1975) with an inherently slow growth rate, thereby,resulting in a low demand on the soil nutrient supply(Chapin 1980; Grime 1977).

Despite low nutrient absorption rates, speciesfrom soils of low fertility status maximize nutrientacquisition by maintaining a large root biomass, andhigh root:shoot ratios (Chapin 1980; Marschner 1986),increased length (Marschner 1986) and branching(Troughton 1980) of roots, strongly developed mycor-rhizal associations (Mosse 1973), and greater rootlongevity (Chapin 1980).

Plants that fix N by symbiosis such as those of thelegume family hold promise as a natural means ofproviding N to wildland plantings (Blackbourn 1975;Rumbaugh 1983). Several genera of native shrubssuch as alder, ceanothus, bitterbrush, cliffrose, andbuffaloberry are also known for their ability to fixatmospheric N (Klemmedson 1979; Nelson 1983;Righetti and others 1983). Although research on theeffectiveness of these plants in improving the N supplyof wildland sites is in its infancy, these plants holdpromise of reducing or perhaps even eliminatingfertilizer N amendment needs on wildlands in thefuture. Several herbaceous species of legumes such asalfalfa, yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, sainfoin,and sulla sweetvetch are already in use for this pur-pose (Rumbaugh 1983).

Other chapters in this book address the issue ofspecies adapted to vegetation zones and specific siteconditions. The reader is also referred to Aldon andOaks (1982), Monsen and Shaw (1983b), Tiedemannand Johnson (1983), and Tiedemann and others(1984b).


Stephen B. Monsen

8Chapter

Selecting Methods and Procedures forPlant Control ____________________________________

Generally, range or wildlife habitat improvement projects seekto achieve desirable plants through the elimination or replace-ment of undesirable species or both. Control measures are thusdesigned to: (1) reduce the competitive effects of existing species(Evans and Young 1987a,b; Robertson and Pearse 1945), (2) allowthe establishment of seeded species (Harper and Benton 1966;Toole and others 1956), and (3) facilitate reestablishment, orimprove the vigor of, desirable native plants (Plummer andothers 1970a; Stevens 1987b).

Although control measures are often needed to reduce weedycompetition, wholesale elimination of a species is not alwaysnecessary. Some practices, including chaining or burning(Plummer and others 1968), are used to reduce the density oftarget species and promote changes in the composition of theexisting community.

Controlling PlantCompetition


Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

Chaining and burning have been used to stimulateregrowth of decadent stands of antelope bitterbrush(Edgerton 1983; Martin 1983), mountain mahogany,cliffrose, and aspen. These processes improve avail-ability of Gambel oak (Plummer and others 1968), andthe forage production of big sagebrush (Young andEvans 1978b) sites.

Control measures are often sought that will elimi-nate all existing species, particularly on sites domi-nated by cheatgrass (Young and others 1976b),medusahead, or cluster tarweed (Carnahan and Hull1962; Hull and Cox 1968). Disking, plowing, or use ofchemicals are most effective where complete controlmeasures are required (Eckert and Evans 1967; Haasand others 1962). Remnant native plants are usefuland should be retained on most range or wildlife sites.However, control measures are seldom so refined thatindividual species can be retained when others aredestroyed.

If seeding is to be successful, the existing competi-tion must be sufficiently reduced to allow establish-ment of new plants (Evans and Young 1978). If a mixedarray of plants are seeded, the period of establishmentmay be prolonged by 2 to 5 years.

Consequently, to be effective, considerable reduc-tion in the presence of existing plants is often neces-sary (Monsen and McArthur 1985; Stevens 1987b). Inaddition, the control measures used must also preventthe recovery of targeted species for sufficient time toallow seeded species to fully establish (Fulbright 1987;Hutton and Porter 1937).

Methods of Plant Control _________

Mechanical Control

Various techniques and implements are available tomechanically treat rangelands (Abernathy and Herbel1973; Anderson and others 1953; Herbel and others1973). Many implements used in conventional agricul-ture have been adapted for use on wildlands. Trainedpersonnel are normally available to operate, modify asnecessary, and maintain the machinery. Consequently,many range and wildlife habitat improvement projectsrely on the use of modified farm equipment. Numerousequipment items have also been developed specificallyfor range and wildland sites (Larson 1980). The func-tions, capabilities, and uses of equipment used inwildlands are described in chapter 9.

Mechanical control measures may be more or lesseffective in reducing unwanted plants than burningor herbicide treatments. However, some aspects ofmechanical control provide advantages to overall

rehabilitation and restoration programs. Attributes ofmechanical treatments are summarized as follows:

1. Different types of equipment are available totreat specific circumstances.

2. Treatments can be selectively used to removetarget species.

3. Mechanical control can be effective in the removalof live plants and seeds.

4. Treatments can be conducted at different seasonsto retain or lessen impacts on key species.

5. Treatments are not always restricted to a specificseason or period as is burning or chemical control.

6. Control measures usually aid in creating a seed-bed, and in seeding.

7. If necessary, litter and surface protection can beprovided to lessen runoff and erosion.

Fire and Herbicide Control

Fire and herbicides are viable methods of controllingplants. Both techniques have specific limitations andadvantages (Hyder and others 1962; Pechanec andStewart 1944; Young and Evans 1978b). Either areapplicable measures if weedy species can be selec-tively controlled and desirable plants can be retainedor are able to recover. Both methods can be used toeliminate competition prior to seeding (Young andEvans 1978b; Young and others 1976a,b). Descrip-tions and use of herbicides and fire are discussed indetail in chapters 10 and 11.

A considerable amount of plant residue and surfacelitter is often left in place following herbicide treat-ments. This debris may enhance the seedbed (Evansand Young 1984). However, neither burning nor her-bicide treatment provides a suitable seedbed for mostspecies. Some means of mechanical seeding or seedcoverage is required to plant an area following burningor spraying (Evans and Young 1984). In contrast,mechanical plant control measures, chaining, diskingrailing, and so forth not only remove weedy competi-tion but simultaneously aid in seeding.

Biological Control

More than one approach is usually feasible for re-ducing the density of undesirable plants. Land man-agers have some latitude in selecting treatments formost rehabilitation projects. Sometimes, biologicalcontrol measures are quite effective. Regulating graz-ing intensity, seasonal use, and selective foraging canimprove the vigor and density of certain plants(Hubbard and Sanderson 1961; Vallentine 1989).Unregulated grazing can harm and even destroy wellplanned projects. Grazing of range and wildlands is



considered a biological control measure, as foragingimpacts by domestic livestock, wildlife, and insectscan, in part, be regulated. Grazing also impacts otherbiological systems affecting plant communities.

Improvements achieved through controlled grazingand seeding (Shown and others 1969) are usually mostnoticeable on mesic sites. Blaisdell and Holmgren(1984) reported that the composition of desertshrublands, including certain salt desert shrublands,will respond favorably to grazing management, al-though changes may require many years of carefultreatment. Improvement in vegetative conditions isoften a cumulative response. Plant density may in-crease as plant vigor improves and more seed is pro-duced to facilitate seedling establishment. Thesechanges often occur over a long period of carefulmanagement.

Grazing can be used to reduce the presence ofsome weedy or less desirable plants. Cattle grazinghas been effective in reducing seed production andstand density of cheatgrass, but has not been effectivein elimination of the annual grass. Plummer andothers (1968) reported that grazing of burned standsof Gambel oak by livestock and deer aided in suppress-ing shrub regrowth. However, species not eagerly eatenby grazing animals are difficult to control withoutexcessive damage to other plants.

Regulating livestock grazing has been an effectivemeans of improving the vigor and density of selectedexisting plants (Astroth and Frischknecht 1984). Broad-leaf herbs and some grasses that are sought by grazinganimals may not recover even though a significantreduction in grazing occurs. Species such as alfalfa(Rosenstock and others 1989), small burnet, arrowleafbalsamroot (Plummer and others 1968), and bluebellscontinue to be selectively used even when livestock orgame numbers are reduced. Changing the grazingseason is most beneficial to species of herbs highlypreferred by grazing animals (Frischknecht 1978).

Elimination of livestock grazing of some preferredshrubs including Stansbury cliffrose, Martin ceano-thus, curlleaf mountain mahogany, and antelope bit-terbrush has resulted in improved plant vigor. How-ever, if heavily browsed, these shrubs may require 3 to5 years to respond. Forage yields and seed productionmay respond dramatically, yet recruitment of newseedlings may be prevented by understory weeds.Thus, many shrublands disrupted by grazing andinfested with annual weeds may not recover satisfac-torily as a result of simply eliminating grazing.

Regulating game use of seriously depleted range-lands has been achieved by seeding selected portionsof the habitat. Revegetating segments of some biggame winter ranges has succeeded in concentratinggame use on the seeded areas. This has lessenedgrazing of adjacent ranges and allowed for natural

recovery. This practice is particularly successful ifhighly palatable species are planted to attract grazinganimals and change seasonal use. Orchardgrass, smallburnet, penstemon, black sagebrush, fourwing salt-bush (Nichlos and Johnson 1969), sainfoin, and alfalfacan be seeded in areas where they are adapted toattract and regulate animal use. Other plants, par-ticularly Lewis flax, mutton bluegrass, wild buck-wheat, prickly lettuce, salisfy, showy goldeneye,redstem ceanothus, and creeping barberry are speciesthat demonstrate similar usefulness. These speciesoften recover quickly following restoration treatments.Not all provide a major part of the diet for game orlivestock, but they are selectively grazed and attractanimals.

Livestock grazing is often recommended as a methodof dispersing and planting seed by trampling. Eckertand others (1987) report soil relief is important to seedentrapment, germination, and seedling establishment.Moderate trampling favors emergence of perennialgrasses; heavy trampling is detrimental to the emer-gence of perennial grasses and forbs. Moderate tram-pling can be both beneficial or detrimental to seedlingestablishment depending upon the position in the soilwhere seeds germinate. Surface germinators are en-hanced by moderate trampling, but species requiringmore soil coverage are not.

Grazing systems are not always effective measuresfor controlling weedy plants or enhancing the estab-lishment and increase of desirable species. Once weedssuch as juniper and pinyon, broom snakeweed, haloge-ton, red brome, or cheatgrass gain dominance, theirdensity may not be diminished by changing grazingpractices. Other more desirable plants are not likelyto increase unless the weedy competition is reduced.Consequently, seriously depleted plant communitiesrecover very slowly or not at all with grazing manage-ment. Unless a number of desirable remnant plantsexist, the change may be too slow and ineffective to beregarded as a viable alternative.

Successional Changes

Other means of biological control can be employed tobring about changes in plant composition. Naturalchanges in plant succession following logging or wild-fires can affect large areas. Many sites cannot berevegetated by artificial plantings, but significantimprovement can be achieved by protection and natu-ral changes. Slight shifts in plant composition onextensive areas can significantly influence forage orhabitat resources. Natural changes in the density ofbroadleaf herbs, particularly Utah sweetvetch,arrowleaf balsamroot, or nineleaf lomatium can occuras a result of fire in sagebrush or bunchgrass commu-nities. A slight increase can be beneficial to spring and



summer foraging by game and wildlife. Similarly, anincrease of wild buckwheat or black sagebrush, onharsh, exposed winter ranges can significantly en-hance winter forage conditions for some big gameanimals. Fluctuations in density and herbage produc-tion of certain shrubs including big sagebrush, lowrabbitbrush, and antelope bitterbrush occur as thecomposition of understory weeds is reduced. Redstemceanothus and western chokecherry increase rapidlyas overstory trees are removed. Rather dramatic dif-ferences can occur within a short time. The naturalshift in species presence, density, and vigor can sub-stantially change the seasonal forage base and habitatconditions.

Both logging and burning are commonly used toimprove wildlife habitat conditions in many forestcommunities (Steele and Geier-Hayes 1987). The ap-proach of altering successional change normally re-quires a long period, but is a well-accepted manage-ment technique. Other considerations such asmaintenance and economic costs are easily justified.Natural recovery of depleted arid and semiarid range-lands does not occur quickly, and artificial rehabilita-tion is often recommended. Nevertheless, sites can bemanaged to facilitate improvement through naturalsuccession.

Differences in annual precipitation and other cli-matic conditions have long-term effects on plantcommunities (Bleak and others 1965; Plummer andothers 1955). Drought conditions can eliminate orweaken certain species. Contrasting “wet years” canenhance establishment and increase plant density.Implementing revegetation measures during favor-able years or periods is advisable, but predicting “goodyears” is not always possible. Delaying or implement-ing control measures until years when favorable mois-ture appears likely to occur can be justified.

Improvements in plant communities are not re-stricted to years or periods of high precipitation. Dur-ing the drought period of 1987 to 1990, cheatgrass andother annual weeds produced extremely low seedcrops. Seed production of native perennial grasses wasmore favorable, and considerable spread of the peren-nials occurred.

Delaying plans for control measures until mid orlate winter when buildup of winter moisture occurs ispossible in many circumstances. Coordinating plansfor artificial control treatments to coincide with ex-pected natural community changes should be care-fully considered.

Insect and disease outbreaks (Nelson and others1990) (see chapter 15), wildfires, winter injury (Nelsonand Tiernan 1983), and other factors can result in exten-sive plant dieoff. Contingency plans should be devel-oped to capitalize on these situations.

Factors Influencing the Selection ofMethods and Equipment _________

Primary Objectives

Land rehabilitation or restoration measures aredeveloped to satisfy certain objectives. Most often,range and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and restora-tion programs are designed to: (1) improve foragequantity and quality, (2) enhance vegetative cover forwildlife, (3) control weeds and their managementproblems, (4) improve or maintain esthetic and recre-ational values, (5) correct watershed problems, and(6) enhance the succession and natural developmentof native communities.

If improvement of forage production is a principalobjective, measures required to create a managedpasture situation may be justified (Astroth andFrischknecht 1984; Cook 1966). Seeding or treating tosupport a single species, or grazing at a specific periodmay justify extensive conversion treatments (Cook1966). Thus, disking, plowing, or herbicide sprayingwould likely be required to eliminate competition andsuccessfully seed a specific crop. If year-long foragingis desired or needed to sustain wildlife and livestock,a complex of species would be needed (Monsen 1987).Treatment practices would be used that would facili-tate the introduction of some species without thecomplete elimination of others (Monsen and Shaw1983c).

Attempting to minimize the impacts of treatmentsupon esthetics or selectively reducing certain specieswhile retaining others are complex actions that mustbe contemplated in selecting appropriate equipment.In most cases, the selection of equipment or treatmentpractices is ultimately based on the need to controlweedy plants. Other factors, although important, gen-erally do not dictate restoration measures. If plantcompetition cannot be controlled, treatment proce-dures should not be implemented.

Plant control measures are usually closely alignedwith seeding or planting. Techniques that reduce com-petition, provide a good seedbed, and permit plantingin one operation are preferred (Schumacher 1964).However, not all of these objectives can usually beachieved in one procedure. The effectiveness of reha-bilitation or restoration programs is determined bythe control measures and seeding procedures used. Aland manager must select the appropriate equipmentand treatments that will modify the vegetation in themanner desired.

Sites that provide the greatest potential for forageproduction (Anderson and others 1953) or for im-proved wildlife habitat values normally justify thegreatest investment. Complete renovation and seed-ing can be justified on areas that yield high returns.



However, attempting to evaluate the importance of asite based upon forage production is often unwise.Sites that furnish midwinter forage, especially duringadverse winter conditions, are extremely valuablelocations. They furnish critically needed forage andcover, although production may not be comparablewith other sites. Attempting to restore those areasusing costly and extensive procedures may be welljustified. For example, planting or enhancing thestatus of wild buckwheat, green ephedra, or smoothsumac on small restricted sites can significantly im-prove the midwinter range condition of many criticalgame ranges.

Various criteria have been developed to identifyrange sites that should or should not be treated (Cook1966; Plummer and others 1968). Some recommenda-tions do not advise treating steep slopes or shallowsoils when an increase in herbage production wouldnot occur. However, these sites are usually an integralpart of the habitat for game animals and watershedresources. Forage productivity may not be as impor-tant as animal concealment or watershed protection.

Rehabilitation or restoration measures must becompatible with circumstances at the planting site.Treatments must be conducted in a manner that willyield the greatest return. Sites should be evaluatedto determine their productive capabilities. Improve-ment measures should be designed to assure thatadapted plants and techniques are used to achieveplant establishment and survival.

Most ranges, and particularly game ranges, arediverse sites. Usually only one method is used to treatan entire area. However, several different measuresare often justified to revegetate individual portions ofan area being treated.

Site Access

Topography and surface conditions influence theoperability of equipment used in rehabilitation andrestoration. Many range and wildland sites includesome steep or poorly accessible areas. Getting equip-ment onto a site and furnishing support and mainte-nance during the operation is essential. Aerial seedingand anchor chaining are perhaps the most versatiletechniques currently available for treating mountain-ous terrain (Skousen and others 1986). Equipment ofthis type is expensive to transport, consequently, it isnot economical to treat small areas or fragmentedtracts that require numerous moves and frequent“setup.”

Rough, irregular sites limit the use of most conven-tional machinery. Rocky soil conditions and densewoody vegetation interfere with equipment operationand cause considerable breakage.

Topography also influences seasonal access andoperating efficiency and effectiveness. Uprooting and

breakage of woody plants is best accomplished whensoils are partially frozen and plants are cold andbrittle. Late fall and early winter access is necessaryto treat many shrublands. Treatment of riparian sitesis best accomplished during periods of low runoff andwhen soils are dry. This often requires late fall andwinter access.

Soil surface conditions may differ considerably onirregular sites. Soils may be moist and frozen oncertain aspects, yet dry and friable on adjacent sites.Differences can be great enough to reduce the successof plant control measures. Yet, delaying treatmentuntil all sites are open and accessible may not bepractical. Consequently, the period when sites can beeffectively treated may be very short for some ratherlarge areas.

Status of Existing Vegetation______

Plant Competition

Usually only one or two species of undesirable plantsare of primary concern. However, mixed stands canand do support different growth forms (shrubs andgrasses) that require different control measures.

Most perennial herbs cannot be eliminated by surfacescarification resulting from railing or chaining (Barneyand Frischknecht 1974; Tausch and Tueller 1977).These plants must be uprooted by disking or plowing(Cook 1966; Drawe 1977), or eliminated by chemicalspraying, or in some cases, burning (Robertson andCords 1957). Annual herbs, particularly those thatproduce a buildup of seed in the soil, must be treatedin a manner that kills existing plants and prevents orreduces establishment by seed (Evans and Young1987b; Young and others 1969). Deep plowing orscalping to sidecast surface soil and weed seeds awayfrom planting furrows are appropriate techniques(Schumacher 1964). Herbicide spraying can also beused to prevent floral or seed development (Evans andothers 1976). Weeds can also be consumed by fire ifburning is done before seeds drop from the plant(Plummer and others 1968).

Large woody plants and rough rocky sites are notconducive to soil tillage such as plowing or disking.These areas can be burned if sufficient fuel is availableto carry a fire. Mechanical control measures are usu-ally limited to railing, chaining, or other techniquesthat uproot or crush the vegetation. These practicesusually create a good seedbed. Chemical sprayingcan also be effective on trees and large shrubs, al-though selective herbicides are recommended in orderto prevent damage to desirable species that may bepresent.

In most instances, a combination of treatments isneeded to gain control over sites dominated by more



than one weedy species. For example, chaining orburning juniper-pinyon woodlands may successfullycontrol the trees, but cheatgrass would not be affected.

Plant Tolerance and Response

Many resprouting species recover following cutting,burning, pruning, or chemical defoliation (Vallentine1989). Repeated treatments may be necessary to elimi-nate these species. Treating at the appropriate seasoncan increase vegetative kill. In addition, the establish-ment of seeded species and the recovery or release ofother existing natives can result in further suppres-sion of the targeted plants (Wight and White 1974).

Undesirable species that recover by root sprouting,stem layering, or other means of vegetative propaga-tion must be uprooted (Allison and Rechenthin 1956)or chemically treated. Repeated treatments or a com-bination of treatments may be necessary to eliminateparticularly persistent or noxious weeds (Vallentine1989). Such retreatments may be justified on highlyproductive ranges, meadows, and riparian areas. How-ever, complete control may not be practical on mostsites.

Complete elimination of resistant herbs is not al-ways warranted. If density or recovery of weedy plantsdoes not interfere with the establishment of seededspecies or the recovery of desirable natives, extensivecontrol is not necessary (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990).Spot treatment or treating narrow strips or bands maybe sufficient to interseed weedy sites (Schumacher1964; Stevens and others 1981b; Wight and White1974). Clearings must be large enough to allow seed-ling establishment and normal plant growth (Giuntaand others 1975). Treated sites should remain free ofweeds for 1 to 3 years to allow establishment of seededplants.

Control of annual weeds usually requires the elimi-nation of live plants and new seedlings (Davis andHarper 1990; McArthur and others 1990a). Most an-nuals, particularly cheatgrass, medusahead, Russianthistle, and Belvedere summer cypress, recover quicklyfollowing treatment if soil-borne seeds are allowed togerminate (Evans and Young 1984). Removal of thelive plants is not sufficient to assure successful seed-ing. New weed seedlings can appear quickly enough tosuppress seeded species.

Mechanical or chemical fallowing is used to reducenewly germinating weed seedlings, although presentrestrictions limit the use of some herbicides. Deepfurrow drilling (Young and McKenzie 1982), disk chain-ing (Wiedemann 1985), anchor chaining (Davis andHarper 1990) using the Dixie (Jensen 1983) or Elychain, pipe harrowing, or other soil tillage treat-ments can be successful in eliminating weed seed-lings. Soils are not completely plowed or turned with

these implements, but sufficient tillage occurs to up-root and kill enough weeds to allow establishmentof planted seedlings. Soil surfaces must be overturned3 to 5 inches (8 to 13 cm) by disking to bury most weedseeds deep enough to prevent emergence.

The Extent and Duration of WeedControl ________________________

The foremost issue in most restoration or rehabili-tation projects is the establishment of seeded species.Weeds must be eliminated during this period to assureseedling establishment and survival (Samuel andDePuit 1987). Many grasses and broadleaf herbs seededon rangelands establish quickly and grow rapidly(Houston and Adams 1971). Once these species achieveinitial establishment, they are sufficiently competi-tive to resist extensive competition. In contrast, manyshrub seedlings establish much slower and are vulner-able to competition for a number of years (Giunta andothers 1975).

Weeds must be controlled for extended periods toallow slow-growing species time to establish. Manyintroduced weeds have unusual regenerative capabili-ties and can suppress seedling establishment of manynatives, particularly some shrubs. Young stands ofshrubs such as Stansbury cliffrose, green ephedra,serviceberry, skunkbush sumac, curlleaf mountainmahogany, blackbrush, and Martin ceanothus can beseverely decimated if cheatgrass, red brome, ormedusahead are allowed to reestablish 3 to 5 yearsafter the shrubs are seeded (Plummer and others1968). Seedlings of these shrubs are vulnerable toexcessive herbaceous competition for many years fol-lowing seeding. Even though the shrub seedling maysurvive 1 to 3 years, their ultimate survival is stilltenuous.

Seeding companion species is a viable and recom-mended method of reducing the early reentry of weeds(Vallentine 1989). Some perennials are sufficientlycompetitive to prevent recruitment of weeds, yetallow the establishment of slower growing seededspecies. Timothy, orchardgrass, mountain rye, alfalfa,western yarrow, and Sandberg bluegrass are fre-quently seeded in alternate rows with shrubs orslower developing herbs to control the rapid entry ofweeds. Manipulating row spacing, seeding rates, andplanting at different dates are methods useful inattaining establishment of slow-growing species(DePuit and others 1980; Samuel and DePuit 1987).Seeding nurse crops or companion species under aridconditions must be done carefully to prevent unneces-sary competition.

Most woody plants, including stands of juniper-pinyon, big sagebrush, matchbrush, rabbitbrush, black



greasewood, or snowbrush ceanothus do not need to becompletely eliminated to allow the establishment ofseeded species (Plummer and others 1968). The pres-ence of some remaining plants may actually be help-ful. These species may be partially thinned or dam-aged by railing, chaining, or burning. Their recovery,either through new growth or by reproduction, isusually not rapid enough to prevent establishment ofthe seeded species.

Thinning, suppression, or partial elimination of someplants are often required to release other associatedspecies. In many projects the recovery of certain nativeherbs and shrubs is of primary importance. Partialcontrol of the dominating weedy species is often suffi-cient to release the remnant plants (Aro 1971). Thereleased plants recover quickly and are able to provideconsiderable competition within 1 to 2 years. Favor-able recovery of Woods rose, blue elderberry, blacksagebrush, low rabbitbrush, black chokecherry,fourwing saltbush, spiny hopsage, antelope bitter-brush, desert bitterbrush, squawapple, Apache plume,and many other shrubs has occurred following controlof associated plants.

Plant control must have a long-term effect (Hulland Stewart 1948). Some plants recover and reoccupythe site if only a few plants are left following treat-ment. Big sagebrush, Sandberg bluegrass, and blackgreasewood are examples of plants that recover rap-idly and may reduce recovery of other desirable spe-cies (Johnson and Payne 1968).

Effects of Control Measures on SeedbedConditions

Range sites that do not harbor desired plants usu-ally must be seeded to achieve a more desirable veg-etative composition (Eckert and Evans 1967). Regard-less of whether sites require seeding or will recovernaturally, a suitable seedbed is necessary (Eckert andothers 1987). Seeding is usually programmed to co-incide with weed control or site preparation treat-ments. Seedings are usually more successful if con-ducted soon after weedy competition is removed (Youngand others 1969) to take advantage of the seedbedconditions created by disking, railing, and chaining(Plummer and others 1968). It is important that plantcontrol methods create or improve the seedbed. Gener-ally, mechanical treatments overturn or disrupt thesoil surface. Disrupting the soil surface by deep plow-ing or other drastic measures can destroy favorableseedbed conditions. Tillage provided by chaining, pipeharrowing, or railing is usually sufficient to adequatelycover seed and compact the seedbed, but is less disrup-tive to the soil surface than plowing or disking.

If plant control measures are also used to facilitateseeding, the work should be conducted at the optimum

time for seed germination and seedling establishment(Bleak and Miller 1955). This may or may not coincidewith the optimum period for plant control. Seeding issometimes done during inappropriate periods to takeadvantage of loose soil conditions or soil sloughing.Seeding is often done immediately after a burn in looseash and flocculated soils. Seeding is not recommendedin midsummer or when seeds may germinate prema-turely. If plant control measures are relied upon tocover the seed, the operation should be done when soilsare tillable and proper planting depths are attainable.Chaining sites when soils are dry and loose results indeep planting and a very loose seedbed. These condi-tions are not conducive to seedling establishment.In contrast, chaining areas in early winter whensoils are wet and slightly frozen prevents deep seed-ing and results in a firm seedbed. Broadcast seedingon top of snow over disturbed soil can be a successfulseeding practice.

In general, mechanical plant control favors seedingas soil disturbances and tillage create a useful seed-bed. Burning or spraying may leave some surfaceresidue or litter that can aid seedling establishment,but additional seeding methods are normally required.

Availability of Personnel and Equipment

Although many factors influence the selection ofequipment and techniques to treat wildlands, theavailability and operative experience of existing per-sonnel is a primary consideration. Most implementsused on wildlands are costly and are not widely avail-able. In addition, these implements are often used onsteep, inaccessible sites that require highly skilledoperators. A large support staff, spare equipment, andrepair facilities may be required to sustain a majorrehabilitation project. Without this contingent of per-sonnel and equipment, rehabilitation procedures maynot be effective. However, using the wrong piece ofequipment cannot be justified simply because of poorpreparation and planning.

Treatment procedures are usually as effective as theequipment operator. Chaining, railing, or plowingresults differ considerably among operators. Fieldpersonnel and equipment operators should be advisedof their role and responsibility in rehabilitation projects.Although methods used on steep slopes should bedesigned to lessen water runoff, equipment operatorsmust be given flexibility to safely and efficiently oper-ate the machinery. Chaining or railing up and downsteep slopes does not always create rills or generatedamaging runoff. Sufficient litter and surface debrisusually remains in place to control erosion whenjuniper-pinyon or brush fields are treated.

Equipment operators should be directed to map orplot travel routes ahead of time to allow efficient



operation of all equipment. Procedures used inmonitoring fire suppression activities should be adoptedto assist revegetation when aircraft or large equip-ment are used.

Economic Benefits and TreatmentCosts _________________________

Attempting to project and quantify operation costsand resulting benefits is difficult for range and wild-life projects. Equipment operation costs includingtransportation, setup, maintenance, operations, anddepreciation are identifiable expenses. However, equat-ing returns based solely upon herbage production isnot indicative of all benefit values. For example, at-taching an accurate value to the establishment ofcertain secondary species that provide seasonal forageor protective cover for wildlife is difficult. Also, at-tempting to place a value on the habitat resources ofa changing plant community is equally difficult. Thelong-term values of rehabilitation projects, particu-larly watershed protection, stability of wildlife popu-lations, esthetics, and recreational uses are importantconsiderations in most improvement projects. In addi-tion, the continued degradation and loss of resourcevalues, and the increased rehabilitation costs of dete-riorated sites that are left untreated is of major con-sideration. All treatment benefits should be recog-nized in order to select appropriate plant controlmeasures.

Treatment Impacts on AssociatedResources _____________________

Converting the vegetative composition from oneplant type to another (for example, trees to herbs)creates a dramatic change in scenery. Also, removingexisting mature plants and establishing other speciesthat have the same life form will still create a signifi-cant change in appearance for a number of yearsfollowing treatment. Young plantings provide differ-ences in ground cover, animal concealment, esthetics,forage production, and so forth. However, some ben-efits are registered quickly including improvement ofground cover and forage production.

Visual impacts are most noticeable immediatelyafter treatment (burning, chaining, plowing). How-ever, these effects are usually short lived. Naturalchanges usually occur rapidly and mask initial im-pacts. Foregoing appropriate restoration measuresbecause of the initial impacts to esthetics is notjustified. Plant communities that support weedyspecies are usually esthetically unpleasant as well,and the conversion process should be viewed as animprovement.

Plant manipulation procedures are a part of theimprovement process. Sites dominated by weedy an-nuals or supporting unwarranted numbers of woodyspecies should be regarded as disclimax conditions.Restoration of these areas will ultimately enhanceall resources.

Certain steps may be taken to limit visual impacts,particularly when extensive changes are proposed.Treatments can be used that retain some plants inappropriate areas. Treatments can be laid out in amosaic design to lessen visual impact. Treatmentsthat result in straight lines and square corners are notrecommended. Treatments can also be conducted overa period of years to stagger the number of acres treatedat one time, and allow some sites to recover satisfacto-rily before further treatment is initiated.

Sites located on similar aspects can be treated at thesame time leaving areas on different aspects for latertreatment. If this is done, areas treated at any onetime should be large enough to support the increaseduse that is normally imposed on new seedings. Inaddition, restoration measures should be confined tothe areas needing treatment. Attempts to appeaseesthetic concerns should not result in inappropriateareas being treated simply because they are less vis-ible, and problem areas left untreated because of highvisibility.

A variety of herbaceous and woody species can andshould be seeded in most areas to provide initial coverand herbage. Many native herbs and some shrubs thatare released when weeds are removed will recoverquickly. In almost all situations, the recovery of desir-able natives can be encouraged to effectively enhancethe initial cover. Chaining, railing, and burning canbe used to stimulate regrowth and improve vigor ofcertain species through the removal of weedy compe-tition. Antelope bitterbrush, snowbrush ceanothus,blue elderberry, chokecherry, Gambel oak, and RockyMountain maple are but a few of the shrubs thatrespond quickly. Quick recovery under more aridcircumstances is often more difficult to achieve, butseedings of big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, winterfat, andfourwing saltbush grow quickly and can be used tolessen initial visual impacts.

Site renovation programs are often conducted to rec-tify and protect highly valuable onsite and associatedoffsite resources. Important watersheds often requiretreatment to maintain downstream values. Wildlifehabitat projects may be required to stabilize gameherd productivity, reduce heavy animal losses thatoccur during harsh winters, and prevent trespassdamage to agricultural crops. The related resourcevalues of most range and wildland projects are impor-tant, and few restoration projects are developed tosatisfy or benefit one resource.


Richard StevensSteven B. Monsen

9Chapter

When planning a restoration or rehabilitation project, properequipment selection should be a high priority. Equipment shouldbe selected that is adapted to the treatment site, and that whenproperly used, will fulfill and add to the objectives of the treat-ment. Equipment should be economical and ecologically sound.

Basic equipment available and commonly used in range andwildland restoration is described in this chapter along withprimary functions and principal areas of use. For the conve-nience of the reader, equipment has been grouped into threecategories.

Mechanical PlantControl

1. Seedbed preparation equipmentDisks and plowsChains and cablesPipe harrows, rails, and dragsLand imprintersRoot plows

2. Seeding equipmentDrillsBroadcast seeders, ground

broadcasting, aerial broadcasting,fixed-wing, helicopters

Seed dribblersBrillion seederSurface seederInterseedersHydro seeders

3. Special use equipmentTransplantersRoller choppersDozers and bladesTrenchers, scalpers, gougersFire ignitersHerbicide sprayersSteep-slope scarifier seeders


Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Seedbed Preparation Equipment___

Disks and Plows

Disks and plows are designed to turn over soil andsurface debris, kill existing vegetation, and prepare aseedbed (table 1).

Moldboard Plow—Plows with large curved bot-toms (moldboards) with blades or shears and largecurved wings above. Each moldboard can be indepen-dently spring-loaded to enable each bottom to risewhen obstructions are encountered.

Disk Plow—Consists of a single gang of a few toseveral disks on a frame supported by wheels. Eachdisk is slanted at an angle to the vertical, with aseparate bearing and frame attachment.

Brushland Plow—A specially designed rangelanddisk. The brushland plow consists of seven pairs of

opposite, opposing disks attached to spring-loadedarms that are connected to a heavy duty frame sup-ported by three wheels. Each pair of disks is indepen-dently suspended (fig. 1) (Larson 1982).

Off-Set Disk—Two rows or gangs of disks are set atan angle to each other (fig. 2) (Brown 1977; Larson1982). Angles are adjustable. Disks cut in two direc-tions, turning over soil and vegetation both ways.Disks can be smooth or cutout (table 1).

Disk-Chain—An anchor chain, with cutout disksconnected to every other link (fig. 3). Varying lengthsof disk-chains are connected to either end of a doubleroller bar, forming an “A” with the apex forward andthe roller bar back. A spreader bar is connected fromthe center of the roller bar to the apex. The length ofthe spreader bar determines the angle of the chainsand disks. Chains are connected to each other; theroller bar is connected by swivels (Wiedemann 1985).

Table 1—Description, primary areas of use, and limitations of some major seedbed preparation equipment.

Equipment Description Primary area of use Limitations

Disk-plow Single gang of a few to several Deep plowing of rock-free and debris- Restricted to fairly rock-free anddisks mounted on a frame. free soil. Controls deep rooted plants. large debris-free sites. Slow speed.

Large amount of power requiredto operate.

Brushland plow Pairs of disks connected to Shallow plowing on smooth, rough, Will not control sprouting shrubs.independently suspended spring- rocky, and uneven terrain. Controls Difficult to transport. Operationalloaded arms. Arm connected to grasses, forbs, and nonsprouting speed is slow.heavy duty frame with wheels. shrubs. Low maintenance costs.

Off-set disk Two rows or gangs of disks set First gang of disks turn soil and Cannot be operated in soil withat an angle to each other. vegetation. Second gang turns large rocks and on slopes over

soil and vegetation in opposite 30 percent. Fairly slow operationaldirections. Vegetation is cut up speed.and broken. Controls most grasses,forbs, and small nonsproutingshrubs. Works well on dry, heavy,and moderately rocky soils.

Smooth anchor Anchor chain weighing Moderate soil scarification. Uproots Will not control sprouting shrubs. chain 40 to 160 lb per link, 90 to and breaks off trees and shrubs and A less than acceptable job of killing

350 ft long, with swivels on releases understory vegetation. Covers nonsprouting shrubs and trees. Willeither end and sometimes seed. Cost per acre to operate is ride over young, flexible trees.in the middle. moderate. Can be operated on uneven

rocky terrain. Ideal for removing trees,releasing understory shrubs, grassesand forbs, and covering seed.

Ely-anchor Anchor chain weighing Uproots and breaks off trees and Has tendency to hook and drag chain 40 to160 lb per link, 90 to shrubs. Releases understory trees, and rolls downed trees and

350 ft long, with steel bars vegetation. Percent kill of shrubs shrubs to the middle of the chain.or railroad rails welded cross and trees is higher than with a This lifts the chain off the ground,ways to chain links. Swivels smooth chain. Does an excellent resulting in poor soil scarification.are attached at either end job of scarifying soil surfaces and Can uproot and kill some understoryand throughout. covering seed. Can be operated on vegetation.

rough, rocky terrain. Cost to operateis moderate.

(con.)



Dixie sager Anchor chain weighing 40 to Uproots and breaks off trees and shrubs. Does not work well in full pinyon-160 lb per link, 90 to 350 ft long, Releases understory vegetation. Does juniper stands. Trees are hookedwith railroad rail welded to each an excellent job of uprooting and killing by the railroad rail and are draggedside of each link horizontal to big sagebrush, scattering smaller pinyon along. This lifts the chain off thethe link. Crown of rail welded and juniper, and scarifying the soil. Covers ground and results in poor sagebrushnext to link. Swivels are attached seed. Can be operated on rough, rocky kill and soil scarification.at either end and throughout. terrain. Cost of operation is moderate.

Cables Cable 1.5 to 2 inches thick, Will uproot larger trees, slightly scarify Percent kill of trees is lower than with100 to 550 ft long, with swivels soil surface and cover seed. Can be smooth, Ely, or Dixie-sager anchorat both ends and throughout. used on rocky, uneven terrain. Cost chains. Soil is poorly scarified.

of operation is low. Ideal for removingscattered large trees and releasingunderstory shrubs.

Pipe harrow Spiked pipes trailed behind a Scarifies soil surface, removes small Does not control plants other thanspreader bar. Pipes are attached brittle shrubs, covers seed. Ideal for brittle shrubs. Soil scarification isto spreader bar by swivels at interseeding desirable species into limited on compacted soil.equal intervals along bar. sparse vegetation stands. Works well

on rocky land and uneven terrain. Costof operation is low. Seeding can occurconcurrently.

Land imprinter Cylinder or drums with various Operation on rough, rocky, and brush Does not work well in dense shrubs orconfigurations, sizes, and shapes covered terrain on most soil types. grass communities or on compactedof angle iron welded to the drum Creates small depressions. Seeds and rocky soil.surface. Seed dispensers may are deposited into depressions in abe attached to frame-tow bar firm seedbed. Cost of operation iscombination. moderate.

Root-plow Straight or V-shaped blade attached Used to undercut undesirable grasses, Not adapted to shallow, rocky,to shanks. Shanks are attached to forbs, shrubs, and small trees in soils steep, or wet areas. Kill of sproutinga trailing draft or arm or tow bar, free of large rocks. Works well in dry and rhizomatous species may be low.dozer blade, or dozer frame. soils. Cost of operation can be high.

Table 1 (Con.)

Equipment Description Primary area of use Limitations

Figure 1—Brushland plow.

Figure 2—Off-set disk.



Only one tractor is required to operate a disk-chain.Seeding and disking can occur simultaneously. Broad-cast seeders can be connected to the roller bar on atrailing trailer. Seed boxes have been placed over theroller bars.

Principal Areas of Use—Disks are designed tokill plants by turning over sod, vegetation, and debris;and for preparing a seedbed. Disk plowing has theadvantage of leaving plant material at or near the soilsurface. Offset disks and moldboard plows are welladapted to fairly deep soils with few large rocks anddebris. Offset disks are fairly effective on moderatelyrocky soils taking out small and medium shrubs, butnot effective when worked in large shrubs and treesthat have large woody stems and heavy roots.

The brushland plow was developed specifically forrange and wildlands. It is well suited to rocky, rough,and uneven terrain. This plow does a good job ofkilling low growing nonsprouting shrubs. Each set ofdisks, being independently suspended, will lift upand go over rocks and debris leaving the other sets inthe ground.

The disk-chain is designed for use on smooth, rough,uneven, and rocky terrain in all vegetative typesranging from grass communities to large shrubs andsparse stands of small trees. Width of treatment isdetermined by width of the roller bar. Roller bars varyfrom 24 to 46 ft (7.3 to 14 m) wide. Width of roller barsand length of chain determine disk angle and dis-tances between disk cutting points. If complete dis-turbance and vegetation turnover is desired, spreaderbar or chain length is increased, causing the angle ofthe chain to the roller bar to be readjusted. When itis desirable to have some area undisturbed(interseeded), spreader bar or chain length is de-creased. Care must be taken in extending the spreaderbars too far. If the angle between the spreader barsand the chain exceeds 30∞, excessive wear to thecomponents will result. Broadcast seeding can occursimultaneously with disk chaining from a broadcastermounted on a trailing trailer (fig. 3A) that throws theseed forward behind the disks and ahead of the rollerbars that covers the seed. Drill boxes can be mounteddirectly over the roller bars that deposit the seeddirectly onto the roller bar, and subsequently in frontof the roller bar that cover the seed and turns up theseedbed (fig. 3B). The disk-chain is an ideal piece ofequipment for large sites, strips, and localized siteseeding in sparse trees and shrub stands. The disk-chain does an excellent job in reducing the density ofcheatgrass and perennial species.

Chains and Cables

Cables and anchor chains and modified anchor chainsare generally pulled between two crawler tractors forthe purpose of removing or thinning trees, shrubs, andgrasses and for covering seed (table 1).

Figure 3—Disk-chain. (A) Seed broadcast withelectric powered cyclone seeder. (B) Disk-chainwith seed boxes mounted above roller bar.

A

B

Cables—The steel cable is 1.5 to 2 inches (3.8 to5 cm) thick and 100 to 550 ft (30.5 to 168 m) long.Swivels are required at both ends and are sometimesinstalled in the center of the cable. They are necessaryso that the cable does not unwind, and to permit thecable to rotate and keep itself relatively free of trashand debris.

Anchor Chain—A destroyer or cruiser-type anchorchain, 40 to 160 lb (13.6 to 72.6 kg) per link (fig. 4)(Davis 1983b; Larson 1982; Roby and Green 1976)varies in length from 90 to 350 ft (27 to 107 m).Swivels (fig. 5) (Larson 1982) are required at both endsand are recommended additionally, at least in themiddle of the chain.

Ely Chain—This device consists of anchor chainswith steel bars (fig. 5). Hard surfaced railroad rails areI-beam (fig. 5 and 6) welded crossways to every link,every other link, or every third link (Larson 1980). Barlength will vary with link size but should extend 4 to6 inches (10 to 15 cm) beyond both sides of the link.Swivels are required on both ends of the chain andintermediately throughout the chain. Chain length



Figure 4—Smooth anchor chain.

Figure 5—Swivel within an Ely chain.

varies from 90 to 350 ft (27 to 107 m) long. The ten to15 lead links at either end of the chain are left smoothbecause this part of the chain is not in contact withthe ground.

Dixie Sager—An anchor chain with a railroad railwelded to each side of each link, horizontal to the link(fig. 7) (Larson 1982). Length of rails depends on linklength. The rail should be approximately one-half thetotal length of the link. Rails are welded with thecrown of the rail next to the link, and base of rail out.Swivels are required on both ends of the chain andintermediately throughout the chain. Chain lengthvaries from 90 to 350 ft (27 to 107 m). Ten to 15 smoothlead links are on each end of the chain.

Disk-Chain—See “Disks and Plows” section,“Disk-Chain” paragraph.

Principal Areas of Use—Anchor chains and cablesare primarily used to uproot trees and shrubs, tocreate seedbeds, to top and prune large shrubs, and tocover seed (table 1). Some grasses and forbs can also beuprooted. Use is also limited due to concerns forprotection of archaeological sites, damage to nontar-get vegetation, and aesthetic and hydrologic impacts.

Anchor chains and cables are pulled behind twocrawler tractors traveling parallel to each other. To

Figure 7—Dixie Sager. Anchor chain withrailroad rails welded horizontally to both sidesof each link.

Figure 6—Ely chain. Anchor chain with railroadrails welded crossways on every other link.



be effective, chains and cables should not be draggedor stretched taut, but must be dragged in a loose,J-shaped (fig. 8), U-shaped, or half circle pattern. Thehalf-circle configuration provides the greatest swathwidth, lowest percentage kill, and should only be usedin mature, even-age tree stands. Kill and disturbanceincreases as the width of the J- or U-shaped patterndecreases. Chain length to swath width ratio of 2:1 to3:1 are commonly used. As the proportion of youngtrees and shrubs increase, chaining width shoulddecrease in order to achieve the greatest amount ofkill. Individual chain link weight varies from 40 to160 lb (18 to 72.6 kg). The heavier the link, the betterthe chain stays on the ground, and the higher thepercentage kill.

Chaining commonly occurs on slopes of up to 50 per-cent grade (Vallentine 1980). Chaining can occur upand down or across the slope without adversely affect-ing watershed values.

Success in removing trees and shrubs varies withspecies composition, age structure, density, and rootinghabit. Trees in mature, even-age stands can be killedmore effectively and efficiently than in uneven-agestands. Young trees less than 48 inches (1.2 m) tallmay not be killed with single or double chainingbecause the chain may ride over them. Small juniperscan be uprooted and killed more effectively thansmall pinyons that tend to be more flexible thanjunipers. Sprouting trees and shrubs may resproutfollowing chaining. Anchor chains can be used toimprove esthetics and livestock movement in burnedtree and shrub stands, particularly those with a largenumber of standing dead trees and shrubs.

Chaining generally does not increase runoff or ero-sion. The opposite generally happens; runoff and

Figure 8—Uprooting pinyon and juniper withan anchor chain. For maximum results chainshould be dragged in a loose J-shape as isbeing done.

erosion are decreased through increased retentionand detention of surface water. This is the result of thelarge amounts of debris, trash, shrubs, litter, and treesthat are deposited and left on the soil surface and theestablishment of seeded vegetation. Downed trees,shrubs, and plants increase ground cover and protectthe soil from wind and water erosion. In addition, theyprovide favorable microenvironments for plant estab-lishment, growth, and protection. Live standing treesprovide only canopy cover, very little ground cover,and little, if any, retention and detention of surfacewater.

Percent kill and amount of soil disturbance in-creases with link size. Ely chains do a good job ofscarifying soil and preparing a desirable seedbed. TheEly chain has a tendency to roll downed trees andshrubs to the center of the chain. Tree and shrub killis improved with an Ely chain over a smooth chain.

The Dixie sager was designed to uproot big sage-brush. It does an excellent job of uprooting sagebrushand scattered pinyon and juniper. The Dixie chain willdo a better job than a smooth chain of soil scarification,and of sagebrush, small juniper, and pinyon kill. TheDixie sager does not work well in full pinyon-juniperstands since the railroad rails tend to hook trees andcarry them along; this lifts the chain off the groundand reduces soil scarification and the number of treesand shrubs killed. Smooth chains are preferred whenthe objective is to release and open up tree and shrubcommunities such as big sagebrush, aspen, mahogany,serviceberry, Gambel oak, chokecherry, bitterbrush,cliffrose, winterfat, and shrubby eriogonum. Whenremoving trees and most shrubs, twice-over chainingis necessary. The first chaining completely uprootssome trees; however, many trees are not completelyuprooted and are laid down in the direction of chain-ing. The second chaining should occur in the oppositedirection, this generally uproots and tips the downedtrees over. Most shrubs that come in contact with thechain are uprooted or broken off near ground level.Twice-over chaining increases percent kill and top-ping of shrubs. Seeding should occur between chainings,as the second chaining covers the seed. If single chain-ing occurs, seeding should take place prior to chaining.

First and second chainings can follow each other inthe fall, with seeding occurring between chainings.Another technique is to chain once during the summermonths. Uprooted and partially uprooted trees areallowed to dry before seeding and the second chainingis done in the fall. The dry trees and limbs break upeasily and are fairly well scattered over the areas withthe second chaining. Trees, limbs, and dry foliagecreate excellent microclimates for seedling establish-ment. Once-over chaining may be adequate whensufficient understory remains, trees are mature, andseeding is not planned. Cabling is less effective thanchaining in removing trees; however, cables disturb



the understory less. Use of a cable of lighter link chainis satisfactory where it is desirous to leave some treesor shrubs or to remove dead material from old shrubsand stimulate new growth.

It is generally advantageous to leave downed treesin place and not pile or burn them. Some advantagesto leaving trees in place include: (1) increased amountof infiltration by increased retention and detention ofsurface water; (2) increased ground cover; (3) de-creased erosion; (4) cover maintained for wildlife;(5) big game and livestock movement onto the treatedarea is encouraged, resulting in more even distribu-tion and use; (6) provides shade for livestock and biggame; (7) decreased livestock trailing; (8) seedlingestablishment is improved, especially of shrubs, and(9) cost of piling and burning is eliminated. Someadvantages to removing trees are: (1) improved ve-hicular access; (2) enhanced access to all forage bygrazing animals; (3) lower rodent density; (4) reduc-tion in fire potential, and (5) improved esthetics.

Pipe Harrows, Rails, and Drags

Pipe harrows, rails, and drags are used to scarifysoil surfaces, prepare seedbeds, cover seed, thin orreduce shrub density, and to release shrubs by remov-ing top growth (table 1).

A pipe harrow consists of a spreader bar (usuallyrailroad rails) and trailing spiked pipes (fig. 9). Thespiked pipes are attached at equal distances alongthe spreader bar with swivels (Larson 1980, 1982).Cables or chains connect the spreader bar to a

Figure 9—Pipe harrow consisting of spreader-bar and trailing spiked pipes.

Figure 10—A drag consisting of an I-beam Elychain combination being used to thin sagebrushand cover seed.

tractor. Rails come in various configurations. An A-rail is a rigid frame with the apex forward (Larson1980, 1982). Rails consist of any number of tiers of railsconnected with chains or cables that are dragged atright angles to the direction of travel. Drags consists ofchain link fence, trees and shrubs drags, and combina-tions of rails and chains (fig. 10).

Principal Areas of Use—A pipe harrow can beused to uproot, break off, or thin shrubs; scarify soil;and cover seed (fig. 11). A pipe harrow can be veryuseful for preparing a seedbed and interseeding desir-able species into sparse grass, forb, shrub, and treestands, and for removing and thinning plants andseeding rocky and otherwise inaccessible areas.Weight of pipe harrows can be increased by filling the

Figure 11—Pipe harrow and Hansen seeddribbler being used to seed shrubs andcover herb seeds to improve interspacesbetween pinyon and juniper trees andGambel oak. Herbs were broadcast seededprior to treatment.



spiked pipes with cement; increasing weight increasesscarification. Rails are used for removing shrubs andcovering seed. Rails are less effective than pipe har-rows. Chain link fence, trees or shrubs drags are usedto prepare a seedbed and to cover seed. Broadcastseeding can take place simultaneously with pipe har-rowing, railing, and with drags.

Land Imprinter

The land imprinter (fig. 12) was developed byUSDA Agricultural Research Service for coveringbroadcast seeds and creating microdepressions inthe soil to improve moisture collection and infiltra-tion (Dixon 1980). The equipment was designed tooperate on untilled surfaces, and can be used to treatburns, or other disturbances where remnant vegeta-tion should be retained (table 1).

The land imprinter consists of cylinders or rollersmounted on a single axle. The axle is attached to a steeltubular or pipe frame with a tongue for pulling. Cylin-der surfaces have various configurations, and sizes,and shapes of angle iron welded to the surface of eachdrum. Angle irons make indentations or imprints inthe soil (Larson 1980). Cylinders or rollers can beconstructed from discarded asphalt rollers or similaritems (Johnson 1982). The cylinders can be filled withwater to increase weight and allow for deeper im-prints. Broadcast seeders can be mounted on theframe assembly to dispense seed over the imprints;or a grain box can be mounted in front of the rollerswith seed being distributed on the surface and im-pacted into the soil by the imprinter. The imprinteris commonly about 10 ft (3 m) wide, with individualangle irons 6 to 10 inches (15 to 25 cm) deep withvertical lengths between 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m) long. A60 to 125 hp tractor is required to tow most landimprinters.

Figure 12—Land imprinter equipped with anelectric broadcast seeder.

Principal Areas of Use—The land imprinter isdesigned to be towed over burned and low staturebrush and herbaceous vegetation where other controlmeasures are not used. The weighted cylinders areable to crush and compact standing vegetation, pro-viding litter and surface protection. However,Haferkamp and others (1985) reported that bothregular drill seeding and deep furrow drill seedingwere more successful than imprint seeding on anunprepared Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurberneedlegrass site. Imprint seeding is practical on siteswhere weed competition is low, and excessive debrisdoes not interfere with seed placement.

The imprinter is well suited for seeding on loose,unstable seedbeds and barren surfaces left after a fireor light disking. Impressions can be created in the soilto reduce soil movement and deterioration of theseedbed. However, imprinting cannot eliminate soilerosion on all sites for extended periods. The V-shapedfurrows or inverted pyramids are effective in collect-ing moisture and creating variable seedbed condi-tions that extend the germination period, and oftentend to favor seedling success. The various surfaceconfigurations result in small furrows aligned at differ-ent directions, creating different microsites that maybenefit the establishment of multispecies seedings.

Haferkamp and others (1985) found that seedlingestablishment on loose soil was greatest from broad-cast seeding followed by imprinting, and that imprint-ing prior to seeding was not as effective. These inves-tigators found imprint seeding more successful thandrill seeding of areas disked prior to seeding. Theseresults may not be universally applicable.

Placement of most seeds into a firm seedbed usuallyimproves seedling establishment. Small seeds gener-ally benefit from shallow seeding. The land imprinterlends itself to this type of seedings.

The imprinter appears useful on heavy texturedsoils where surface crusting can be expected, such asareas where black greasewood dominates. The ma-chine can be used to retain and incorporate litter intothe soil surface, reducing the potential for crusting.However, the machine should not be operated whensoils are moist, or during periods when excessivecompaction may occur. The machine is suited to seed-ing mine and roadway disturbance where loose, roughsurfaces are created following ripping of spoil piles,dump sites, and temporary roads.

The imprinter can operate on most rough sites thatare free of large rocks or obstructions. It can treatslopes up to 45 percent (Larson 1980), but it is not wellsuited to extremely irregular terrain. The land im-printer is not able to treat dense, erect shrubs withstems having a diameter greater than 3 to 4 inches (7.6to 10 cm). Larson (1980) reports the imprinter iscapable of production rates of over 4 acres (1.6 ha) perhour, which is somewhat less than conventional



drill seeding. However, equipment breakdown andmaintenance is generally less for imprinters. Imprintseeding can be used in conjunction with herbicidetreatments. Spraying often leaves standing litter anddead plants that interfere with most conventionaldrill seeding, but not with an imprinter.

The imprinter may also be used to aid in site im-provement by natural seeding. Imprinting of seedformed within the treated area can often be achievedif a sufficient seed reservoir is present and treatmentis completed at the proper season.

Root Plows

Root plows are used to uproot undesirable grasses,forbs, shrubs, and small trees (table 1).

A root plow is a straight or V-shaped blade attachedto two shanks (Larson 1980, 1982). Shanks are at-tached to a trailing draft arm or towbar, which areattached to the rear of a crawler or rubber tiredtractor. Shanks can be attached to dozer blades, dozerframes, or as a front-end tractor attachment. Finsmay be attached to the top of the blade.

Primary Areas of Use—Shearing blades are pulledor literally pushed through the subsoil at desirabledepths, cutting off and uprooting most vegetation tothe cutting depth. Fins attached to the top of thecutting blade provide some vertical cutting action andcan move severed roots and root crowns to the surface.Plants with severed roots generally die from lack ofwater, and plants whose roots are exposed die ofdesiccation. Hot dry periods are the ideal time to rootplow. Rate of kill is generally higher in loose soils.More power is required to root plow in hard, dry soilthan in damp soils. Plants are, however, less likely toreestablish in dry soils (Larson 1980).

Root plowing kills most desirable and undesirableshrubs and nonrhizomatous grasses and forbs. Seed-ing is generally required following root plowing.Broadcast seeding can be accomplished simulta-neously. Root plowing is limited to deep soils that arefairly free of rocks and obstructions.

Seeding Equipment______________

Drills

Drills dispense and place various types of seedin the most ideal situations for germination andestablishment. Drills adapted to range conditions re-quire most or all of the following characteristics:

1. Minimum drill breakage and maintenance underrough, rocky, and brushy conditions.

2. High clearance.3. Heavy duty frame.

4. Individually suspended planters that can adjustindependently to irregular planting surfaces.

5. Disk furrow openers that have depth regulators.6. Seed boxes that will accommodate seed of various

sizes and shapes, including seeds with appendages.7. Seed agitators in each seed box that will prevent

seed bridging and allow for even flow of seed to seedmetering devices.

8. Precise metering devices for each seed box.9. Baffles in seed boxes to maintain even seed

distribution.10. Devices for accurate and rapid setting of seeding

rate.11. A seed metering device that will disperse fluffy,

plumbed, or trashy seed when these types of seed areused.

Seeding multiple species with varying sizes,shapes, and surface characteristic requires multipleseed boxes, each with differing seed metering devicesand rates. Seeding depth requirements also vary be-tween species. Some modifications to, and incorpora-tion of equipment to facilitate these requirementshave occurred. A variety of drills are available; how-ever, all have some but very few possess all of theabove required characteristics.

Primary Areas of Use—The Rangeland drill(fig. 13) was designed by the Forest Service specifi-cally for rangeland use (Larson 1982; Roby and Green1976; USDA Forest Service 1967; Young and McKenzie1982). This drill possesses many desirable character-istics. It is well adapted to seeding rough, rocky ter-rain; however, breakage and down time can result inareas with heavy brush and trash. Some of the manyimprovements and modifications made to the Range-land drill (Young and McKenzie 1982) have resulted in

Figure 13—Three Rangeland drills with dragpipes and depth bands.



the development of the deep furrow drill. Specialadaptations are available to seed fluffy and trashyseed (Laird 1980). Depth bands (fig. 14) are fairlyeffective in regulating seeding depth except in loosesoils. The deep furrow Rangeland drill is especiallyeffective in creating water catchment impressions.Rangeland drills come in a number of models andsizes. Service, parts (USDA Agricultural ResearchService 1967), and operation (USDI Bureau of LandManagement 1976) manuals are available.

The Truax drill seeder (fig. 15) incorporates manydesirable characteristics plus all the features of theRangeland drill with the exception of high clearance.It is designed to seed rangeland sites and roughterrain where dense litter has not accumulated. Thewheels and disks are positioned for planting usinghydraulic cylinders. The drill has been designed totransfer weight from the machine to the ground engage-ment planters through elastometer torsion knuckles,unlike units using mechanical linkage. This has re-duced breakage and eliminated regular repairs.

The Truax drill has three different seed boxes de-signed to accommodate seeds of different sizes and

Figure 14—Individually suspended arm on aRangeland drill. Disk furrow openers areequipped with depth bands and a drag chain.

shapes. Seed metering is independently regulated foreach seed box. A front mounted seed box is designed toplant small hard seeds. A second box is used to plantfluffy or trashy, lightweight seeds, and the third seedbox is used to plant larger grain-size seeds. Seeds aremetered through the small seed box and the grain-sizeseed box using a fluted feed regulator. Fluffy seeds areremoved from the seed box by picker wheels, whichremove and deposit a specific amount of seed. Thepicker wheel is driven by a chain and sprocket systemthat is attached to a ground wheel. Seeding rates arecontrolled by changes in the sprockets, through use ofa bicycle-type derailer. The fluffy seed box contains anauger type agitator to assure uniformity in seedingrates. Pin agitators are mounted over the seed gatewithin the large seed box to provide uniform move-ment of seed. Under harsh conditions the machinerequires 5 hp per planter row to effectively operate.Seed boxes are positioned directly over the drop tubes,which eliminate plugging of the seed in the tubes.

Seed slots or furrows are created by one leadingconcave, notched, no-till disk that is mounted on aslight angle. Seeds are directly placed in the soil, andcompacted with a press wheel. A V-shaped cast ironpress wheel is available and is used in hard soils tobreak up clods. A more universal type pneumatic presswheel is also available, and is better suited for wet ormoist sites as mud does not accumulate on the wheels.

Depth bands are available and can be mounted orremoved from each disk with four nuts. Differentdepth bands can be used to regulate planting depthsranging between 0.25 to 2.0 inches (0.6 to 5 cm).

The Truax drill is an improvement over the Range-land drill as it provides three different seed boxes thatcan be independently regulated to meter seeds ofdifferent shape and condition. Bridging of seed in theseed tubes has been eliminated. Depth bands aremuch easier to remove or exchange, and better control

Figure 15—Truax drill with three seed boxesand three sets of drops that can seed threedifferent seed mixes or species at the sametime at different rates and depths.



of planting depths is maintained. The press wheelsprovide a better, firm, and compacted seedbed. Repairand operation costs are much less due to a new designof the supporting weight of the unit.

A number of reclamation and no till drills have beendeveloped in the past 10 years. Each has their owncharacteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Drillsthat have shown application on various range andwildland conditions include: Oregon press drill, Hori-zon (fig. 16), Tye (fig. 17), Haybuster, Great Plains,and Amazon (fig. 18) no till, stubble, and pasture drill.

The Rangeland and Truax drills are well adapted toseeding areas that have been cleared of trees andshrubs or burned. These drills have the capacity toseed many rangeland species out of one to three seedor fertilizer boxes or both (fig. 19).

Figure 16—Horizon drill with four press wheelsdown and 10 press wheels in the up position.Press wheels can aid in seedling establishment ofsome species. Species are separated in seedboxes according to seeding requirements.

Figure 18—Amazon no-till drill.

Figure 17—Tye drill with four seed boxes anddrops. Individual species or groups of speciescan be seeded at differing depths and rates andwith or without press wheels.

Figure 19—Mixture of grasses, forbs, and fourwingsaltbush seeded with the Rangeland drill. Fourwingsaltbush was seeded through separate drops, inde-pendent of grasses and forbs.

The inability to regulate seeding depth, especiallyin loose soils on undulating topography, and withsurface and shallow seeded species, is a major problemwith the Rangeland drill. Seeding depth, especiallyshallow seeding, cannot be properly regulated. Seedsare deposited and covered in the bottom of furrowscreated by the disk-furrow opener. In loose soils thefurrow generally fills in with soil, covering the seedeven deeper. Drills being pulled uphill will generallyseed deeper than when pulled on the level, and shal-lower when going down hill. Many wildland speciesrequire surface seeding or very minimal seed coverage(fig. 20). Most species are, however, ideally seeded 1⁄4 to3⁄8 inches (0.6 to 0.9 cm) deep. Most drills do not havethe capacity to seed at these shallow depths. TheTruax drill, however, does provide precise seedingdepth and rate of seeding capacity. Drop tubes onmany drills can be pulled from between and placedbehind the furrow openers, so the seed will be depos-ited on disturbed soil.

Seeding rate adjustments on most drills are ratedfor small grains. Care must be taken to ensure thatproper seeding rates occurs. Many wildland specieshave small seed, and when seeded singly may require



being mixed with a carrier such as rice hulls. Indi-vidual species or mixtures can be seeded down onedrop or a group of seed drops by partitioning seedboxes according to needs.

Stumps, downed trees, tree limbs, large shrubs,trash, large rocks, gullies, and moderately steep slopescan limit the use of many drills. Multiple hitchesthat accommodate two or three Rangeland drillshave been developed (fig. 20) (Larson 1980).

Most no till and reclamation drills have heavy dutyframes, individually suspended planters that adjustindependently, multiple seed boxes, precise seedingrange and depth adjustments, the ability to handlefluffy, plumed, and smooth seed of many sizes, andpress wheels. They do not have sufficient clearance tooperate on rocky sites, or sites with downed trees andother debris, or in gullies.

Prepared sites and semiwet and irrigated pasturescan be effectively seeded and interseeded with manyno-till drills (Bauder and others 1985).

Conventional grain drills are not well adapted tomost range and wildland conditions. They are gen-erally too lightly built; planters are not individuallysuspended, and many rangeland species will not flowevenly through their metering devices. In addition,the seeding depth regulators may be inadequate, andmany species will be seeded too deep.

Broadcast Seeders

These devices broadcast seed by means of a bloweror rotary spreader. There are two basic types of broad-casters, those that employ a blower or air source, andthose that employ some type of rotary wheel to distrib-ute seed.

Principal Areas of Use—Broadcast seeding canbe an economical means of seeding large, as well assmall areas and inaccessible sites where other equip-ment cannot function. Consequently many extensive

Figure 20—Rangeland drills followed bysagebrush seeders and chain drags. Speciesrequiring seed coverage are put throughRangeland drills. Species that require surfaceor near-surface seeding are run through thesagebrush seeders.

and vital wildlands can only be seeded by broadcastseeding.

Broadcasting is an effective means of uniformlydistributing seed; however, scarification is required inmost cases to incorporate seed into the soil. In only afew instances can seed be broadcast planted andexpected to establish well on an unprepared seedbed.Broadcasting onto a tilled or roughened surface can besuccessful if natural soil sloughing occurs enough tobury the seed. For some species a firm seedbed isnormally required to reduce surface evaporation andprovide good seed-soil contact. Broadcast seeding alonenormally does not achieve these results.

Aerial or ground broadcast seeding normally re-quires more seed than drilling. Approximately 33 to50 percent more seed is recommended for broadcastplanting. With proper seed coverage, most grasses,broadleaf herbs, and some shrubs can be successfullybroadcast seeded. Where costly and scarce seeds arebeing used, they should be planted only where theyhave the best chance to establish.

Small seeded species are often planted too deep withdrill seeding. Soil compaction and crusting that canoccur with drill seeding is generally not a problem withbroadcast planting. In addition, broadcast seeding,when compared to drill seeding, does not dislodge orimpair existing plants and allows for quick recovery ofnative and onsite species. Rodent seed predation andinsect damage is generally less with broadcast seedings.Drill seeding occurs in rows, which rodents tend tofollow.

Seeds have been pelletized or coated in an attemptto increase planting success and to eliminate the needof soil scarification. To date, these treatments have notproven effective.

Ground Broadcasting

This is a method for uniformly broadcasting seedfrom handheld or vehicular mounted seeders. Seed isgenerally distributed by means of a rotary wheel. Anairstream has been employed in a few ground seeders(McKenzie and others 1981).

Ground broadcasters can be operated manually by atractor’s track or by hydraulic, gasoline, or electricmotors (fig. 21). They can be mounted on trucks,trailers, or tractors and other prime movers, andattached to various types of seedbed preparation equip-ment. A new concept in hand broadcast seeders hasbeen developed by Truax Equipment Company calledthe Truax Seed Slinger. This unit is similar to older,conventional handheld broadcast seeders, however, itconsists of a rigid plastic seed box that is partitionedinto two compartments. Having two independentmetering systems, seeds of different size, density, andcondition can be uniformly distributed across roughterrain. It is designed to simultaneously distribute



Figure 21—Two electric broadcast seedersmounted on a crawler tractor that is pulling a pipeharrow.

fluffy seed kept in one seed box compartment withhard or smooth seed stored in the second compart-ment. Hard or smooth seeds drop directly out of thebottom of the seed box through an adjustable gateonto a rotating fan plate that throws or distributesthe seed. A wire agitator is mounted in the bottom ofthis seed box to prevent seed bridging and maintainuniform flow or movement of the seed. The agitator,consisting of a wire rod, is positioned in the bottom ofthe seed box and attached to a shaft driven by the handcrank. As the hand crank is turned by the operator, thewire rod is moved up and down driven by a cam lever.Seed in the fluffy seed box is metered by two pickerwheels, and deposited onto the rotating fan plate. Thepickers remove a selected amount of seed and seed-ing rates can be regulated by speed of hand cranking.Seed bridging is controlled or prevented by an augeragitator. Seed can be distributed from 4 to 25 ft (1.2 to7.7 m) depending upon seed density and wind condi-tions. The seeder can be mounted on all terrain ve-hicles, wheel tractors, or small cats and operated usinga 12-volt motor.

Principal Area of Use—Broadcast seeders areused to seed areas that are inappropriate for drillseeding, such as rocky or rough terrain, rocky soils,areas with large amount of debris, and small, irregu-larly shaped areas. Broadcast seeders can be usedalone or in conjunction with seedbed preparation equip-ment. Broadcast seeding coupled with anchor chain-ing, disk-chaining, pipe harrowing, land imprinting,drilling, scalping, harrows, or other seed coveragetreatments is often preferred over drill seeding. Costsare generally much lower than for drilling. Variableplanting depths are achieved by broadcasting whichoften favors mixed species plantings.

Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, forage kochia, and anumber of other species do best with surface seedingon a disturbed surface. Broadcast seeders have been

designed to facilitate surface seeding. With properequipment, multiple species mixtures with differingseeding requirements can be seeded simultaneously.

Aerial Broadcasting

Aerial broadcasting using fixed-wing aircraft andhelicopters is used to distribute seed over large areasand on rough terrain where slope steepness and ir-regularities, rock, or debris make drilling impractical(fig. 22).

Aerial broadcasting is usually the most economicalmethod for seeding large acreages. This technique isalso applicable for narrow corridors, roadways, dis-turbed right-of-ways, fence lines, and riparian drain-age ways. Aerial seeding is an effective method foruniformly distributing a variety of seeds.

Seed hoppers within the fuselage of the fixed-wingaircraft (fig. 23) hold the seed. An electric rotary orVenturi spreader distributes the seed. Agitatorswithin the seed hopper help to assure continuous anduniform seed flow. Small obstacles can obstruct seedpassage. Venturi-type spreaders use the propellerslipstream to carry the seeds out of the base of the

Figure 22—Broadcast seeding a chained pinyon-juniper area with a fixed-wing aircraft.

Figure 23—Loading seed into a fixed-wing aircraft seed hopper.



seeding device and spread them beneath the aircraft(Larson 1980).

Seeding rates are computed based on hopper gateopening, air speed, and elevation of the fixed-wingaircraft. Desired seeding rates can be achieved withfrequent monitoring. Ground spotters, “flaggers,” orautomatic flag dispersed equipment must be employedto assure uniform seed distribution. Fixed-wingedaircraft generally operate at an elevation of under50 ft (18.3 m), and at an air speed of 80 to 100 miles(128 to 160 km) per hour (USDA Agricultural ResearchService 1976). Under favorable wind conditions andlevel terrain, flight elevation may be between 15 to30 ft (4.5 to 9 m). Most fixed-wing aircraft have thecapacity to carry approximately 1,000 lb (455 kg) ofseed, but larger aircraft may carry three times thisamount. Seed is usually distributed on a strip varyingin width from 100 to 250 ft (31 to 77 m).

Helicopters equipped for aerial seeding have a sus-pended seedbin or an attached seed hopper thatholds 250 to 2,000 lb (113 to 907 kg) of mixed seed.Seeding width can vary between 25 to 250 ft (7.6 to76 m). Helicopters normally operate at 15 to 25 ft(4.5 to 7.6 m) above the ground at an airspeed between35 to 50 miles (56 to 80 km) per hour. Lower speedsmay be used to reduce seed drift and for precise seedplacement. Seedbins are equipped with agitators andblower spreaders to regulate seed flow and spread.

Principal Areas of Use—Fixed-wing aircraftbroadcasting is an effective technique for distribut-ing seed over large range and wildland sites (Na-tional Research Council 1981). Planting success isusually dependent upon time of seeding, seedbed con-ditions, and thoroughness of seed coverage. Aerialseeding is particularly useful for seeding mountainbrush, pinyon-juniper, and big sagebrush sites wherechaining is used to cover the seed. Burned areas can besuccessfully revegetated with aerial seeding followedby proper seed coverage, in some cases seed coveragemay not be necessary. Aerial seeding has also been asuccessful method of seeding desirable species into as-pen, Gambel oak, and other deciduous tree and shrubstands just prior to leaf fall. No further treatment isrequired as seeds are covered by the falling leaves.

Large acreages can be aerial seeded in an extremelyshort time period. Major revegetation projects canoften be more successfully seeded using aerial tech-niques and chaining than drill seeding, as plantingscan be completed during short planting periods orwindows when seedbed and weather conditions aremost favorable. Aerial seeding can be conducted whenwet soil conditions hamper drilling. Drill seeding oc-curs at a much slower rate than does aerial seeding.Many times it is impossible to physically get over largeacreages during critical seeding periods with drills.This can result in considerable acreages being seeded

out of season or totally omitted. With aerial broadcast-ing, seeding can be delayed until late fall or earlywinter, and then seeded in a relatively few days usingaircraft, chain, rail, or cable scarifiers.

Irregular seeding patterns can occur with aerialseeding where poor flagging or spotting occurs, andfrom wind drift. Irregularities in seed placement anddensity may not be too serious if there is a fair nativepopulation, as this allows for natural recovery ofnative species.

Aerial seeding is often the only appropriate tech-nique available for seeding deteriorated wildland sites,particularly when the terrain is inaccessible to motordriven vehicles. However, level and more gentle sitesare often selected for drill seeding. Consequently,areas requiring special or tailored treatment are oftenignored in favor of more conventional operating sys-tems on less important sites. Aerial seeding should berecognized as an appropriate method of seeding, andused in areas where drills have proven less effectiveand are more costly to use.

Fixed-wing aerial seeding requires access to a land-ing strip and loading site. Normally, aerial seeding ismuch less costly than drilling unless the aircraft mustbe transported a considerable distance, or a landingsite is not available close to the project. Aerial seedingmay be used as a means of “overseeding” or as one ofa number of methods used to seed a single site. Specieslike alfalfa, clover, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, smallburnet, or forage kochia can be successfully es-tablished by broadcasting on a rough seedbed. Thesespecies can be overseeded following drill seeding. Seedsthat germinate quickly and early in the spring areoften lost to frost if fall planted. Species that requirewinter stratification can be fall seeded with con-ventional equipment; species best adapted to springplanting can be aerially overseeded in spring at anappropriate date. Aerial seeding is also an effectivemethod of seeding different seed mixtures on specificsites.

Aerial seeding requires a number of field supportpersonnel, flaggers, and loaders. Seed must be pre-pared and available for rapid loading (fig. 24) andseeding. Seeding is often limited to early morninghours when flying conditions are most satisfactoryand safe. Winds over 10 miles (16 km) per hour cancreate unsafe seeding conditions.

Normal monitoring of wind conditions and plantingprocedures will help to increase the probability ofseeding success. Aircraft should not be allowed tooperate under less than favorable conditions. Aerialseeding can be done in such a short period that minordelays are insignificant.

Helicopters are usually selected over fixed-wingaircraft if irregular-shaped sites and variable terrainare seeded and when air strips are unavailable. Effec-tive seeding of right-of-ways, fence lines, steep slopes,



small areas, rocky terrain, and specific species place-ment can be accomplished with helicopters.

Helicopter seeding is recommended for plantinghigh elevation sites, streambanks, and roadwayswhere fixed-wing planes do not operate as safely orsatisfactorily.

Downdraft and wind can cause seeds of differentspecies to dissipate and fall separately, sometimescreating differences in stand composition and density.Variation in seeding and establishment is often advis-able, allowing for natural succession and spread ofdesirable species. Drift can be reduced by slowingair speeds and the distance from the seedbin to theground. Markers or flaggers can aid in more completeand even seed distribution.

Helicopters equipped with seedbins (fig. 25) orseed hoppers (fig. 26) that broadcast seed over largeand small areas are used in aerial broadcasting projects

Figure 24—Loading seed into a seed hoppersuspended from a helicopter.

that require more maneuverability than fixed-wingaircraft. They can also function more economicallywhen seeding small, irregular tracts or when preciseplacement of seed is required. Helicopters requiresmall landing pads, and thus can be used to seed siteswhere a conventional landing strip is not available toservice a fixed-wing aircraft.

Seed Dribblers

Seed dribblers deposit selected seed onto crawlertractor tracks (fig. 27). The seed is carried forward,dropped onto the soil, and pressed into a firmed seed-bed. Tractor-pulled seed dribblers deposit seed di-rectly into prepared seedbeds.

The Hansen seed dribbler (fig. 27A) and thimbleseeders (fig. 27B) (Larson 1980; Stevens 1978, 1979)are tractor-driven seeders, mounted on fenders ofcrawler tractors with drive wheels positioned on top ofand driven by tractor tracks. Seed is gravity fed onboth dribblers. A fluted shaft, similar to meteringdevices on most grain drills, moves the seed out of theHansen dribbler. Seeding rate is determined by seedsize and position of an adjustable gate over the flutedshaft. In the thimble seed dribbler, a spoked wheelwith small cups attached to spokes rotates through theseed, filling the cups with seed. Seed is dropped throughan opening and deposited on top of the tractor tracks.Seeding rate is determined by size of cups and numberof spokes with cups attached.

Seed is deposited on tractor tracks by both dribblers.Seed is then carried forward on the track and depos-ited on the ground where it is pressed into the soil. Theweight of the tractor buries the seed into a firmseedbed with the track cleates creating small water

Figure 25—Seed bins attached to a helicopter.Seed is dispersed by airflow.

Figure 26—Seeding small and irregular areas onrough terrain from a seed hopper suspended froma helicopter.



catchment depressions. Thimble seeders have beenmodified to operate in conjunction with scalpers and todispense seed within the scalp.

Primary Areas of Use—Dribblers are ideal forplanting species that require firm seedbeds or whoseseed is in short supply or extremely costly. The Hansendribbler, being gravity fed through a fluted shaft, doesnot handle fluffy, plumbed, or trashy seed well. TheThimble dribbler will handle all types of seed. Gener-ally, seedling establishment of shrubs and forbs isgreater when seeded through a dribbler than whenbroadcast or drilled. Species that require minimalcoverage, like rabbitbrushes, sagebrushes, asters,and forage kochia establish much better when dribbledthan when drilled. Dribblers are generally used inconjunction with other operations like chaining, ca-bling, and pushing trees and shrubs.

Depending on seed size, 0.25 to 1 lb of seed per acre(0.28 to 1.12 kg/ha) can be seeded through one dribble

Figure 27—(A) Seed dribbler and (B) thimbleseeder mounted on the fender of crawler trac-tors. The Drive wheel meters seed onto thetractor track which moves the seeds forward anddeposits them on the ground. Tractor weightburies the seed in a firm seedbed.

Figure 28—Brillion seeder.

during one-way chaining. Dribblers can be placed onboth tractor tracks and operated during both passesof a two-way chaining. If dribblers are only usedduring one chaining, the second chaining is preferred.

Brillion Seeder

The Brillion seeder (fig. 28) consists of a two-compartment seed box mounted above and betweentwo standard cultipackers. Each cultipacker consistsof closely spaced, V-shaped, grooved steel wheels.The grooves of the two cultipackers are offset. Thefirst cultipacker smooths and firms the seedbed andmakes small furrows. The fluted seed metering devicebroadcasts the seed between the cultipackers onto thecreated furrows. The second cultipacker, which isoffset, covers the seed in the original furrows andcreates new ones. The two compartments in the seedbox allow for seeding two types or mixes of seed.

Primary Areas of Use—The Brillion seeder isused to seed smooth areas. It creates an excellent firmseedbed and can seed at quite precise rates.

Surface Seeder

Surface seeders have been developed to accommo-date species that require surface, or near surfaceseeding. The surface seeders consist of a seed boxthat drops the seed onto a line of tires that gentlypush the seed into the soil surface (fig. 20).

Primary Areas of Use—Some species that requiresurface seeding on disturbed soil include the sage-brushes, rabbitbrushes, asters, and forage kochia.Surface seeders provide the means for depositingseed onto the surface of disturbed soil. Use is re-stricted to areas where a tractor can operate.

B

A



Interseeders

Interseeders are designed to seed desirable speciesinto existing vegetation with minimal disturbance.Interseeders consist of a one- or two-way scalper orfurrow opener and a heavy-duty seeder (Monsen 1980a,1979; Stevens 1983a,b, 1979; Stevens and others 1981)(fig. 29A,B). Seeders are driven by rotation of a presswheel. Seed is metered out by a fluted shaft or a spokedwheel with cups attached on the spoke ends. Scalp orfurrow depth can be regulated with a depth regulatorwheel or hydraulics of the tractor. Seed is covered bythe press wheel or drag chain.

The Truax single row seeder is designed to plantlarge irregular-shaped seeds, including acorns andnuts, in a single row. Seeds of different size can alsobe planted by exchanging the finger-pickers, whichremove seeds from the seed box. The seed box isdivided into three separate compartments. Seed ofdifferent species can be placed in each compartmentand metered independently to control the distance

Figure 29—(A) The scalper-interseeder consistsof a fire plow and Hansen shrub seeder. (B) Seed-ing bitterbrush and alfalfa into a sagebrush com-munity with a scalper-interseeder.

between seeds placed within the furrow. Consequently,seed placement within and between species can becarefully regulated.

A single disk is positioned in front of the machine,and when drawn into the soil, cuts the dense sod orsurface litter. A single shank is mounted directlybehind the disk opener and is drawn into the soil tocreate a seedbed or furrow. Gauge wheels are attachedto the machine to control planting depths. After seedsare deposited, one 16-inch press wheel is used tocompact the seedbed. The seeding mechanism is acti-vated by a drive chain through sprockets mounted onthe press wheels and the base of the seed box.

Primary Areas of Use—The use of interseeders isrestricted to soils that are fairly free of rock, roots, andstumps, and to terrain on which the tractor can safelyoperate. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs can be seededthrough interseeders with or without previous seed-bed preparation. Scalpers or furrow openers removeexisting competing vegetation and create water andsnow catchment basins (fig. 30). Interseeders are usedas a single unit, or two or more units can be mountedon a toolbar (fig. 31).

Fluted shaft seeders, unless modified with a drumagitator, will handle only smooth seed. Thimble typeseeders will plant all types of seed, including fluffy,plumed, or otherwise trashy seed.

Interseeders are used to establish desirable speciesin cheatgrass and other annual communities, mono-typic grass stands (fig. 32A,B), perennial communi-ties, burned areas, and disturbed sites. On these sites,establishment of seeded species can be superior tobroadcast and drill seeding.

The Truax single-row seeder can be used to interseedshrubs or herbs into established stands of sod or weedsand can be operated on any terrain on which a cat orwheel tractor can safely travel.

A

B

Figure 30—The scalper removes competitivevegetation and creates water and snowcatchment basins.



Figure 32—Grass stand scalped and seededwith desirable forbs and shrubs (A) 1 year and(B) 3 years following seeding.

Figure 31—Two shrub interseeders con-nected to single tool bar.

Hydroseeder

Hydroseeders (fig. 33) are designed to apply seed,fertilizer, soil amendments, and fiber mulch to the soilsurface in a hydraulic spray. Hydroseeders consist ofa truck or trailer, tank, pump, discharge nozzle, andengine. The tank is equipped with various types ofagitators to assure uniform mixing. The pump spraysthe mixture up to 200 ft (61 m). Interchangeablenozzles provide for various spray patterns and quan-tity of delivery. Nozzles are designed to rotate horizon-tally and vertically.

Principal Areas of Use—Hydroseeders are gen-erally used to seed steep slopes or very rocky areas.There are a number of disadvantages to hydroseeding.They include: (1) seed is not placed in the soil, (2) seedand seedlings can dry out, (3) some seedlings cannotgrow through the mulch, (4) seed can be damaged byagitators and pumps, (5) precocious germination canoccur as a result of moisture in the mulch, (6) seedingmay be done during unfavorable seeding periods, (7)expense, and (8) large water requirements.

Special Use Equipment __________

Transplanters

Transplanters are tractor-drawn implements thatscalp the soil surface and open a furrow. Barerootstock, wildings, cuttings, or container-grown plantsare placed in the furrow and soil are packed around theplant roots (fig. 34).

Transplanters consist of a heavy frame, a furrowopener, a set of packing wheels, an operator seat, and

A

B

Figure 33—Hydroseeding roadcuts and fills.



a place to store seedlings. A single-disk coulter, semi-automatic seedling placement device and scalper maybe installed on some machines. Transplanters aretowed or mounted on crawler or rubber tired tractorsand four-wheel drive vehicles. The furrow opener cutsopen a furrow in which the seedling root system isplaced. The packing wheels are angled inward toclose the furrow and compact soil around the roots ofthe transplant.

Principal Areas of Use—Shrubs make up themajority of plants that are transplanted on rangeand wildlands. However, grass, forbs, and trees arealso transplanted. While transplanting is fairly ex-pensive compared to direct seeding, it has its place.Transplanting can be economically utilized on criticalbig game, upland gamebird, and livestock ranges;disturbed sites; sites with high erosion potential. It isalso widely used in high esthetic value recreationalareas, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and riparian sites.

Bareroot stock, wildings, container-grown stock, andcuttings can all be transplanted successfully using atransplanter (McKenzie and others 1981; Stevens1979, 1980a,b; Stevens and others 1981b). Generally,bareroot stock and wildings are the most economical,producing the most established plants for dollarsexpended.

For best results, transplanting should occur in theearly spring when soil moisture content is high andchances for spring storms are greatest. Fall trans-plantings are less successful, primarily due to frostheaving and drying. Care must be taken to ensurethat packing wheels firmly pack soil around the rootsystem.

Transplanters can consistently plant 1,000 to1,500 plants per hour. Transplanters are restricted tosoil at least 18 inches (45.5 cm) deep that is free oflarge rocks, roots, and stumps. Transplanters must bebuilt heavy enough to meet adverse site conditions.

Figure 34—Transplanting big sagebrush wild-ings into a cheatgrass community during earlyspring when soil moisture is high.

Transplanters equipped with automatic pickup andplacement fingers have not proven practical withtransplants that have multiple or fibrous root systems(McKenzie and others 1981).

Survival rate varies with species. Species with fi-brous root systems survive much better than thosewith a single or few taproots.

Roller Chopper

Roller choppers are used to (1) push over, uproot,and chop up trees and shrubs with the main trunk atground level less than 6 inches (15.3 cm) diameter, (2)create seedbeds, (3) cover seed, (4) create water catch-ment basins, and (5) to stimulate shrubs by pruning to12 inches (30 cm) above ground level.

Roller choppers consist of a steel, 5 ft by 12 ft (1.5m x 3.7 m) diameter drum with 12 grader blades evenlyspaced and welded vertically around the outside of thedrum (fig. 35). Intake and drain plugs are installed toallow the drum to be filled with 800 to 900 gallons(3,000 to 3,400 L) of water. Steel frames, tongue, andhitch are attached to both ends of the drum.

Primary Areas of Use—As the roller chopper ispulled forward, the weight, combined with the cut-ter blades, tips over, uproots, chops up, and killstrees and shrubs with main stem diameters of lessthan 6 inches (15 cm). When pinyon and juniper haveinvaded grasslands, shrublands or chained areas, theroller chopper has been used successfully to removethem.

Broadcast seeding can occur ahead of, or simulta-neously with roller chopping. Seeds are pushed intothe ground and covered with soil and litter. Water andsnow catchments are created by the action of thecutter blades. Creation of a good seedbed, seed cover-age, litter for seedling protection, and moisture re-tention and increased water infiltration all combine

Figure 35—Roller chopper being used to killand cut up pinyon and juniper trees, create aseedbed, and cover seed.



for good germination and seedling establishment.Serviceberry, curlleaf and true mountain mahogany,bitterbrush, and cliffrose have all been stimulated bypruning with the roller chopper.

Dozers and Blades

Dozers and blades are widely used in range im-provement projects. They are used to remove treesand shrubs, pile brush and slash, scarify areas, con-struct roads, and dig trenches, firebreaks, and otherexcavations.

Dozers are used in a standard configuration; astraight concave blade solidly mounted to a crawler orrubber-tired tractor (Larson 1980). They can also bemodified as follows:

1. As a three-way dozer with multi-purpose dozerblade that is adjustable for height, tilt, angle, andpitch hydraulically (fig. 36) (Larson 1980).

2. As a brush, or forest rake with a special bladethat consists of vertical teeth generally with replace-able tips, or a vertical toothed implement that isattached to a standard or three-way blade (Larson1980; Roby and Green 1976).

3. As a hula dozer with a standard dozer blade withhydraulic side tilt and pitch that is often equippedwith four removable digger teeth spaced along theblade (a hinged push-bar attachment is available formounting above and in front of the blade).

4. With a shearing or clearing blade, a straight orV-shaped solid blade with straight or sharpened cut-ting edges along the bottom (Larson 1980).

Primary Area of Use—Blades are used to uproot,cut off, move, pile, and windrow trees and shrubs;build or clean roads, fences, and fire lines; constructtrenches, basins, and terraces; move and pile rocksand debris; prepare seedbeds and planting sites; andgrade and carry out general excavation.

Trenchers, Scalpers, and Gougers

Trenchers, fireplows, gougers, and furrowers areused to construct trenches, scalps, depressions, andfurrows for the purpose of intercepting runoff, collect-ing snow and precipitation, preventing erosion, re-moving competing vegetation and seed, creating aseedbed, and promoting plant establishment andgrowth.

In the case of double-disk contour and Rocky Moun-tain trenchers, one or two large disks are mounted ona crossbar or shank. Disks rotate hydraulically toallow for operation in two directions. Disks and cross-bars are hydraulically controlled and will adjust tothe contour of the site and depth and width of thedesigned trench (Larson 1980, 1982). Broadcast anddribbler seeders can be attached to these trenchers,allowing for seeding to take place concurrently (Stevens1978).

Another piece of equipment in this category is thefireplow, a V-shaped lister share with large diskslocated on each side of the share (plow) (fig. 29A)(Larson 1980). Where needed, a coulter can be at-tached in front of the lister share. A moldboard wingmay be attached behind either disk allowing for thetrench berm to be moved away from the trench edge.Browse seeders or thimble seeders can be connected tothe fireplow, allowing for seeding to occur simulta-neously (Monsen 1984, 1979; Stevens 1979).

Gougers consist of three to five half-circle bladesattached to solid arms that are spring loaded. Theblades are raised and lowered automatically, scoopingout depressions in a cyclic manner. Seed is broadcastinto the depression from a seed box mounted abovethe blades and arms (Knudson 1977).

Principal Areas of Use—Contour and RockyMountain trenchers, fireplows, and gougers are usedto construct trenches and scalp areas in a variety ofshapes, widths, and depths, depending on the posi-tioning of the disk, plow, or gouger. These implementsare used to reduce competition, remove unwantedseed, and create water and snow catchment basins.Scalped areas can be seeded or have grasses, shrubs,forbs, and trees transplanted into them. Monotypicstands of annual and perennials can be improved byremoving unwanted seed and vegetation, and at thesame time seed desirable species. Shrub density can bereduced and desirable species can be seeded or trans-planted into the depressions or scalps. The amount ofvegetation and seed removed depends on the widthand size of scalps and depressions. Width and depth ofscalps or depressions can affect seedling establish-ment and growth (Stevens 1985a,b). This equipmentis well adapted to smooth, nonrocky soils, but it canalso be used successfully on uneven, semirocky rangesites (Moden and others 1978b; Stevens 1978).

Figure 36—Three-way dozer reshaping astreambank.



Fire Ignitors

Fire ignitors are used for: (a) vegetation control, (b)fire management, and (c) control of fire. Aerial,handheld, and vehicle-mounted types are available.

Aerial ignitors are connected to or suspended fromhelicopters. The most widely used is the flying driptorch (helitorch) (fig. 37). The helitorch consists of anoil drum, solenoid valve, electrical fuel pump (gelmodels), glowplug, and controls. The oil drum holdsthe gel or gasoline-diesel mix. Fuel flow is by gravityor pump and is controlled by a solenoid. The glowplugignites the fuel as it leaves the torch. The helicopterpilot controls fuel flow and ignition, and can jettisonthe complete torch if necessary.

Another aerial ignition system is the ping-pong ballinjector (Larson 1980, 1982; Ramberg 1977). Ping-pong balls are loaded with potassium permanganateand when fed through a ball dispenser they are auto-matically injected with ethylene glycol and dropped.The chemical reaction produced by the two chemicalscoming together produces a flame. Ping-pong balldispensers are mounted on helicopters, and are elec-trically operated. They can be jettisoned by the pilot,and will dispense up to four ping-pong balls a second.Distance between balls on the ground varies with airspeed, altitude, and rate of ejection.

Backpack, handheld, vehicle and trailer-mountedteratorch, and drag-type drip torches are available.These consist of a fuel tank, wand, stem or boom todirect the flame and a fuel ignitor. Fuel is generally agel, but can be a diesel-gas mix.

Flame throwers, depending on size, are hand oper-ated or mounted on a vehicle or trailer. Pressurizedtanks, hose, and a nozzle are the major components ofa flame thrower. Fuel can be diesel, kerosene, or liquidpropane gas.

Fuse backfire torch or flares are commonly used.Plastic bags or milk carton type containers filled witha gel or diesel-gas sawdust mixtures are placed inareas to be burned and are ignited by a torch or flamethrower.

Principal Area of Use—Ignitors are dispersedaerially from ground rigs or by hand to ignite firesin fire management, slash clean up, and rangeimprovement.

The helitorch and teratorch are used extensively tostart and manage prescribed burns, start backfiresand burnouts, and make fire lines. The helitorch canbe used in otherwise inaccessible areas as well as inextensive accessible areas. Large areas can be ignitedin relatively short periods of time with these ignitors,allowing for better fire control and decreased costs.

A number of hand operated and vehicle- or trailer-mounted drip torches, and flame throwers are avail-able. The main drawback to these has been that smallcrews have difficulty firing large areas in the shorttime that favorable burning conditions are present.Large crews are generally uneconomical. Small, ir-regularly shaped burns, backfires, and burnouts aresometimes best managed with hand and vehicle oper-ated equipment.

Herbicide Sprayers

Liquid herbicides are most commonly applied onrangelands by broadcast spraying. Application is byground rigs, fixed-wing aircrafts, helicopters, and handsprayers (Ekblad and others 1979; Larson 1980;Vallentine 1989).

There are two types of ground rigs, boom andboomless. Boom sprayers are mounted on tractors,trucks, all terrain vehicles (fig. 38), trailers (fig. 39), orself-propelled chassis. A boom sprayer consists of a

Figure 37—Helitorch used to start a pre-scribed burn in a mountain big sagebrushcommunity. Figure 38—Boom sprayer mounted on an

all-terrain vehicle.



Figure 39—Rangeland boom sprayer. Booms mustbe mounted high enough to clear tall shrubs.

tank, pump, pressure gauge, and spring-loaded boomwith nozzles spaced along each boom. A boomlesssprayer has no booms, but has one nozzle or a clusterof nozzles at one location.

Fixed-wing monoplanes, or biplanes may be equippedwith boom sprayers mounted along or near the lowerwings. Special equipment required includes cutoffvalves, diaphragm check nozzles, and pumps designedto avoid pressure buildup. Helicopters are equippedwith boom sprayers up to 40 ft (12 m) long withhydraulic nozzles spaced along the entire length(fig. 40). Helicopter spray units require lightweighttanks, special pumps, and positive shut-off valves.Booms have been specifically designed for helicoptersprayers. Hand-operated sprayers are pump pressur-ized tanks equipped with a hose and a handle. A cutoffvalve is located in the handle.

Primary Area of Use—Boom and boomlessground sprayers can spray only those areas thattheir transport power unit can traverse. Height ofwoody vegetation cannot extend above the height of

Figure 40—Helicopter equipped with a boomsprayer.

Figure 41—(A) Strip of intermediate wheatgrasssprayed with Roundup in June. (B) Shrubs andforbs established by broadcast seeding in Octoberwithin the sprayed strip 3 years following seeding.

A

B

the boom. These sprayers can provide even applicationof herbicide with little drift. Boom sprayers are supe-rior to boomless on areas where precise application isdesired. Boom sprayers have less drift and are lessaffected by wind. Boomless sprayers are generally lessexpensive, and less restricted in their areas of use asthey are able to travel over rougher terrain and workin larger brush. Boom and boomless sprayers can beused to apply herbicide to selected areas, such as stripspraying followed with broadcast or drill seeding(fig. 41A,B).



Figure 42—A helicopter with a boom sprayerspraying mountain big sagebrush on the MantiLaSal National Forest, UT.

Application of herbicide by ground rigs has sev-eral advantages over aerial application: small acre-ages can be sprayed, no landing strip is required(fixed-wing only), there is less drift, application is notrestricted by fog or wind, equipment is generally lessexpensive, and applicators are safer.

Aerial application does have some advantages overground rigs: application rate (acres per hour) is greaterand large areas can be sprayed during short periodsof time when conditions are ideal. For this reason,aircraft are commonly used to spray large acreages(fig. 42). Aerial application is also well adapted tospraying wet, rough, steep, and rocky terrain. Cost ofapplication is less, vegetation and soil are not dis-turbed, and dense, tall brush stands can be treatedmore effectively.

Steep-slope Scarifier and Seeder

The steep-slope seeder was designed to seed steepslopes and inaccessible sites. It is primarily used toplant roadways, mine sites, and similar disturbances.However, it can be modified to seed range and wild-land sites.

The machine consists of a tubular constructedframe with: (1) front- and rear-mounted reversiblespring-loaded scarifier tines, (2) soil drags, (3) fourspring-loaded press wheels, and (4) two electricallypowered rotary seeders or spreaders. The capacity ofthe seed hoppers is 2 ft2 (0.57 m2) (Larson 1980). Themachine can be mounted on a telescoping-boom craneor gradall. The seeder is bolted to the end of the craneby a knuckle joint, and can be turned in any directionor angle. The machine can be operated to run horizon-tally across a slope, or up or down a roadcut or fillsurface. Seed and fertilizer are dispensed separatelythrough the two spreaders. The equipment operator isable to start or stop seeding and adjust the seedingrate through electrical lines connected from the seed-ers to a control box mounted within the cab. Themachine can be easily converted to a three-point at-tachment and towed by a wheel tractor to seed the lesssteep sites.

Principal Areas of Use—The seeder was initiallydeveloped to seed steep roadcuts and fill surfaceswhere conventional equipment is not able to operate.Steep, inaccessible sites are normally broadcast seededwithout any seed coverage, and poor plant establish-ment usually occurs. The steep-slope scarifier seederis not only able to operate on uneven terrain, butseeds are planted in the soil.

The front scarifiers or tines loosen the soil. Seedand fertilizer are broadcast directly onto the loosenedseedbed. The rear-mounted scarifiers, drags, andpress wheels cover the seed and compact the seedbed.The seeder operates on extremely rough surfaces withan abundance of rock or debris. Larson (1980) reportsthe machine has a production capability of 2 acres (0.8ha) per hour. Seeding rates can be adjusted to varybetween 5 to 60 lb (2.3 to 27.2 kg) per acre (Larson1980).

The steep-slope seeder is not capable of reducingexisting competition, but can be used to seed areaswithout damage to existing plants. When mounted ona gradall or crane, the machine has limited reach, andcan only be operated within the reach of the crane.


10John F. Vallentine Chapter

Herbicides can be an effective, necessary, and environmentallysound tool for the control of weeds and brush on rangelands(Young and others 1981b). As a result, chemical control is awidely used means of removing unwanted or noxious plants fromrange and other pasture lands. Selective plant control by me-chanical, biological, fire, or manual means should also be consid-ered but is not always a satisfactory alternative to chemicalcontrol.

New herbicides, new formulations, new application techniques,and new uses for herbicides have been developed for rangelandsin recent years. Any person who is involved in the developmentof rangelands must be well versed in the properties and properuse of herbicides. Martinelli and others (1982) recommend thatall range managers take advantage of the program for trainingand certification of pesticide applicators. They conclude thatthese schools, now being offered in most States with Environ-mental Protection Agency approval and financing, can be ex-tremely valuable as a refresher program even if one does not planto apply restricted herbicides. Most States require certification topurchase, handle, and apply many herbicides.

Herbicides for PlantControl


Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

Handbooks and manuals suggested for planningand carrying out plant control programs on Inter-mountain rangelands, including the use of herbicides,include Bohmont (1983), Klingman and others (1982),Rutherford and Snyder (1983), Weed Science Societyof America (1989), and State Agricultural ExtensionService and Experiment Station publications.

Potential Results of HerbicideUse ___________________________

Plant control, including the use of herbicides, re-quires a carefully planned program. The first step ina plant control program is evaluating: (1) the desirabil-ity of resident and potential plant species in the habi-tat, and (2) at what population levels the various plantspecies are desired. Desirability must be based on theobjectives of land ownership, the multiplicity of rangeproducts desired, and the animal species (domestic orwild) that will be favored. Along with deciding whichplant species are to be increased or decreased, and byhow much, or which will be kept at present levels,consideration must be given to avoiding or reducingdamage to desirable, nontarget plant species.

The major objective of herbicide application to range-lands is often to improve animal habitat. Animalhabitats must provide food, water, and whatever coveris needed; but each animal species has its own uniquehabitat preferences and requirements. In general,ideal big game habitat has been equated with: (1) agreater mixture of forage species than is needed forlivestock, (2) a mosaic of vegetation types, and (3) greateravailability of cover than needed for livestock(Vallentine 1989). Mosaic vegetation can be main-tained or created by treating high potential sites andleaving untreated draws, ravines, rough ridges, andshallow, rocky sites. Selective checkerboard treat-ment of specific sites is generally more effective thanaiming for low plant control levels over the entire area.

Morrison and Meslow (1983) concluded that theindirect effects of herbicides on wildlife were far greaterthan the direct effects. Residues of herbicides in theenvironment were found to be of low concentration andshort lived; herbicide levels in wildlife tissues werelow and did not accumulate; and toxic effects onwildlife were deemed incapable of happening if recom-mended application practices were followed. Indirecteffects on habitat modification, however, were consid-ered potentially negative or positive. Even preferredbrowse species for big game could be increased throughherbicide use, but careful planning is required.

Proven uses of herbicides on rangelands include:

1. Selective control of undesirable plants as a soletreatment to favor more desirable forage species, forexample, control green rubber rabbitbrush (fig. 1) onfoothill sites (Evans and Young 1975a).

2. Combination treatment with mechanical, fire, orbiological methods, for example, burning or mechani-cal treatment of salt cedar, Gambel oak, black grease-wood, with follow-up herbicidal treatment of sprouts.

3. Release of particularly desirable plant speciesover which undesirable woody or even herbaceousplants have gained dominance, for example, juniperinvasion on deep soil benches (Evans and others 1975)or tarweed in mountain meadows.

4. Thinning or removal of trash trees in commercialforests, or both, thereby enhancing herbaceous andbrowse understory as well as timber production, forexample, removal of juniper from ponderosa pine sites.

5. Rejuvenation of tall shrubs and low trees, usedas forage by big game, by top killing with light ratesof 2,4-D and stimulating new growth from sprouts andseedlings, for example, old growth aspen stands, Gam-bel oak, mountain maple (Harniss and Bartos 1985).

6. Eradication of poisonous plants on sites suitablefor such intensive treatment, for example, tall lark-spur on high mountain range and rush skeletonweed(Cronin and Nielsen 1979).

7. Eradication of small infestations of serious plantpests or “environmental contaminants” not previouslyfound locally, for example, spotted knapweed, muskthistle, and others.

8. Total plant kill to meet the needs of chemicalseedbed preparation for range seeding or planting(fig. 2), for example, 2,4-D and paraquat on sagebrush-cheatgrass sites.

9. As a post-planting treatment, to enhance estab-lishment by selectively controlling weed competition,for example, dense annual broadleaf weeds or peren-nial ragweed in new wheatgrass-alfalfa seeding.

Figure 1—Green rubber rabbitbrush sprayed with2,4-D and Tordon. Crested wheatgrass not af-fected by herbicide. Herbaceous productiondoubled after reduction of rabbitbrush competition.



Figure 2—Chemical seedbed preparation.

10. Maintenance control or retreatment when ap-plied periodically following primary treatment, forexample, periodic suppression of Gambel oak stands.

Herbicidal control has some distinct advantagesover other plant control methods, this explains thecurrent widespread use of herbicides, particularly onprivate lands. These general advantages include:

1. Can be used where mechanical methods are im-possible, such as steep, rocky, muddy, or certain tim-bered sites.

2. Provides a selective means of killing sproutingplants that cannot be effectively killed by top removalonly.

3. Provides a rapid control method from the stand-point of both plant response and acreage covered whenapplied by broadcasting or spraying.

4. Has low labor and fuel requirements.5. Are generally cheaper, in some cases, than me-

chanical control methods, but may cost more thanprescribed burning.

6. Can be selectively applied in most cases so thatdamage to desirable plant species can be minimized.

7. Maintains some vegetal and litter cover and doesnot expose soil to erosion.

8. Safe and reliable when proper safeguards arefollowed.

9. Can often use regular farm and ranch sprayequipment.

Disadvantages of using chemicals to control unde-sirable range plants exist. Recognizing them maypermit minimizing or circumventing them.

1. No chemical control has yet proven effective orpractical for all plant species.

2. Herbicides provide a desirable, noncompetitiveseedbed for artificial seeding only under certainsituations.

3. Costs of control may outweigh expected benefitson lands of low potential.

4. The careless use of chemicals can be hazardous tonontarget plants, to cultivated crops or to other nontar-get sites nearby, or may contaminate water supplies.

5. Lack of selectivity may result in killing associatedforbs and shrubs.

Chemical Seedbed Preparation ____Herbicides show promise for chemical site prepara-

tion. Seeding or planting can be done shortly afterspraying or after a fallow period maintained by herbi-cides. Seedbed preparation by chemical means, wheneffectively used, has the following advantages whencompared with mechanical methods:

1. Leaves a firm seedbed for better plantestablishment.

2. Has good erosion control since the mulch andlitter are left in place.

3. Can be used on land that is too steep, rocky,erosive, or wet for mechanical treatment.

4. Does not invert the soil profile, which would beundesirable on shallow, poorly drained, or poorly struc-tured soil.

5. Provides a means of selective plant kill whendesirable native forage plants are present.

6. Averts most soil crusting and reduces frostheaving.

7. Conserves soil moisture and nitrogen, similar tomechanical fallow, when used as chemical fallow(Eckert and Evans 1967).

8. Improves moisture penetration and retention asa result of mulch cover on the ground.

9. Allows spraying, drill seeding, transplanting,and fertilization in a single operation while climaticconditions are still optimum (Kay and Owen 1970).

10. Protects grass seedlings by means of the stand-ing vegetation killed by herbicides.

11. Permits seeding an entire field, riparian zone, orwatershed having erosive soil, at one time.

12. May be less costly than mechanical seedbedpreparation.

13. Does not destroy the soil seedbed of desirablenative species.

On the other hand, dead mulch and litter followingchemical seedbed preparation may be excessive, orotherwise hinder seeding. However, use of the range-land drill with its various modifications permits drill-ing into all but the most extreme sites. Also, herbicideapplications may not kill weed seeds resident in thesoil unless used as chemical fallow during a growingseason. This may require additional herbicide appli-cation during the seedling year as a maintenancetreatment.



How to Apply ___________________Several methods are available for applying herbi-

cides to undesirable plants. For convenience, these aredivided into foliage, stem, and soil application. SeeBohmont (1983) for details about various herbicideapplications.

I. Foliage applicationA.Foliage spray (selective 2,4-D and related phenoxy

herbicides, dalapon, dicamba, paraquat (at lowrates), picloram, triclopyr; nonselective amitrole,ASM, diesel oil, glyphosate).

1. Aerial (airplane or helicopter) (fig. 3).2. Ground (hand and power equipment).

(a) Non directional (mist blowers).(b) Directional (boom sprayers; single nozzle

sprayers) (fig. 4).(1) In row (rowed plants physically

protected from spray by shields).(2) Strip (chemical seedbed preparation

for interseeding) (fig. 4).B. Wipe on (rope wicks, rollers, or sponge bars).C. Dust (unimportant on range or wildlands).

II. Stem application (individual plant) (2,4-D,hexazinone, picloram, triclopyr) (fig. 5).

A.Trunk base spray (may be enhanced by use offrills or notches).

B. Trunk injection.C. Cut stump treatment (fig. 6).

III. Soil application (selective; atrazine, dicamba,fenac [partly], monuron, picloram, tebuthiuron[partly], nonselective; bromacil, hexazinone,karbutilate [now tabled]).

A. Broadcast (spray, granules, or pellets).B. Grid ball (spaced placement of pellets).C. Individual plant or motte.

Figure 3—Helicopter equipped with boomsprayer.

Figure 4—Boom sprayers can be (A) hand heldand (B) vehicle mounted. Spraying strips ofcrested wheatgrass with Roundup to facilitatetransplanting desired shrubs.

A

B

1. Soil injection (liquid).2. Soil surface placement (around stem base

or spread under canopy).

Broadcast spray application has been the most com-monly used method on rangelands. Because an herbi-cide is applied to desirable as well as undesirableplants on the site when broadcast, selective herbicidesare required. Broadcast spray applications can bemade either by ground rigs or by aerial application.When herbicides are applied by ground rigs, a sprayvolume of 10 gal/acre (93.5 L/ha) is common but vol-ume may vary from 5 to 40 gal (46.8 to 374.2 L/ha)depending on need. With aerial application, sprayvolume can be reduced down to 1 to 3 gal/acre (9.3 to28.1 L/ha), with ultra low volumes down to 0.50 gal/acre (4.7 L/ha) or even less being satisfactory in somesituations.

The comparative advantages of using ground appli-cation or aerial application of herbicide sprays are asfollows:



Figure 5—Results of basal stem spraying ofGambel oak with Picloram, Triclopyr, andHexazinone.

Figure 6—One hundred percent kill of salt cedar.Stems cut off and stem ends sprayed with 2,4-D.

• Broadcast Ground Application1. Adapted to small acreages.2. No landing strip required (pad only required for

helicopter).3. Less drifting and less subject to fog or wind.4. Commercial equipment often not required.5. Safer for applicators.

• Aerial Application1. Faster coverage.2. Adapted to wet, rough or rocky ground, or steep

slopes.3. Lower cost per acre on most large acreages.4. No mechanical disturbance of soil or vegetation.5. Better coverage of tall, dense brush, or tree stands.

Although fixed wing aircraft are more commonlyused, helicopters are advantageous in some situations(USDA Agricultural Research Service 1976). Helicop-ters that require no landing strip are interfered withless by trees, snags, and steep terrain, permit slowerair speed for application, and have greater maneuver-ability. However, they are generally less availablewhen needed, have less lifting power in thin, warmair, have less payload capacity (50 to 150 gal [190 to570 L] compared to 125 to 600 gal [475 to 2,270 L] forfixed wing aircraft), and are more costly per acre onlarger projects.

Foliage spray application with ground rigs generallyuse boom applicators that are as narrow as 4 ft (1.2 m)for hand application to as wide as 100 ft (30.5 m) forself propelled systems. Ground sprayers adapted torange use are discussed by Young and others (1979b).Maxwell and others (1983) describe adapting all-ter-rain vehicles for herbicide application on difficult-to-reach sites. Boomless ground applicators have beenused conveniently in tall brush, along fence rows, or invery rough terrain. Such mist blowers have been usedin applying low levels of phenoxy herbicides, usingcrosswinds of 5 to 12 mph (8 to 19 km/h), therebypermitting strips up to 100 ft (30.5 m) wide to becovered.

Wipe-on applicators have permitted taller, noxiousplants to be controlled with nonselective herbicideswithout damaging low growing desirable plants(Mayeux and Crane 1983; Messersmith and Lym 1981;Moomaw and Martin 1985). Wipe-on applicators haveadvantages in applying selective herbicides becauselow volume is required, the total amount of herbicideused is reduced, spray drift is mostly eliminated, andlow cost equipment can be used in getting selectivecontrol.

Individual plant treatments including wettingsprays, stem application (fig. 6), or soil applicationmay have advantages over broadcast application forspot infestations, for widely scattered plants, on ter-rain that is too rough for wheeled machinery, or whereonly a small portion of the plants are to be removed,such as in commercial forests. Individual plant treat-ment generally allows nonselective herbicides to beused selectively through positive control of spray di-rection. However, individual plant treatments have ahigh cost per plant, high labor demand, slow jobcompletion, and are difficult to control when treatingplants over 6 ft (1.8 m) high with a foliage application.Hand held boom sprayers or mist blowers provideadvantages somewhat intermediate between broad-cast application and individual plant treatment.

Soil injection, soil surface placement around thestem base, application in continuous narrow bands onthe soil surface or underground, or use of the gridballtechnique permit nonselective herbicides to be used



with significantly reduced herbaceous plant injury.The gridball technique provides for placing pellets ingrid fashion, resulting in conical columns of activeherbicide in the soil that can intercept the deep rootsof woody plants while minimizing intercept by theroots of herbaceous plants.

Where desired, applying soil-active herbicides in granu-lar or pellet form has the advantage of minimizing drift,not being intercepted by foliage, having controlled re-lease, ease of handling and application, premixing; therebyreducing formulation errors, simple application equip-ment generally, and prolonged soil activity.

What to Apply __________________The following terminology will be useful in evaluat-

ing the characteristics of herbicides:

Herbicide, a chemical that kills plants (syn.phytocide).

Contact, an herbicide that kills only plant partsdirectly exposed to the chemical and is direction toxicto living cells.

Translocated, an herbicide applied to one part of aplant that is spread throughout the plant where ef-fects are produced (syn. synthetic hormone herbicide,systemic herbicide, or growth regulator).

Selective, an herbicide that kills or damages a par-ticular plant species or group of species with little or noinjury to other plant species (are often nonselective atheavy rates).

Nonselective, an herbicide that kills or damages allplant species to which it is applied (general weedkiller).

Soil sterilant, an herbicide that kills or damagesplants when herbicide is present in the soil. The effectmay be temporary or permanent and either selectiveor nonselective.

The properties of herbicides used or proposed for useon rangelands are given in table 1. General informa-tion on clearance and general uses are given for eachherbicide. More detailed information on individualherbicides can be found in Berg (1985), Bohmont(1983), Bovey and Young (1980), Spencer (1982),Thomson (1983), and Weed Science Society of America(1989).

The phenoxy herbicides, primarily 2,4-D (and alsoMCPA and 2,4-DP or dichlorprop in some areas, or4-DB when damage to legumes is to be avoided) havebeen the most widely used on rangelands. Silvex and2,4,5-T, previously widely used in brush control, byregulation can no longer be manufactured or used inthe United States or Canada.

New herbicides such as glyphosate, tebuthiuron,hexazinone, and triclopyr are now in widespread useon western rangelands. Other potential range herbicides

still in the experimental stages are karbutilate,fosamine, clopyralid, buthidazole, ethidimuron,prodiamine, and metribuzin.

Soil-active herbicides may be selective or nonselec-tive and have either temporary or lasting effects.Herbicides such as dicamba and picloram are effectivewhen applied to either soil or foliage. Atrazine, fenac,2,3,6-TBA, and tebuthiuron are effective only whenapplied to the soil. Soil-active only herbicides aregenerally applied as dry granules or pellets sincevegetation will intercept some or most of the spray, butother soil-active herbicides can be applied in either dryor liquid form.

Only a few herbicides have been effectively used,either singly or in combination, on range sites inpreparation for seeding or transplanting. Chemicalapplication fallowed by direct seeding into the killedmulch, without further soil treatment, is effective ifthe herbicide (1) controls a broad spectrum of undesir-able plants, (2) dissipates rapidly after weed control isaccomplished, and (3) is broken down or leached awayby the time seeded species germinate, or is not toxic toseedlings of the seeded species (Eckert and Evans1967). Chemical fallow during the previous growingseason has been more successful in low rainfall areasthan spring herbicide treatment and seeding.

The herbicide 2,4-D has been effective in chemicalseedbed preparation on those sites where the principalcompetition has been brush and forbs susceptible to it,such as on big sagebrush or tarweed sites (Hull 1971b;Hull and Cox 1968). Aerial spraying with 2,4-D anddrilling with a rangeland drill have been effective forestablishing additional perennial grasses on sage-brush-grass and forb-grass sites with a fair under-story of perennial grasses. A second herbicide applica-tion may be required in the spring of the establishmentyear if sprouting shrubs such as rabbitbrush arepresent or a large number of sagebrush seedlingsdevelop.

Picloram can be used in chemical seedbed prepara-tion where rhizomatous forbs and shrubs not killed by2,4-D are present. Although low chemical residualamount in the soil will not be harmful to grass seedlings,2 or 3 years must be allowed before forb and shrubspecies are introduced following picloram application.

On sites dominated by annual grasses, spring appli-cation of paraquat and drilling perennial grasses havebeen effective. Since paraquat is quick acting andleaves no soil residues, planting of perennial foragespecies can follow immediately (Evans and others1975). Paraquat has only a temporary effect on peren-nial grasses and does not kill most broadleaf plants.Where broad leaved weeds and undesirable shrubs aregrowing with cheatgrass, 2,4-D should be combinedwith the paraquat application (National ResearchCouncil 1968). Band “tilling” with paraquat and drillingdown the center of each band has also been effective onannual grass sites (Kay and Owen 1970).



Table 1—Properties of herbicides labelled for use on rangeland or proposed for range use.

Common name Group and type Uses, restrictions Range and pasture uses; (trade name) of herbicide LD50

a commentsb

Clopyralid Picolinic acid, selective Cleared for rangelands Kills broadleaf herbaceous weeds, grass (Stinger) post-emergence herbicide and pasture, short-lived seedling. Transline) herbicide. (Reclaim) +2,4-D (Curtail)

Dicamba Benzoic; selective, Cleared for pasture Controls difficult plants such as Russian (Banvel) translocated, foliage and range at rates up knapweed, Canada thistle, leafy spurge. +2,4-D or soil + Phenoxy to 8 lb a.e./acre (9 kg/ha); Also useful in brush control. Persists in (weedmaster) LD50 = 566 to 1,028 soil for up to a few months. Low volatility

2,4-D Phenoxy; selective Pasture and range; Highly effective as foliage spray on many (several trade translocated, foliage LD50 = 300 to 1,000 broadleaf herbaceous plants and some names) shrubs. Also used in frill cuts. Persists in

soil for 1 to 4 weeks. Volatility dependson chemical form

Glyphosate Aliphatic; nonselective Range and pasture; Used in brush control but also kills (Roundup) translocated broad spectrum desirable grasses and forbs. Used to kill

herbicide; LD50 = 5,000 foliage. Undesirable grasses such asfoxtail barley or saltgrass. Persists 1 to 3weeks in soil. May be applied selectively

Oust Sulfometuron methyl; Rangelands, forestry, Kills annual grasses at rates between (Oust translocated by roots and noncroplands 0.25 to 1.0 oz/acre; can be fall and spring

and foliage; partly applied. Persists 1 to 2 years. Sensitivityselective, temporary of most native species is not known. Cansoil sterilant be used to control and exhaust seed bank

of annual weeds. Fall seeding 1 year aftertreatment appears successful

Paraquat Bipyridyl; selective to Use as spot treatment on Selectively kills annual grasses by (Paraquat, nonselective contact, noncropland or for pasture application at 0.25 to 1 lb/acre (0.28 to Granonione) foliage or range renovation; 1.12 kg/ha); can be applied just prior to

LD50 = 150 range seeding. Rapid acting, nonvolatile.Soil contact inactivates. Has minor effecton broadleaf perennials. Low rate chemicallycures but does not kill perennial grasses

Picloram Picolinic; selective, Range and pasture; Effective on leafy spurge, Russian (Tordon) translocated LD50 = 8,200 knapweed, low and tall larkspur, whorled +2,4-D Phenoxy; selective milkweed, and also many shrubs, such as (Grazon P + D) translocated, foliage rabbitbrush and oaks. Nonvolatile. Rates

over 1 lb/acre (1.12 kg/ha) may persistfor 2 or 3 years. Often synergic withphenoxy herbicides

Tebuthiuron Substituted urea; Cleared for range Holds promise for controlling woody (Spike) partly selective, use in some states; plants. Persists up to several months.

translocated, soil LD50 = 286 to 644 Spot apply for broadcast as pellets.Selective at 0.5 lb/acre rate or when highrates applied selectively

Triclopyr Phenoxy-picolinic; Experimental on Shows promise on broadleaf weeds and (Garlon) selective, trans- rangelands; LD50 = 713 shrubs including oaks and other root +2,4-D located, foliage sprouters Also effective in basal spray (Crossbow) and trunk injection. Degraded rapidly in soil

aRegistration of herbicides for range and pasture uses and the accompanying restrictions are subject to continual change. Current clearance andrestrictions at both State and Federal levels should be checked and complied with. Silvex, Amitrole, Dalapon, Atrazine, Fenatrol, and 2, 4, 5, T havebeen removed from the market or are no longer approved for use on rangelands in the United States and Canada. LD50 taken from Weed ScienceSociety of America (1989). See Woodward (1982) for herbicide tolerance of trout.

bPublication directed herbicide control of individual plant species (Bartel and Rittenhouse 1979; Bowes 1976; Britton and Sneva 1981, 1985; Claryand others 1985a, b; Cronin and Nielson 1979; Eckert 1979; Eckert and Evans 1967; Engle and others 1983; Evans and Young 1975a, 1977b, 1985;Evans and others 1975; Hull 1971b; Hull and Cox 1968; Johnsen and Dalen 1984; Marquiss 1973; Miller and others 1980; Mohan 1973; Roeth 1980;Sneva 1972; Thilenius and Brown 1974; Thilenius and others 1974b; Van Epps 1974; Warren 1982; Whitson and Alley 1984; Williams and Cronin1981; Wilson 1981; Young and Evans 1971, 1976; Young and others 1984c.



Fall application of 0.5 to 1 lb/acre (0.6 to 1.1 kg/ha)of atrazine has effectively controlled cheatgrass dur-ing a chemical fallow period (Eckert and Evans 1967;Young and others 1969b). However, at least 1 yearmust be allowed for dissipation prior to grass seeding.When atrazine is used for chemical fallow, adequatebroadleaf control may require spring application of2,4-D (National Research Council 1968). Integrating2,4-D or picloram spraying for brush control andatrazine fallow for cheatgrass control has proven effec-tive in Nevada (Evans and Young 1977b).

Dalapon has been more effective than either paraquator atrazine in killing medusahead (Young and Evans1971). Since dalapon is slower acting than paraquatand the residual remains longer in the soil, grassseeding should be delayed for at least 6 weeks follow-ing dalapon application. Dalapon gives some control ofperennial grasses but is ineffective on broad leavedplants.

One of the most promising herbicides for site prepa-ration for range revegetation is glyphosate (tradename, Roundup). When broadcast sprayed or appliedin strips, it provides nearly complete kill of all residentvegetation. Since it dissipates rapidly in the soil,seedings can be made within 1 to 3 weeks afterglyphosate applications. Although effective in brushand weed control, it has also been effective on foxtailbarley and saltgrass.

Oust has remained effective in controlling cheatgrassfor 2 years when applied at 1 oz/acre. Satisfactorystands of crested wheatgrass have been established bydrill seeding into the treated sites 1 year after falltreatment. Although individual species exhibit differ-ent degrees of sensitivity, it appears sites treated atrates up to 1.0 oz/acre can be planted within 180 daysfollowing fall treatment.

The compiled herbicidal plant control recommenda-tions published by the respective State agriculturalexperiment stations and extension services, many ofthese revised annually, are current and locally adapted.Examples include Alley and others (1978), Chase(1984), Cords and Artz (1976), Dewey (1983b), Duncanand McDaniel (1991), Heikes (1978), Hepworth (1980),or Washington Agricultural Extension Service (1984)or their revisions or replacements. Other compiledsources of individual plant control recommendationsinclude Bovey and Rodney (1977), Hamel (1983), Spen-cer (1982), and USDA Science and Education Admin-istration (1980).

Herbicide Approval ______________All pesticides must be registered by the Pesticides

Registration Division, Office of Pesticides Programs,Environmental Protection Agency, before enteringinto interstate or intrastate commerce. The Environ-mental Protection Agency approves all uses of pesti-cides including herbicides, regulates instructions on

pesticide labels, sets tolerances in animal feedsand human foods, may seize any raw agriculturalcommodities not complying with these tolerances, andcan punish violators using nonregistered pesticides ormaking unapproved use of registered herbicides.

Herbicides approved for range use are not hazard-ous to livestock, wildlife, or humans at recommendedapplication methods and rates. Environmental Pro-tection Agency registration of herbicides is intended toinsure that they are released for public sale and useonly after detailed research and thorough testing.Tolerance levels set for human intake of pesticidesinclude rather large safety factors and are generallyset at one percent or less of the highest level causing noadverse effect in the most sensitive animal species; butzero tolerance is mandatory in some cases.

The relative degree of toxicity of the various herbi-cides to warm-blooded animals has been determinedexperimentally. The relative degree of toxicity is ex-pressed as the acute oral LD50 (the single dosage bymouth that kills 50 percent of the test animals ex-pressed as mg/kg of body weight). The LD50 for eachherbicide is given in table 1. Toxicity classes arerelated to LD50 levels as follows:

Class LD50 (mg/kg)Highly toxic 50 or lessModerately toxic 50 to 500Mildly toxic 500 to 5,000Nontoxic Above 5,000

In addition to the Environmental Protection Agency,one lead agency within each State is designated by itsgovernor to participate in pesticide regulation. Indi-vidual States may have special registration and userequirements for pesticides. Also, the designated Stateagency is charged with certifying pesticide applica-tors. Only certified pesticide applicators are permittedto purchase and use “restricted use” pesticides, includ-ing paraquat and picloram, or those on emergencyexemption.

In addition to the regular Federal registration ofpesticide uses, three special registrations are providedfor additional pesticide use approval.

1. Experimental label. This special Federal labelpermits new products, or old products being consid-ered for removal of registration, to be further re-searched and evaluated before final approval is given.

2. Emergency exemption. The Federal administra-tion of the Environmental Protection Agency mayexempt any Federal or State agency so requestingunapproved pesticide usage provided that the emer-gency requires such exemption.

3. Special state label. A state may provide registra-tion for additional uses of Federally registered pesti-cides within the State, if such uses have not previouslybeen denied, disapproved, or cancelled by the Environ-mental Protection Agency. Final approval of the State



label is given by the Environmental Protection Agencyunless such use is known to have definite detrimentaleffects on humans or the environment.

Evaluating Herbicide Sprays ______Preparation of a spray mix involves mixing the

commercial product formulated by the manufacturerwith the right kind and amount of carrier and addingany additional surfactant needed. The combination offormulation, dilution with the carrier, rate of applica-tion, and method of application generally determineswhether a recommended herbicide will be highly se-lective and effective or not. The proper preparationand use of herbicides requires an understanding of thefollowing terms:

Toxicant, the herbicide or chemical agent that causesa toxic effect on plants.

Carrier, the diluent in which the toxicant is mixed toprovide greater bulk for more effective application.

Commercial product, the herbicide formulation pre-pared in liquid form for spray application.

Surfactant (surface active agent), materials used inherbicide formulations to facilitate or accentuate emul-sifiability, spreading, wetting, sticking, dispersibility,solubilization, or other surface modifying properties.

Active ingredient, that part of a commercial productor spray mix that directly causes the herbicidal effects.

Acid equivalent (a.e.), the amount of active ingredi-ent expressed in terms of the parent acid or theamount that theoretically can be converted to theparent acid.

The active ingredient of phenoxy herbicides is ex-pressed in terms of acid equivalent. This is a relativeterm relating esters and salts to the pure acid, a formthat is seldom available but may occur in minoramounts mixed with the other chemical forms. Theacid equivalent is a more precise measurement thanthe actual amount of the particular chemical form.However, acid equivalent measures toxicity only indi-rectly since other factors in the formulation also affecttoxicity to plants. For example, the ester chemicalforms of 2,4-D are more toxic per unit of acid equiva-lence (a.e.) than the salt forms or the pure acid. Theherbicide label on the commercial product generallyprovides the amount of toxicant therein in terms ofboth (1) lb a.e./gal, and (2) percent a.e. (by weight).

Water is the carrier most commonly used today, butthe addition of diesel oil to comprise up to 25 percentof the total carrier may increase effectiveness withsome woody plants. Water has good driving forcethrough the upper foliage, is easier to work with, andis low cost; but the addition of diesel oil often reducesevaporation of the spray mix, spreads more evenly onthe leaf, and penetrates plant cuticles better. Surfactants

increase emulsifiability, spreading, sticking, and otherdesirable surface modifying properties of the spraymix. They are added to the commercial product at thefactory, but additional amounts or kinds may be in-cluded in specific recommendations. However, exces-sive use of surfactants may reduce or eliminate normalselectivity of an herbicide.

Herbicide recommendations are generally given inone or more of the following ways:

1. Pounds of active ingredients (or acid equivalent)per acre, or per square rod, for broadcast application.

2. Pounds of active ingredients (or acid equivalent)per 100 gal of mix (a.e.h.g.) for wetting sprays, frill orcutstump application, or plant or soil injection.

3. Weight (grams or ounces) or volume (tablespoonsor cups) of commercial product per plant or clump ofplants.

The amount of herbicide required to provide ad-equate control varies with kind and chemical form ofherbicide, plant species, and method of application.Herbicide rate recommendations primarily consideroptimum toxic effects within legal limits. Higher ratesare rarely more effective and may prove detrimental;selective herbicides often become nonselective whenapplied at excessive rates. However, reducing ratesbelow recommended levels to save money or to beenvironmentally conscious may sharply reduce kills,particularly when less then ideal conditions areencountered.

Greater selectivity can be realized with herbicidesby carefully controlling the application rate, fullyconsidering the relative growth stages of the targetand nontarget plant species, using appropriate or evendifferential application techniques, and using adequatebut not excessive amounts of surfactants. When mul-tiple herbicides are required for additive or synergisticeffects, or when repeat applications are required forsatisfactory kill, the single application of one herbicidebut at a higher rate is seldom a satisfactory alternative.

Calculations ____________________The following are examples of calculations frequently

used in mixing and applying herbicidesa:

1. Rate per acre for liquid formulation. If 2 lb a.e. peracre is recommended and a commercial product con-taining 4 lb a.e. per gallon is purchased, then use thefollowing:

0.5 gal (or 4 pt) of product isrequired per acre. Add enoughcarrier to give desired volumeof spray mix, and apply.

2. Rate per acre for granular form. If 3 lb active peracre is recommended for a commercial product

2 lb a.e./acre4 lb a.e./ga. product

=



containing 10 percent active ingredients in granularform then use the following:

30 lb of granules is requiredper acre.

3. Rate per gallon for wetting spray. If a “wetting”spray containing 6 lb acid equivalent per 100 gal(a.e.h.g.) is recommended and a commercial product(C.P.) containing 2 lb a.e. per gallon is used, then usethe following:

7.68 T of C.P. is requiredper gal of spray mix.Apply to plants until wet.

4. Amount per small plot. If a 400 ft2 plot is to besprayed at the rate of 3 lb a.e./gal and a commercialproduct containing 4 lb a.e./gal is used, then use thefollowing:

l.76 T of C.P. is required.Add enough carrier togive desired amount ofspray mix and apply toplot.

5. Amount per field unit. If a l50 acre unit is to besprayed with 2 lb a.e. of 2,4-D in 10 gal of spray mix peracre, and a commercial product containing 6 lb a.e./galis used, then the following is needed:

Total spray = 1,500 gal (150 acre x 10 gal/a)Commercial product = 50 gal (2 lb x 150 acre : 6 lb)Carrier = 1,450 gal (by subtraction)

a1 gal = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 16 cups = 256 tablespoons = 768teaspoons = 231 inches3 = 3.785 L.

When to Apply __________________The age, stage of growth, and rapidity of growth

affect the susceptibility of plants to herbicides. Themost effective kill by phenoxy herbicides and mostother foliage-applied, translocated herbicides is ob-tained when carbohydrate production and transloca-tion rate is at the maximum, often near full leaf stage(fig. 7). Since such herbicides are carried with thephotosynthate stream throughout the plant, intrinsicplant factors as well as external environmental factorsthat stimulate growth generally increase plant kill.Maximum growth rate and herbicide kill are associ-ated with ideal soil moisture and fertility, ideal tem-perature, and adequate light.

Reduced susceptibility periods of desirable speciesin the plant composition can often be found and fol-lowed. For example, 2,4-D should be applied early inthe spring for big sagebrush kill, in order to reducedamage to bitterbrush (fig. 8). Spraying at the time ofleaf origin in bitterbrush, and before the appearance of

6 lb a.e.h.g. 2562 lb a.e./gal in C.P. 100

xx

=

3 lb a.e./aX 400 ft 2562 xx4 lb a.e./gal in C.P. 43,560

=

Figure 8—With proper timing, big sagebrushwas killed and antelope bitterbrush was unharmedby aerial spraying of 2,4-D.

Figure 7—Mountain big sagebrush killed withaerial spraying of 2,4-D. Spraying occurred whengrowth rate, soil moisture, temperature, and lightwere ideal. With better control of helicopter flightpaths there would not have been misses that areevident in the background.

distinct twig elongation or flowering, generally causesonly slight damage to large bitterbrush plants. Selec-tive application methods permit nonselective herbi-cides to be used selectively.

Foliar herbicide application must be timed not onlyto coincide with ideal plant growth stages, but the bestassociated environmental and climatic conditions aswell. To get the best kill from broadcast spraying ofphenoxy herbicides, do not spray:

1. During prolonged drought when low soil moistureretards plant growth.

2. Before most leaves are well developed—exacttiming will vary somewhat between different plantspecies.

3. After leaves have stopped growing rapidly, beginmaturing, and develop thickened cuticles.

3 lb a.e./acre 100%10%

x =



4. When plant growth has been retarded by latefrost, hail, insects, or excessive leaf removal by grazing.

5. When temperature is over 90 ∞F (32.2 ∞C) or under55 ∞F (12.8 ∞C). (Temperatures between 70 ∞F [21.1 ∞C]and 85 ∞F [29.4 ∞C] are best).

6. When wind is above 10 mph (16 km/h) for aerialapplication or 15 mph (24 km/h) for ground spraying,or when the air movement is being subjected to greatturbulence and updrafts.

7. When thunderstorms are approaching. (Rain 4 or5 hours after spraying will reduce effects very little.)

Soil surface application is less dependent on stage ofplant growth than foliage sprays but does requireprecipitation to dissolve and move the herbicide intothe soil. Application just prior to normal rainy seasonis ideal unless excessive leaching is anticipated then.

Herbicides Can be Effective andSafe___________________________

Even though herbicides are among the least hazard-ous of all pesticides, recommended safeguards in theirhandling and application must be followed. Theseroutine safeguards include following all directions andrestrictions shown on the pesticide label, storing pes-ticides only in the original containers, properly dispos-ing of excess chemicals, and cleaning spraying equip-ment after use.

Herbicides now approved for range and pasture usepose no hazard to livestock, wildlife, the applicator, orlocal inhabitants when properly applied. The Envi-ronmental Protection Agency requires temporary re-moval of livestock following application of the mosttoxic herbicides, but this is mostly precautionary ordirected to dairy cows only. However, livestock shouldbe denied access to spraying equipment, herbicidecontainers, or herbicide in concentrated form. Herbi-cides may temporarily increase the palatability oftreated plants, and this may increase the hazard frompoisonous plants. In some cases the natural poisoningagent in the poisonous plants may be increased also.For these reasons, care must be taken that poisonousplants affected by herbicides are not grazed until theybegin to dry and lose their palatability (generally3 weeks or more after herbicide application).

Proper swath widths are important in preventingskips or overlapping of swaths and in obtaining com-plete coverage of the foliage in broadcast spray appli-cation. Since height above the ground will affect swathwidth, it should be carefully controlled. Applicationrates should be checked periodically by proper calibra-tion methods and corrected as needed (Bohmont 1983;Portman 1984; Young and others 1979b). Flaggingis essential in aerial application, and some form ofground marking will generally be required with ground

application. Many aircraft are now equipped withautomatic flaggers that dispense strips of wet, coloredpaper to mark flight lines reducing or eliminating theneed for manual flagging. Gebhardt and others (1985)described a foam marking system for use with boomsprayers operated on the ground.

Herbicide drift is a special problem associated withfoliage spray applications, and can be hazardous tosusceptible plants downwind unless controlled. Thedirection, distance, and amount of spray drift thatoccurs before the herbicide reaches the ground areinfluenced by several factors. Drift is reduced by in-creased size of droplets and higher specific gravity ofthe spray mix, lower evaporation rate, reduced heightof release, low velocity of the wind, no vertical airmovements, and carefully selected application equip-ment. Spray drift is a greater problem in aerial appli-cation because of the elevated release point and airturbulence generated, but can be serious in groundapplication as well. Herbicides that volatize afterapplication are again subject to wind movement. Cer-tain ester forms of the phenoxy herbicides are highlyvolatile while others are not. Low volatile ester or saltforms should be selected for use if susceptible crops orareas to be protected are in the immediate vicinity.

In addition to using herbicide formulations with lowvolatility and thus drift potential, other means ofreducing drift of herbicides include:

1. Using application equipment that will maintainadequate size and uniformity of droplets. Finely atom-ized spray drops may drift from the target area orevaporate before reaching the foliage. Spray dropletsshould be large enough to minimize drift hazards andyet be sufficiently small and properly distributed togive good coverage.

2. Reducing height of release, particularly in aerialapplication.

3. Avoiding spraying on windy days and when verti-cal air movement is great; favorable conditions aremore apt to be found in early morning, late evening,and night.

4. Using water as the carrier since water dropletsare heavier and drift less than oil droplets, while beingaware that antievaporants may be needed to reduceevaporation in dry atmospheres.

5. Selecting spray days with a slight, continuouswind movement blowing away from susceptible cropsor other nontarget areas.

6. Using positive liquid shutoff systems in aerialapplication and avoiding flights over susceptible crops.

7. Using invert emulsions (water in oil), recognizinghowever, that special equipment will be required forapplication because of its thick, nonflowing physicalcharacteristics.

8. Using granular formulations of soil-activeherbicides.


11Chapter

Introduction ________________________________

Plant responses to fire differ because of phenological variationsat the time of burning, inherently different susceptibilities toheat damage, differing regenerative abilities, and different re-sponses to the postfire environment. Individual plants of thesame or different species may have different responses to firebecause of local variations in fire temperature or microenviron-ment. The postfire assemblage of plants may have few specieschanges, as is often the case after grassland fires, or may bedramatically different in both species composition and structure,following some forest fires. When understood, these differentialsusceptibilities to fire can be used to manipulate plant communi-ties. Prescribed burning can often be used to enhance one speciesor assemblage of species while reducing another species orassemblage of species (fig. 1).

VegetativeManipulation withPrescribed Burning

Steven G. Whisenant


Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Figure 1—Prescribed fire in a spruce-fir-aspenstand. Fire is used to suppress or remove spruceand fir and to release aspen and understoryherbs.

Most plants have some tolerance to fire, yet un-desirable results can occur. These undesirable resultscan be minimized if the resource manager has anunderstanding of fire ecology and prescribes a fireunder conditions adequate to accomplish manage-ment objectives. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the effectsof fire on some grasses and shrubs common to the

Intermountain area. These should be used as approxi-mations of the expected results, which are subject tovariation.

Prescribed burning can be a useful tool in both bigsagebrush and juniper-pinyon communities if burningis carefully prescribed and the area is deferred fromlivestock grazing for 2 years after treatment (Wrightand others 1979).

Fire, improperly used (or wildfires), may have suchadverse effects as converting desirable shrub (fig. 2) andperennial grass stands to annual grasses or maintain-ing annual grass communities. Understanding howfire affects plants is an important step in being able touse fire to accomplish specific management objectives.The effects of fire on plants can be clearly understoodonly if the modes of action of fire on that communityare considered. According to Lloyd (1972) the primaryeffects of fire on plant communities are: (1) the directaction of heat on plants and soils, (2) changes in themicroenvironment, and (3) the redistribution of cer-tain nutrients. The first of these involves breakdownof organic compounds, possible stimuli to dormantorgans, and physical, chemical, and biotic changes inthe surface soil. The second mode of action affects themicroclimate, and the third includes losses of volatilecompounds in the smoke and deposition of nonvolatilecompounds in the ash. Understanding these threemodes of action is helpful in understanding how firecan be used to accomplish management objectives.

Table 1—Summary of fire effects on some grasses of the Intermountain Regiona.

Species Response to fire Remarks

Cheatgrass Undamaged Reduction in cheatgrass usually results from seed consumptionand changes in the microenvironment caused by fire. Recoversin 1 to 2 years

Bluegrass Slight damage Slight reductions following late summer and fall burning

Idaho fescue Slight to severe damage Greatly damaged by summer burning. Burning in spring or fall,under mild conditions and good soil and water, causes littledamage

Indian ricegrass Slight damage Tolerant of fire, but may respond slowly to improved conditions

Needlegrass Moderate to severe damage Needlegrass are among the least fire resistant bunchgrasses.Large bunchgrasses. Large plants are damaged more thansmall plants. A 50 percent reduction in basal area is possible

Plains reedgrass Undamaged Rhizomatous species that is very tolerant of fire

Bottlebrush squirreltail Slight damage One of the most fire resistant bunchgrasses. Often increases for2 to 3 years after burning. Can be damaged by severe fires indry years

Wheatgrass Little or no damage Bluebunch wheatgrass can be damaged if burning occurs in adry year. Other wheatgrass, particularly crested wheatgrass aredifficult to burn in seeded monocultures

Prairie junegrass Undamaged Often increases its density following burningaAdapted and modified from Wright and others (1979).



Table 2—Summary of fire effects on some shrubs of the Intermountain Regiona.

Species Response to fire Remarks

Antelope bitterbrush Variable, slight to severe Decumbent forms sprout more readily than the columnar forms.Subsequent seedling establishment is higher on more mesicsites. Spring and late fall burning is less damaging than summerburning (Bunting and others 1985)

Sagebrush species Slight to severe Black sagebrush and low sagebrush are small and widelyspaced. They are rarely burned and may often be used as firebreaks when burning adjacent big sagebrush. Silver sagebrushis capable of sprouting after being burned, and is only slightlydamaged. Big sagebrush is killed when burned

Rabbitbrush Usually enhanced Vigorous sprouter that often increases following burning

Horsebrush Stimulated Vigorous sprouter that may greatly increase following burning

Gambel oak Stimulated Vigorous sprouter with rapid regrowth following burning

Snowberry No lasting damage Vigorous sprouter that may be enhanced by low severity fires ordamaged by high severity fires

Curlleaf mountain mahogany Variable Mature, decadent stands, with curlleaf mountain mahoganymostly in excess of 50 years old may be rejuvenated by fire.Also may be beneficial when conifers are out competingmahogany seedlings. Damaging to younger, vigorous stands(Gruell and others 1985)

aAdapted and modified from Wright and others (1979).

Figure 2—Wildfire in Wyoming big sagebrushand winterfat communities. Within 2 years follow-ing fire, the areas were completely dominated bycheatgrass.

Heat damage is a function of duration of exposure,environmental temperature, and the initial vegeta-tion temperature (Hare 1961). The quantity of heatrequired to raise the temperature of living vegetationto the lethal temperature is directly proportional tothe difference between the lethal temperature andthe initial vegetation temperature. Initial vegetationtemperature is a function of air temperature and

availability of radiant energy, both are largely regu-lated by the time of day and season of year. Thephysiological condition of the protoplasm is an impor-tant variable regulating heat effects on plants. As themoisture content of vegetative tissue decreases, itstolerance to heat increases because of the high specificheat of water and the physiological activity of hy-drated tissues (Hare 1961).

Burning herbaceous plants during periods of activegrowth generally has adverse impacts on the plant.Conversely, dormant plants are seldom seriously dam-aged by burning. For example, burning in the springusually increases warm season herbaceous plantswhile damaging cool season herbaceous plants(Daubenmire 1968; Wright and Bailey 1982). Burningin the fall usually has the opposite effect.

Plant growth form is a critical factor in the responseof plants to heat, with rhizomatous plants having thegreatest degree of protection. In general, the deeperthe rhizomes are located in the soil, the greater thesurvival rate from fire (Flinn and Wein 1977). Firemay have either beneficial or detrimental effects onannual plants, depending upon the growth stage,location of the seeds during the fire (Daubenmire1968), and the resulting microenvironment (Evansand Young 1984). The heat generated by a fire may besufficiently high to kill seeds in the upper part of thesurface litter, or in the inflorescence, but seeds on orunder the mineral soil surface often survive (Bentley



and Fenner 1958; Daubenmire 1968). Understandingthe effects of fire on the various plant life forms is acritical component in prescribing the use of fire toeffect desired changes in a plant community.

Season of burning, which greatly influences initialvegetation temperature, tissue hydration, phenology,and position of perennating buds is extremely impor-tant in regulating the effects of fire. Within a season,fire intensity increases with increasing fuel, ambienttemperature, windspeed, decreasing fuel moisture,and relative humidity. Thus, by carefully selectingthe burning time and environmental conditions, aresource manager can control fire intensity and dam-age to the existing plant community.

Woody plants may be well insulated from extremetemperatures by bark. Fahnestock and Hare (1964)reported longleaf pine bark surface temperatures,during burning, varied from 554 to 1,472 ∞F (290 to800 ∞C) while cambial temperatures varied from 100 to180 ∞F (38 to 82 ∞C). Seedlings of many plants are moresusceptible to fire damage than mature plants. Youngponderosa pine and honey mesquite are much morelikely to be killed by fire than older plants (Wright andBailey 1982). Much of this increased protection may bedue to the increased bark thickness on older plants.

Considerable research on the effects of litter re-moval in grassland plant communities has demon-strated the importance of that aspect of grassland fireecology (Dix 1960; Hulbert 1969; Lloyd 1972; Old1969). The mechanical removal of dormant, standingherbaceous vegetation, and mulch often accomplishesthe same results on perennial plants as burning.Heavy mulch accumulations produce a dominatingcover that stifles growth by depriving the plants ofspace and light (Dix 1960; Old 1969; Scifres andKelley 1979; Vogl 1974; Whisenant and others 1984).Chemical substances leached from undecomposed plantmaterial may further inhibit growth (Rice 1974).

Postburn responses of grasses in arid and semiaridregions are largely influenced by soil water contentafter burning. When prescribed fires are followed by aprolonged dry season, the vegetation response is pre-dictably poor. Burning only when soil water content ishigh is the most reliable way to ensure adequate waterfor regrowth of plants in regions with unreliable rain-fall (Wright 1974).

The importance of postburn changes in soil chemis-try has been widely investigated. Most reports fromgrasslands indicate that nutrient gain from ash is ofno detectable significance; any increases in productionare a result of litter removal (Hulbert 1969; Lloyd1971, 1972; Old 1969). In forests, where great volumesof plant material may be consumed, the ash may serveas an important fertilizer (Chandler and others 1983).Soil pH of acidic, weakly buffered forest soils is usuallyraised following fires that consume great quantities of

woody material (Ahlgren and Ahlgren 1960). Mostsoils of western rangelands are basic, and stronglybuffered.

The current uses of prescribed fire on western wild-lands may be categorized into four interrelated areas:(1) maintaining existing vegetation, (2) site prepara-tion prior to revegetation, (3) reducing woody plantdensity, and (4) wildlife habitat improvement.

Maintaining ExistingVegetation _____________________

Prescribed fires used for maintenance of existingvegetation are relatively cool fires. They maintain adesirable balance in the vegetation (Scifres 1980) anddo not create major changes in the vegetation commu-nity. Maintenance fires are usually conducted duringrelatively cool weather with a higher relative humid-ity than fires used to create type changes or removewoody debris.

Grass (Christensen 1977; Daubenmire 1968; Lloyd1971) and browse (DeWitt and Derby 1955; Dills 1970;Lay 1957) appearing after a fire may be attractive tograzing animals and often results in higher weightgains (Anderson and others 1970; Daubenmire 1968).Following prescribed burning, plants are often higherin crude protein, ether extract, nitrogen free extract,digestible energy, phosphorus, nitrogen, and potas-sium (Daubenmire 1968; DeWitt and Derby 1955; Lay1957, Lloyd 1971). Most studies report that cattlemake greater weight gains on burned than on un-burned areas (Anderson and others 1970; Duvall andWhitaker 1964). These increases in nutrient contentare often limited to 3 to 4 months after burning. Manyof the increases in plant nutritive quality can beexplained by the reduced tissue age of plants in re-cently burned areas (Christensen 1977).

Increases or decreases in forage quality or produc-tivity may be determined by the season of burning. Forexample, late spring burning of big bluestem grass-land in Kansas increased protein content, whereasburning at other seasons decreased it (Aldous 1934).Where fire alters dry matter production per unit ofland surface (or per plant), the gains or losses ex-pressed as a percentage of dry matter may be reversedwhen expressed on a land area basis. Thus, the per-centage protein in the shoots of certain Australiangrasses was higher after a fire, but the stand of grasswas thinned so much that there was much less totalprotein on a land area basis (Smith and others 1960).In contrast, Christensen (1977) stated that because ofincreased net production in the burned area, uptake ofall nutrients on a unit area basis by plants in theburned area undoubtedly exceeded uptake in unburnedareas despite the lack of significant differences intissue content of certain nutrients.



Sites in the early stages of reinvasion by big sage-brush, pinyon (fig. 3), juniper or other shrubs that maybe considered undesirable in excessive amounts, areone of the best uses of prescribed burning. Ideally, theburning occurs while there is still sufficient herba-ceous fuel available (fig. 4) and the woody plants aresmall and most susceptible to fire-caused mortality.Seedlings of woody plants are more susceptible to firedamage than mature plants. Small plants of juniperand pinyon species are usually more easily killed byfire, because the foliage is more likely to be ignited byground fires (fig. 3). Mature pinyon or juniper treesoften exhibit a greater distance between the groundand the lowest foliage, particularly when plants areheavily foraged, or high-lined, by big game animals.

Figure 3—Effect of prescribed fire on smallpinyon trees and understory herbs 2 years fol-lowing fire. This 27-year-old chaining project isprimarily on year-round range.

Figure 4—(A) Sufficient fuel has to be available to successfully burn juniper-pinyon stands. (B) Fire cannotbe started or continued when understory fuel is lacking.

Fire in the herbaceous layer may pass under maturepinyon or juniper trees without igniting the canopy.

Site Preparation Prior toRevegetation ___________________

Prescribed burning may have several potential usesin the revegetation of western wildlands. Herbicidetreatments or chaining may create debris that inter-fere with activities of livestock, wildlife, or plantingequipment. Fire may be used to reduce this woodydebris (fig. 5). The effectiveness of fire in debris re-moval varies with environmental conditions and theamount and distribution of fuel. Burning conditionsfavorable for debris removal are more hazardous thanburning conditions used for maintenance burning.Ignition and consumption of woody debris requireshotter, drier environmental conditions. Certain detri-mental effects on desirable species may also be associ-ated with this intensity of burning. The potentialdamage to desirable species should always be care-fully weighed against the expected benefits from burn-ing to consume woody debris.

Competition from herbaceous weeds is one of themost important causes of seeding failures and thedegeneration of established seedings. Direct seedingefforts may be damaged by competition from annualgrasses. Cheatgrass has invaded big sagebrush com-munities in much of the Western United States (Evansand Young 1975b). Cheatgrass is highly competitivewith perennial grasses and once established, maycontinue to dominate the site (Young and Evans1973). Daubenmire (1968) stated there was no conclu-sive evidence that cheatgrass will relinquish an areato indigenous species once it becomes established

A

B

B



Figure 6—Fire in a big sagebrush-perennial grass-cheatgrass community (A) provided the establishedperennial grasses the opportunity to once again become dominant (B).

(fig. 6). The highly competitive nature of cheatgrassmakes establishment of desirable perennial grassesvery difficult. In a Nevada study, growth of perennialgrass seedlings was dependent upon cheatgrass con-trol (Evans and others 1970). Without cheatgrasscontrol, soil water was depleted prior to establishmentof perennial grasses.

Fire has been used with varying degrees of successin big sagebrush-cheatgrass communities to preparethe area for seeding to perennial grasses. It has notbeen very successful where cheatgrass is dominant(Wright and others 1979). Procedures developed forrehabilitating cheatgrass-dominated rangeland follow-ing wildfires may also be used following prescribedburning. Areas dominated by cheatgrass may be treatedwith atrazine or plowed and seeded to aid establish-ment of an adequate stand of perennial grasses (Eckertand Evans 1967; Eckert and others 1974).

A

Figure 5—Prescribed fire being used to reducewoody debris on a chained juniper-pinyon areaused by cattle, elk, and mule deer.

Fire may be used to convert juniper-pinyon com-munities to a more desirable mixture of woody andherbaceous plants (fig. 3). Simply removing the treesdoes not ensure that the resulting vegetation mixturewill be dominated by more desirable herbaceous andwoody plants. Removing woody plants often results inincreased cheatgrass densities. The vegetation result-ing from disturbing western juniper woodlands maybe considered as a greater environmental degradationthan tree invasion if sustained forage production isused as the evaluation criteria (Young and others1985). They discussed obstacles encountered in at-tempting to revegetate western juniper-dominatedrangelands. The aerial standing crop of the trees oftenreaches 187 tons per acre (419 metric tons per ha). Thisrepresents a great sink of nutrients that are unavail-able for plant growth and can become an impedimentto seeding equipment. A flush of annual weeds usuallyoccurs following tree removal, which may reduce es-tablishment of seeded species. Some type of weedcontrol is recommended following tree removal, withherbicides providing the most potential (Young andothers 1985).

Big sagebrush-cheatgrass communities (fig. 7) can besuccessfully seeded following burning if the fire is hotenough to consume both sagebrush plants and cheat-grass seeds in the standing inflorescence (Young andothers 1976b). Density and ground cover of cheatgrassmay be drastically reduced the first year after fire butincrease dramatically the second year. In one studythere were less than 0.9 plants per ft2 (10 plants per m2)the first year after fire, nearly 740 plants per ft2 (8,000plants per m2) the second year, and more than 1,490plants per ft2 (16,000 plants per m2) the third year(Young and Evans 1978b). Ground cover of cheatgrasswas about 2 percent the first year, 12 percent thesecond, and 14 percent the third year after burning.

B



Figure 7—Big sagebrush community with suffi-cient understory to burn. Seeding of desirableperennial species should occur following theburn.

Much of the postburn area provides a nutrient-richenvironment, allowing full expression of downy brome’sgrowth potential (Young and Evans 1978b). Eventhough much of the cheatgrass seed is destroyed byfire, some survive and develop into large vigorousplants with many tillers and seeds produced per plant.Young and Evans (1978b) found cheatgrass seed pro-duction per plant in an unburned area varied from lessthan 10 to 250 per plant while in a burned area itvaried from 960 to almost 6,000 per plant. They attrib-uted this response to reduced intraspecific competi-tion resulting, from lower plant density. Hassan andWest (1986) found that even though fire reducedcheatgrass seed pools by half, the seed pool increasedwithin 1 year to twice the level on unburned areas. Ifmuch cheatgrass seed remains, the area may be chemi-cally fallowed (Eckert and Evans 1967), or the cheatgrassseedlings plowed prior to seeding perennial grasses.

After fire there is a dramatic reduction in diversityof annual plants. Wildfires are a major agent for in-creases in cheatgrass, which is well suited to postburnconditions because of its reproductive and competitiveabilities (Evans and Young 1984). Rehabilitation ofbig sagebrush-cheatgrass rangeland following wild-fires has resulted in the conversion of large areas fromannual grass to perennial grass dominance (fig. 6).Wildfires in this vegetation type may be either ex-tremely detrimental or beneficial, depending on reha-bilitation efforts. The advantages obtained by burningmust be realized during the first year following thefire.

An accumulation of plant litter on the soil surface isan important requirement for establishment of cheat-grass in the arid Intermountain area (Evans andYoung 1970). Plant litter on the soil surface moderatesthe microenvironmental parameters of air tempera-ture and available water in the surface soil. This creates

a seedbed environment within the physiologicalrequirements for cheatgrass seed germination andseedling growth. The microenvironment of a bare soilseedbed does not permit germination and establish-ment of cheatgrass in Nevada (Evans and Young1970). However, there is some evidence, but little data,to indicate that plant litter on the soil surface is lesscritical for cheatgrass seedling success in more mesicregions of the Western United States.

Planning revegetation efforts requires that poten-tial cheatgrass competition levels be predicted. Usinga bioassay technique, Young and others (1976b), de-termined the density of viable cheatgrass seeds rela-tive to postfire seedbed conditions. By determining therelative cover of ash and unburned organic matterafter fire, an estimate of the potential cheatgrassreinfestation can be determined. Bioassays from thearea to be rehabilitated may be conducted by placingsamples of unburned organic matter and ash in smallcups and covering with vermiculite (Young and others1969a). Cheatgrass seedlings from the samples arecounted for 8 weeks and calculated on a number per m2

basis. As few as 4.0 seedlings per ft2 (43 cheatgrassseedlings per m2) moderately reduced establishmentof crested wheatgrass seedlings and 64.0 seedlingsper ft2 (688 cheatgrass seedlings per m2) preventedperennial grass seedling establishment in a green-house (Evans 1961).

Effects of Fire on WoodyPlants _________________________

Management goals for sagebrush wildlands vary,but conservation of the basic natural resources, soiland vegetation, is usually one of the primary consider-ations. Blaisdell and others (1982) stated that ingeneral, there is too much sagebrush and other lowvalue shrubs, too many annuals, and not enoughperennial grasses and forbs. Under these conditions,the most common vegetation management goal is toreduce sagebrush and increase perennial grasses andforbs.

Grazing management may be used to improve thevegetation if deterioration has not progressed too far.Unfortunately, the aggressive, long lived nature ofsagebrush often requires some form of direct controlfollowed by revegetation with perennial, herbaceousspecies to restore the area to a satisfactory condition(Blaisdell and others 1982). It is wise, however, toconsider the desirable attributes of sagebrush, in properamounts, when planning control measures. Sagebrushis a part of many native plant communities and hasmany benefits when not overly abundant. Regardlessof the control measure used, proper grazing manage-ment should always be part of the long-term manage-ment plan.



Forage that is unavailable to the browsing animal isof little value to them. Many woody plants obtain aheight that places all the yearly leaf and shoot produc-tion out of reach of most browsing animals. Aspen andbitterbrush are just two of the plants capable of reach-ing that height. When plants resprout following topremoval, the opportunity exists to increase forageavailability with fire. Fire may stimulate suckering orresprouting of some species; placing the majority ofannual browse production within reach of most ani-mals. When aspen is clearcut, burned, or otherwisedisturbed, resprout (sucker) density may be in thetens of thousands per acre (fig. 8) (Jones 1975). Maxi-mum densities are reached the first year and begin todecline after that (Jones and Trujillo 1975). Forageproduction in aspen and conifer (fig. 9) communities isgreatly increased following burning (Bartos andMueggler 1979; Jones 1975).

Juniper and pinyon species have invaded manysagebrush/grass and grass communities during thepast 80 years and have also increased their densityover much of their range. The highly competitivenature of these trees has proven detrimental to someof the more desirable woody and herbaceous species.Several studies have attributed this increased densityto overgrazing and reductions in fire frequency, whichhave enabled these fire intolerant species to increaseboth their range and density (Blackburn and Tueller1970; Johnsen 1962).

In the sagebrush and juniper-pinyon communitiesthe primary use of prescribed burning has been to reducecompetition between the excessive woody plant coverand the more desirable plant species (fig. 10). Burningthese communities often increases productivity, qual-ity, and palatability of herbaceous plants and mayhave long lasting effects on the vegetative composi-tion. Evans and Young (1978) stated that establish-ment of perennial grasses was an important factor in

Figure 8—Release of understory herbs andresprouting of aspen following prescribed burn.

Figure 9—Response of understory grasses andforbs following burning of lodgepole pine.

Figure 10—Increase of native grasses, forbs, andpalatable shrubs following wildfire in a juniper-pinyon community.

delaying the reinvasion of big sagebrush and lowrabbitbrush.

Bitterbrush exhibits a less predictable response tofire. Several factors are undoubtedly responsible forthis variability; not the least of which is the differencebetween wildfires, which often occur during the hot-test period of the year, and prescribed fires that areoften set during cooler weather. Wildfires usuallyoccur during the summer, when carbohydrate re-serves are low (Menke and Trlica 1981). Wildfireshave reportedly destroyed bitterbrush on large areas(Hormay 1943) and “permanently eradicated” it onmany sites in the Great Basin (Billings 1952). Bitter-brush resprouted frequently, but inversely with fireintensity following fires in eastern Idaho (Blaisdell1950, 1953). Resprouting was limited following wild-fires in Washington (Daubenmire 1970) and California(Nord 1965). Other research that included prescribedfires, concluded that burning in the spring was less



damaging than burning at other times (Blaisdell andMueggler 1956).

Genetic traits account for some of the variable re-sponse of bitterbrush to fire (Bunting and others 1985;Clark and others 1982; Giunta and others 1978).Decumbent forms resprout more frequently than erectforms of bitterbrush, particularly following springburns (Bunting and others 1985; Clark and others1982). Clark and others (1982) stated that bitterbrushdoes not sprout abundantly after fire. However, firecreates litter-free sites necessary for germination ofrodent-cached seed (Sherman and Chilcote 1972).Bunting and others (1985) studied bitterbrush re-sponse, 3 to 10 years after burning, following bothprescribed fires and wildfires at 56 locations in Idahoand Montana. They found seedling establishment rateswere greatly influenced by soil water content; moremesic sites had higher bitterbrush establishment rates.Since most bitterbrush reproduction is from seed(Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968; West 1968) ratherthan vegetatively, burning may enhance reproductionin a few situations (Clark and others 1982).

Use of Fire to Improve WildlifeHabitat ________________________

Leopold (1933) defined game management as “…theart of making land produce sustained annual crops ofwild game for recreational use.” Burger (1979) definedwildlife management as “…a blending of science andart, aimed at achieving sound human goals for wildliferesources by working with habitats, wildlife popula-tions, and people.” Others definitions exist, but likethese, virtually all of them place some emphasis onmanaging the land as habitat. Management of habi-tats and wildlife populations are closely linked (Scotter1980). Wildlife habitat is a constantly changing entitythat cannot be preserved unchanged. It consists prin-cipally of vegetation, and as such is subject to changethrough succession.

Fire serves as a primary agent of successional set-back in many communities. In moist environments,marginal burning conditions reduce fire frequency(Wright and Bailey 1982). A coincidence of fuel buildup,extreme burning conditions, and ignition eventuallyresult in intense fires that may burn large areas. Evenunder these circumstances, there are areas within thefire’s boundaries which, because of aspect, additionalmoisture, type or amount of vegetation, do not burn orburn incompletely. Along the edges of most fires thereis mixing of burned and unburned areas. “Fingers” andpockets of unburned or incompletely burned habitatremain in and around the burned areas (fig. 11).

Improved fire protection has contributed to thedecreased quality of some wildlife habitat by aiding

Figure 11—Fire can occur in pockets or fingers,thus increasing community diversity and edgeareas.

succession to plant communities with low capacities tosupport certain species of animals (particularly biggame animals) (Scotter 1980). Prior to human’s inter-vention, wildfires regularly burned large areas. Muchof the postfire vegetation provided favorable forage forlivestock and certain game species, especially deerand elk (Lyon 1966b). For example, in the NorthernRegion of the U.S. Forest Service, which includesportions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the areaburned by wildfire declined from an annual average of249,000 acres (101,000 ha) at the turn of the centuryto less than 4,942 acres (2,000 ha) in the early 1960’s(Pengelly 1966). This resulted in an increase in theamount of mature forests at the expense of the grass orshrub subclimax vegetation. These succession pat-terns are common to much of Western North America,and have reduced the quality and extent of largeherbivore habitat (Scotter 1980).

Prescribed burning is a promising tool for wildlifehabitat improvement. It has been used to enhancehabitat diversity, and to improve forage quality andquantity (fig. 1, 9, 10, 11) Severson and Medina (1983)stated “…prescribed burning can be used to improve orcreate wildlife habitat by creating diversity and edgeand by improving the quantity and quality of food.Diversity and edge enhancement is generally accom-plished by eliminating overstory vegetation, trees andshrubs, in prearranged patterns that create optimumcover/forage ratios. Benefits to food resources can berealized by eliminating undesirable plants, removingdense, rank, and/or overmature growth to stimulatecrown or root sprouting, and increasing the nutritivevalue.”

Fire, like any other management tool, is not a pana-cea. The misapplication of fire can have devastatingeffects on wildlife habitat (fig. 12). Understanding the



influence of fire on plant succession and the relation-ships between animal habitat requirements and plantsuccession will enable resource managers to makeinformed decisions.

Successional Relationships BetweenPlants and Animals

Many animals are associated with one or more of thesuccessional stages or plant communities. Bailey (1984)classified animals into three categories that describethe relationships between their habitat requirementsand plant succession. He considered animals as eitherclimax-adapted (Class I), adapted to early succes-sional stages (Class II), or adapted to a mixture ofsuccessional stages (Class III). By understanding theserelationships the resource manager can often use fireto retard or set back succession to a vegetative typemore compatible with management objectives.

Animals have different degrees of versatility in thenumber of plant communities and successional stagesthat they can use for feeding and reproduction. Popula-tions of climax-adapted species (Class I) may be ad-versely affected by habitat disturbances, such as fire.Bailey (1984) listed the woodland caribou, sprucegrouse, snowshoe hare, and pileated woodpecker asexamples of climax-adapted species. These types ofanimals are poorly equipped to adapt to habitat changesand are best managed by protecting their habitat.

Class II species are typified by the bobwhite quail,cottontail rabbit, and Swainson’s thrush (Bailey 1984).Periodic habitat disturbances, such as fire, maintainplant successional stages most favorable to Class IIspecies.

Animals that can adapt to a mixture of successionalstages (Class III species) are less affected by abrupt

Figure 12—Misuse and uncontrolled use offire can result in losses of critical wildlife habi-tat. This fire destroyed prime sage-grouse andmule deer habitat.

habitat changes. Bailey (1984) considered ruffedgrouse, whitetailed deer, and mule deer to be goodexamples of Class III species; which may requiredisturbance or protection, depending on which habitatcomponent is limiting.

Thomas (1979) developed a versatility index (V) thatcan be used to rate individual animal species, or all thespecies of an area. The V score for each species isderived by determining the total number of plantcommunities and the total number of successionalstages to which the species shows primary orientationfor feeding and reproduction: V = (Cr + Sr) + (Cf + Sf)where V is the versatility score, Cr is the number ofcommunities used by the species for reproduction, Sris the number of successional stages used for repro-duction, Cf is the number of communities used forfeeding, and Sf is the number of stages used for feeding(Thomas 1979). The versatility index is a tool thatallows wildlife habitat managers to estimate howmany, and which wildlife species are likely to benefitor be harmed by prescribed fire in a specific area.

Wildlife habitats should be identified in such a waythat they can be considered simultaneously with otherland management activities. This can be accomplishedby equating plant communities and successional stageswith habitats for wildlife (Thomas 1979). Associatingindividual wildlife species or groups of species withplant communities and stages of plant successionallows the wildlife manager to translate range andforest inventories into wildlife habitat information(Whisenant 1986a).

Prescribed burning has been successfully used toincrease willow abundance for moose habitat improve-ment. Geyer’s willow is a subclimax species, highlypreferred by moose, which is replaced by spruce throughsuccession. Prescribed burning has been used in west-ern Wyoming to prevent succession to spruce, and tostimulate willow regeneration (Weiss 1983). The re-sulting increase in amount of willow was followed byincreased moose use of the burned areas.

Cover Requirements

Scotter (1980) asserted that habitat componentssuch as type and amount of cover may be equally asimportant as quantity and quality of food.

The primary function of cover is to provide escaperoutes and hiding places from predators, in addition toshelter from weather (Black and others 1976; Seversonand Medina 1983; Thomas 1979; Thomas and others1976). Hiding cover provides the security that makesan animal’s use of the area possible, and thermal coverhelps the animal maintain body temperatures withintolerable limits.

Requirements for hiding cover vary throughoutthe year. Leopold (1933) listed five kinds of cover forbirds: winter cover, refuge cover, loafing cover, nesting,



and roosting cover. There is much overlap betweenthese kinds of cover; one location may serve as ad-equate winter, refuge, and nesting or loafing cover.Rarely are cover requirements for a particular speciescompletely understood. Careful consideration of theserequirements with respect to the location and speciesin question will help to alleviate many of the potentialproblems.

For example, hiding cover for elk has been defined asthe vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an elkfrom the view of a person at 200 ft (61.0 m) or less(Black and others 1976; Thomas 1979). The amount ofvegetation required to do this varies between vegeta-tion type and location. Elk use of cover is significantlyreduced beyond 900 ft (274.3 m) from an opening(Reynolds 1966). Hiding cover that meets the require-ments for elk will be more than adequate for deer(Black and others 1976).

For elk management, an optimum ratio of 40 percentcover to 60 percent foraging area has been recom-mended (Black and others 1976; Thomas 1979). Thissuggestion was based on how elk used cover andopenings in relation to edges. The 60 percent foragearea included all openings and forested areas that didnot qualify as cover.

Thomas and others (1976) defined thermal coverfor elk as a stand of coniferous trees in excess of 40 ft(12.2 m) tall with a canopy cover in excess of 75 percent.Multilayered vegetation provides better thermal coverthan single layered vegetation. At least 30 acres (12.1 ha)are required for adequate shelter from the wind, andareas larger than 60 acres (24.2 ha) are not usedefficiently. Others have suggested that elk thermalcover requirements are more variable. Consistentlyused elk thermal cover in south-central Wyomingsummer ranges are less than 5 acres (2.0 ha) in sizeand only 150 ft (45.7 m) from openings (Ward 1976).Thermal cover for deer has been defined (on summerand spring fall range) as trees or shrubs, at leastsapling size (Black and others 1976). Deer thermalcover has an optimum size of 2 to 5 acres (0.8 to 2.0 ha)with a minimum width of 300 ft (91.4 m). Unfortu-nately, research into deer and elk cover requirementshave rarely considered winter ranges that undoubt-edly must be very important (Severson and Medina1983).

Pronghorn antelope are associated with open country,and little research attention has been given to theirthermal cover requirements. However, pronghornsare reported to make use of wind velocity barrierssuch as creek and river banks, road fills and dikes,and the lee sides of sagebrush (Yoakum 1980).Pronghorns have also been observed taking summershelter under isolated trees in otherwise open valleys.Until more detailed information is available, resource

managers must make subjective judgements aboutthe adequacy of pronghorn thermal cover.

Burning may alter an animal’s ability to enter anarea. In forests, movements of large animals into anarea may be reduced or eliminated if large numbers offallen trees restrict movement.

Kelsall (1968) believed the tangle of dead trees onburned areas explained the observations of Banfield(1954) that barren ground caribou avoided burnedforests. Gates (1968) showed that deer used burnedand debris free areas more frequently than those thatcontained unburned logging slash. Research did notrule out the possibility that deer preferred the food onthe burned areas. Where downed timber restrictsmovement of large ungulates into an area, the burningplan should attempt to increase animal access into asmany new areas as possible or practical.

Another concept closely allied with cover is vegeta-tion edges, which are the places where plant commu-nities or successional stages come together (Thomas1979). A discussion of the importance of areas ofvegetation edge is aided by an understanding of twoimportant concepts, dispersion and interspersion(Thomas 1979). The law of dispersion states “thepotential density of game…requiring two or moretypes is, within ordinary limits, proportional to thesum of the type peripheries” (Leopold 1933). The lawof interspersion states that “the number of speciesrequiring two or more types of habitat depends on thedegree of interspersion of numerous blocks of suchtypes” (Severson and Medina 1983).

Small or patchy fires that create a mosaic of vegeta-tion types and statures in previously homogenousvegetation are usually beneficial to most species. Thesetypes of fires not only increase the number of speciespresent but often increase the number of individualanimals. Biswell (1952) recommended small burns of5 to 10 acres (2.0 to 4.0 ha) in a checkerboard patternto open up dense chamise brushland for blacktaileddeer, game birds, and small mammals in California.This type of burning program increased deer abun-dance, weight, weaning percentage, and winteringability compared to deer from unburned areas or onlarge uniform burns. This improved deer performancewas explained by enhanced nutritive value of plantsgrowing in the openings.

Often it is not the quantity of the habitat compo-nents that determines animal numbers or health, butrather the degree of interspersion, or spatial relation-ship to other requirements (Dasmann 1964). It is thecomplexity of habitat requirements that leads to therecognition of the “edge effect.” More edge betweenparticular types results in greater densities of animalsassociated with that edge. Increasing the intersper-sion of types will increase the edge requirements of



various animals as well as the use of diversity indicesto quantify the edge (Severson and Medina 1983;Thomas 1979; Yoakum and others 1980).

Food Requirements

Nutrient contents of plants often follow a predict-able annual cycle. Nutritional values are highest earlyin the growing season, usually decline following flow-ering, and are lowest during dormant periods. Mostherbivores thrive as long as they can consume theyoung tender shoots, leaves, and buds. Nutritionaldifficulties occur when they are forced to eat old,coarse vegetation.

Fire can be used to remove old litter and standingvegetation from an area. This often has the effect ofimproving diet quality of large herbivores by reducingconsumption of old coarse growth and increasing con-sumption of young plant parts.

The concept of tolerance ranges for all environmen-tal factors should always be considered in any habitatanalysis and improvement scheme. Dasmann (1964)aptly stated the correct approach when he wrote “thegame manager, in attempts to improve habitat, mustcontinually search through the range of potentiallimiting factors seeking one that can practically andeconomically by remedied. Habitat research and man-agement have sometimes been defined as attempts todiscover limiting factors and then to remove each inturn until the maximum feasible production of wildlifeis obtained.” Unfortunately, it is not always simple todetermine what is limiting wildlife populations.

Riparian Considerations

Fire can have many impacts on stream habitats. Ofprimary importance are changes in soil erosion, waterflow, nutrient loading, and water temperature. All ofthese commonly increase following a fire and may bedetrimental to aquatic organisms. A reduction instreamside vegetation often results from burning andis a contributing factor to many of the detrimentalimpacts. Sediment input to streams may reduce thearea suitable for spawning or smother fish eggs withfine materials (Cordone 1961). Increased water flowmay damage eggs by increasing gravel movement(Lyon and others 1978). Removal of streamside veg-etation often increases streambank erosion, reducesthe available streamside habitat, and increases watertemperatures. Increased water temperature increasesoxygen demand and fish disease (Lyon and others1978). Increased nutrient loading often occurs after afire and may be beneficial by increasing stream pro-ductivity (Lyon and others 1978). Adverse stream-related impacts can be lessened by leaving a buffer ofvegetation around streams.

Competitive Interactions Between WildlifeSpecies

Fire may alter the competitive interactions betweenanimals; with the result of one species increasing atthe expense of another. An interesting study of howfire can alter the competitive relationships betweenungulates was conducted in Banff and Jasper NationalParks of Alberta, Canada (Flook 1964). Before the fire,mule deer, moose, and bighorn sheep were relativelycommon, and elk were relatively uncommon. Each ofthese species lived in separate habitats and interac-tions were relatively rare. Widespread fires encour-aged grassland and shrubland that benefited the elk.The elk moved into many new areas and competedvigorously with mule deer for food and cover and withbighorn sheep and moose for food. As a consequenceof habitat changes brought on by fire, and competitionfrom elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mule deer de-clined in numbers (Flook 1964).

Evaluating the effects of fire or any other manage-ment practice, on multiple wildlife species becomesquite complex. Thomas (1979) devised a matrix typeapproach to analyzing potential impacts of manage-ment practices on all forest species in the Blue Moun-tains of Oregon. This required an understanding of thehabitat requirements of the wildlife species, the re-quirements filled by the present vegetative commu-nity, and the requirements filled by the post burnvegetation.

Manipulating Wildlife Habitat With Fire

The first step in planning a habitat manipulationprogram must be to clarify the objectives. Is manage-ment for species diversity the overriding consider-ation? If so, the habitat should be developed for maxi-mum diversity of communities, successional stages,and ages of plants. If a single animal species is to begiven priority, then habitat manipulation should beplanned with that species in mind, with less concernfor requirements of other species. Are recreational andaesthetic considerations of overriding importance inthe area? If so, the vegetation manipulation plan willrequire a much different approach. Often multiple useobjectives require consideration of all species anduses. However, certain smaller areas may be selectedas having the greatest potential for a particular useand can be managed primarily for that use. These aresome of the questions that must be addressed early inthe planning stages.

Severson and Medina (1983) stated that wildlifehabitat managers have four facets of vegetation ma-nipulation to consider when designing habitat modifi-cations: (1) the amount of hiding and thermal covernecessary to fulfill the animals’ needs, (2) the amount



of area needed for food production, (3) the optimumarrangement (interspersion) of various cover and foodproducing areas to realize, and (4) the optimum amountof edge. When considering these four facets of vegeta-tive manipulation the habitat manager must seek tofind the limiting factor(s) of the population(s) in ques-tion. Adequate information is seldom available on allthe possible limiting factors. As a result, the habitatmanager should acquire more information, or proceedby improving the quality of the “probable limitingfactors” in the habitat. General reviews and discus-sions of habitat improvement techniques can be foundin Thomas (1979), Yoakum and others 1980, andSeverson and Medina (1983).

Successful habitat management must be based ona thorough understanding of the fact that the vege-tation on a given site does not remain the same fromyear to year if left alone (Leopold 1933). Each succes-sional change is characterized by a certain assemblageof plant species that have different kinds and amountsof cover and food. Succession can be hastened byplanting climax species, protection from grazing, andfire. Even with this help, accelerating the pace ofsuccession may be very slow. Succession can be rapid-ly set back through the use of prescribed burning(fig. 13). The challenge to the habitat manager is toensure that this change in plant succession is consis-tent with management objectives.

Several kinds of changes in the plant community arepossible and should be considered in a habitat ma-nipulation program. Fire can be used to change plantabundance, availability, dispersion, nutritive value,and species composition. Community dispersion, in-terspersion, and edge can also be altered with fire.Judicious use of fire can often produce the desired mixof these attributes in a plant community (fig. 14).

Figure 13—Selective spot burning in a mixedspruce and aspen community. Prescribedburning was used to set back succession ona prime elk summering area.

Figure 14—Juniper-pinyon being selectively burnedfor the benefit of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep.(A) Area in foreground is a 3-year-old burn, and(B) Bighorn sheep on a 3-year-old juniper-pinyonburn.

Selectivity is required to produce the desired plantcommunity with prescribed burning. Three types ofselectivity can be used to effect the desired changes inplant communities: (1) selectivity of fire intensity, (2)species selectivity, and (3) area selectivity. Of thesethree types of selectivity, fire intensity is of overridingimportance; understanding each is necessary to real-ize the potential of fire in habitat manipulation.

Fire intensity (described by fireline intensity) is theamount of heat released per unit of time per length offire front. Fire severity incorporates both upward anddownward heat fluxes and is an expression of theeffect of fire on the ecosystem (Brown 1985a). It relatesplant mortality to the extent of organic matter loss.Selectivity of fire intensity is obtained by selecting theproper mix of environmental conditions to achieve thefire intensity necessary to effect the desired change inthe habitat. Burning under relatively cool, humidconditions results in fire with reduced severity thatmay not consume the ground litter. Conversely, burn-ing under hot, dry, and windy conditions results in amore severe fire capable of removing vegetation and

A

B



organic matter to the mineral soil. The differencesbetween these two kinds of fires have profound influ-ences on the resulting vegetation.

Postfire aspen sucker density is influenced by fireintensity and fire severity (Brown 1985a). Aspen suckerresponse to three levels of fire severity have beendescribed by Brown (1985a) based on studies by Hortonand Hopkins (1965) and Bartos and Mueggler (1981):

1. Low fire intensity and low ground char results inpartial mortality of vegetation. Less than 50 to 60percent of aspen trees are top-killed, and litter andupper part of soil duff is consumed. Suckering re-sponse is patchy and sparse.

2. Moderate to high fire intensity with moderateground char top-kills nearly all of the aspen. Somepatches of soil duff and charred material remain.Suckering is prolific.

3. Moderate to high fire intensity with high groundchar top-kills nearly all of the aspen. Forest floor isreduced to ash and exposed mineral soil. Substantialsuckering results.

Species selectivity is the ability to change the plantspecies composition of an area to meet the desiredmanagement objectives. Fire intensity, life form, andphenology all influence the differential mortality orstimulation of plants following fire. Plant speciesresponse to fire differs because of phenological varia-tions at the time of burning, inherent susceptibilitiesto heat damage, regenerative abilities, and responsesto the postfire environment. Individual plants mayhave different responses to fire because of local varia-tions in fire temperature or microenvironment. Thepostfire assemblage of plants may have few specieschanges, as is often the case after grassland fires, ormay be dramatically different in both species compo-sition and structure, which occurs following someforest fires.

The precise path of plant succession, or the results offire on a certain community depends on many interact-ing factors and may, therefore, be difficult to predict.It is the plant community, and the successional stagesof it, that are of primary concern to the wildlife habitatmanager and should be understood prior to any pre-scribed burning operation. Fortunately, there is suffi-cient information available on fire effects in manycommunities to allow several generalizations.

Each step in succession may last only a few monthsor as long as several centuries. Succession can behastened by planting climax species, protection fromabusive grazing, and from fire. The process of succes-sion from one vegetation type to another can be veryslow, even with helpful management. Succession canbe set back by many kinds of disturbances; the mostcommon of which are overgrazing by domestic live-stock, cutting vegetation for hay or timber, plowingthe soil, and burning.

Grasslands are usually well adapted to recurringfire regimes and are not drastically changed by fire. Anincrease in forbs is a common occurrence. Early suc-cessional animals such as bobwhite quail are oftenfavored by these changes (Leopold 1933; Stoddard1931). Woody plants vary considerably in their re-sponse to fire. Communities of woody plants withoutthe ability to resprout following top removal, such asbig sagebrush and Utah juniper, are often destroyed byfire. In contrast, communities with aggressive re-sprouters such as mesquite, willow, aspen, or Gambeloak retain similar species compositions but the above-ground portions of the communities may be drasticallyreduced in height while the stem density increases.

Area selectivity is the ability to burn certain areas,or a percentage of an area. This is a critical factor indetermining the amount of dispersion, interspersion,and edge in the post-burn community. Area selectivitycan be obtained by burning a series of small areas(fig. 14) or by burning at a time and place where thefire will not burn continuously.

Burning Techniques _____________

Firebreak Considerations

Adequate firebreak construction is essential to thedevelopment of a successful prescribed burn. Fire-breaks may consist of any area, whether natural orhuman-made, which successfully contains the fireunder consideration. Natural firebreaks may be riv-ers, rock bluffs (fig. 15), or areas with insufficientvegetation to carry the fire. Human-made firebreaksmay be roads (fig. 16), plowed fields, or areas con-structed specifically to stop a prescribed fire.

Natural firebreaks provide a significant cost advan-tage when available, but specially developed fire-breaks are routinely used in prescribed burning. Theseusually consist of a combination of mechanically re-moving vegetation down to the mineral soil for a width

Figure 15—Use of a river and rocky hillsideas natural fire breaks in a prescribed burn.



Figure 16—Human-made firebreak in a juni-per-pinyon prescribed burn.

Fire Plan for Nonvolatile Fuels

100 ft

R. H. = 25 - 40%Wind = 8 - 15 mph

Temp. > 60 F.

R. H. = 50 - 60%Wind < 8 mph

Figure 17—Fire plan for nonvolatile fuels.

Figure 18—Fire plan for volatile fuels.

of 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m) and burning the vegetationin a strip around the area to be burned. Burningfirebreaks usually occur under relatively mild condi-tions. Depending on the situation, this may meanburning the firebreak several months in advance orpreparing the firebreak the morning of the main fire.

Burning in grassland fuels usually requires only a100 ft (30.5 m) firebreak (fig. 17). However, burning inshrubby vegetation, particularly where the shrubscontain volatile oils, requires a much wider firebreak(fig. 18). The following burning prescriptions includesuggested fireline widths, however, there is no substi-tute for experience and careful consideration of theunique features of each individual burning situation.For detailed information on fireline preparation, fir-ing techniques, and the application of prescribed burn-ing, refer to the excellent reviews on those subjects(Emrick and Adams 1977; Fischer 1978; Martin andDell 1978; Mobley and others 1978; Schroeder andBuck 1970; Wright 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982).

Sagebrush Communities

Larger sagebrush types (fig. 12) often provide fuelsufficient to carry a fire. Sites dominated by dwarfspecies seldom support enough fuel to carry a fire.

Big Sagebrush-Grass

According to Beardall and Sylvester (1976), a mini-mum of 600 to 700 lb per acre (673 to 785 kg per ha) ofherbaceous fuel is required to burn sagebrush grasscommunities. Where the fire is to be carried withherbaceous fuels, livestock grazing should be restrictedduring the growing season prior to the burn. Thisshould help provide adequate fuel to carry the fire.Pechanec and Stewart (1944) determined that 20percent cover should be the minimum amount ofsagebrush to consider burning. Wright and others(1979) recommended early spring or late summerburning, when soil moisture is usually present down to12 to 19 inches (30.5 to 48.3 cm). Soil moisture is lesscritical when burning in the fall.

The following instructions for burning sagebrush-grass range were suggested by Wright and others(1979) and Wright and Bailey (1982):

1. Prepare a fireline of 10 to 12 ft (3.0 to 3.7 m) widtharound the entire area to be burned. This firelineshould expose the mineral soil.

2. Burn a 250 ft (76.2 m) blackline on the downwindside, when weather conditions are mild. Air tempera-ture should be 60 to 70 ∞F (15.6 to 21.1 ∞C), relativehumidity 25 to 40 percent, and windspeed 6 to 10 miper h (9.7 to 16.0 km per h). These environmentalconditions are most common in the early morninghours during the summer.

3. Burn the remaining area in the afternoon as airtemperature reaches the maximum and relativehumidity approaches its minimum. Recommended

Fire Plan for Volatile Fuels

400 ft

R. H. = 25 - 40%Wind = 8 - 15 mphTemp. = 65-75 F.

R. H. = 50 - 60%Wind < 8 mph



environmental conditions are air temperature of 75 to80 ∞F (23.9 to 26.7 ∞C), relative humidity 15 to 20percent, and windspeed 8 to 15 mi per h (12.9 to 23.9km per h).

Dense Stands of Big Sagebrush

Dense stands of big sagebrush surrounded by lowsagebrush may be burned during hot, dry, windy dayswith no firelines (Beardall and Sylvester 1976). Theysuggested burning these areas in early spring whenrelative humidity is below 60 percent, windspeed isabove 8 mi per h (12.9 km per h), and when there ismore than 600 to 700 lb per acre (673 to 785 kg per ha)of fine fuel.

A technique for burning very dense stands of bigsagebrush that does not require fireline preparationwas developed by Neuenschwander (1980). This tech-nique involves winter burning, with snow present, andis restricted to areas with greater than 50 percentsagebrush cover and a distance between plants of lessthan 50 percent of the average sagebrush height. Withthose restrictions, fire carried through sagebrush cano-pies when effective windspeed was above 5 mi per h(8.0 km per h) and the winter ignition index wasgreater than 29. The winter ignition index is deter-mined using the following equation:

Y1 = 96.64 – 91.20 (X1) – 1.1 (X2)r2 = 0.811

Where Y1 = ignition indexX1 = fine fuel moisture content of canopy

(percent)X2 = relative humidity (percent)

and Y1 > 0+

Under those conditions, only small areas burned.Winter sagebrush burning might be impractical inmost areas because of stand limitations and the rela-tively few days with proper burning conditions(Neuenschwander 1980). However, where feasible,winter broadcast burning is inexpensive, and com-pletely safe when snow is present. It requires nofireline construction or fire crews and can be used tocreate vegetation mosaics beneficial to both wildlifeand livestock.

Cheatgrass Communities

Burning cheatgrass ranges is relatively easy if acontinuous cover of dry cheatgrass is present. Thecritical aspect in burning this community is postfiremanagement. Establishment of perennial grass spe-cies is very important. Fireline construction can easilybe done with the wetline technique described by Martinand others (1977). Fires can be backed away from asingle wetline or allowed to burn between two wetlines.

Martin and others (1982) suggested the followingprescription for burning cheatgrass ranges: (1) burnafter grasses have dried out and when soil surfacelitter is dry enough for the fire to consume cheatgrassseeds in the soil surface litter, (2) use backfires tocreate a blackline of 30 to 100 ft (9.1 to 30.5 m) on thedownwind sides, and (3) burn with headfire when airtemperature is 56 to 84 ∞F (13.3 to 28.9 ∞C), relativehumidity is 20 to 45 percent, and windspeed is 0 to10 mi per h (0 to 16.1 km per h).

Juniper-Pinyon

Prescribed burning in the juniper-pinyon zone(fig. 3, 11, and 14) is primarily used to reduce tree andshrub cover, allowing recovery of herbaceous species,or as a site preparation procedure for seeding efforts.The following guidelines are useful in planning andconducting prescribed fires in juniper-pinyon types.

Closed Stands of Juniper and Pinyon—Standsof juniper and pinyon with little or no herbaceousplants are difficult to burn. The areas become moredifficult to burn as the percentage of juniper increasesand pinyon decreases. With large fire lines, standswith over 300 trees per acre (741 or more per hectare)can be burned on hot, windy days (Blackburn andBruner 1975; Truesdell 1969). These areas may re-quire winds in excess of 35 mi per h (56.4 km per h) tocarry a fire. The hazards of an escaped fire preventmost resource managers from burning under theseconditions. However, in unusual situations where ex-cellent natural fire breaks were present, prescribedfires have been successfully conducted under thoseconditions (Truesdell 1969). The following prescrip-tion is recommended (Wright and Bailey 1982) forburning closed stands of juniper-pinyon: (1) prepare a10 ft (3.0 m) fire line around the area to be burned. Onthe downwind side, 500 ft (152.4 m) in from the outsideboundary, construct a similar fireline parallel to thefirst. The downwind strips can be chained and wind-rowed; (2) windrows are to be burned in early spring orsummer when vegetation of adjacent areas is stillgreen. This burning should occur with an air tempera-ture of 60 to 75 ∞F (15.6 to 23.9 ∞C), relative humidityof 20 to 35 percent, and windspeed of 0 to 10 mi per h(0 to 16.1 km per h); (3) the main burn area is preparedin the spring by dozing strips 20 to 50 ft (6.1 to 15.2 m)wide every 0.25 mi (0.4 km) and pushing the debrisagainst the windward side of the standing trees. Thesefuels should be allowed to cure for 2 to 3 months; and(4) conduct the main burn in the summer with an airtemperature of 80 to 95 ∞F (26.7 to 35.0 ∞C), relativehumidity less than 10 percent, and windspeed greaterthan 8 mi per h (12.9 km per h). The fire intensity isbuilt up in the windrows and carries through theadjacent standing trees.



Davis (1976) suggested chaining as an alternativemethod of preparing firelines in closed juniper-pinyonstands. The firelines would be chained in the winter,and in the spring when adjacent unchained areas hadmoderate conditions and green vegetation, the chainedareas would be burned. Bryant and others (1983)stated that recently chained or dozed juniper (lessthan 100 days) can be safely burned if herbaceous fuelis less than 445 lb per acre (499 kg per ha), windspeedis less than 6 mi per h (9.7 km per h), relative humidityis above 45 percent, and air temperature is less than86 ∞F (30.0 ∞C). The best fireline width is not known,but Wright and others (1979) suggested 300 ft (91.4 m)if little fine fuel is present in the surrounding area.

Pure stands of juniper are difficult to burn withouta pretreatment that increases flammability or conti-nuity. These areas require firelines and hot, dry,windy conditions. The distance between windrowsmay need to be reduced to only 250 ft (76.2 m). Thedifficulty in broadcast burning these areas may re-quire large fire crews to ignite the scattered piles andwindrows. Flammability may be increased by me-chanical treatments or possibly with herbicide treat-ments on the area, or parts of the area, to be burned.The fuel continuity may be increased by one-waychaining the area with a relatively light chain. Thistreatment uproots very few trees but moves them to afairly horizontal posture. This greatly reduces or elimi-nates the distance between trees and enables the fireto spread much easier.

More recent research into techniques of burningmature Ashe juniper in Texas with crown fires hasadded more information and suggestions (Bryant andothers 1983). They studied the effect of dozed andwindrowed juniper as an aid to igniting adjacentstanding trees. Dozed trees left where they fell wereineffective in igniting a crown fire in the adjacentstanding trees. Windrowed plots produced the bestresult for igniting the adjacent crowns when canopycover exceeded 35 percent; windspeed exceeded 10 miper h (16.1 km per h); air temperature was 73 to 91 ∞F(22.8 to 32.8 ∞C); relative humidity was 20 to 35percent; and juniper leaf water content was 58 to 60percent. Crown fires stopped when the distance be-tween juniper trees exceeded 26 ft (7.9 m). Burninginto less dense areas and using livestock to reduce finefuel loads of fire lines was also effective (Bryant andothers 1983). This method is limited to times andplaces with high winds, hot temperatures, and densejuniper stands, and has not been tested on juniper-pinyon communities of the Intermountain area. Nev-ertheless, it should be of considerable importancewhen it can be used.

Open Stands of Juniper-Pinyon With GrassUnderstory—In these communities, the fine fuel isused to carry fire from tree to tree (fig. 4). This requires

600 to 700 lb per acre (673 to 785 kg per ha) of fine fuelif it is uniformly distributed (Wright and others 1979).This method is restricted to areas with small trees(fig. 3). Trees larger than 4 ft (1.2 m) will rarely bekilled unless the fine fuel load is sufficient to ignite thetree canopies.

Prescriptions for burning open juniper-pinyon standscontaining a grass understory are similar to those forgrasslands. However, additional precautions shouldbe taken to reduce the potential for spotting. Informa-tion from Jameson (1962) and Dwyer and Peiper(1967) was used to prepare the following prescrip-tions: (1) prepare a 10 to 12 ft (3.0 to 3.7 m) wide firelinearound the area to be burned. Use strip headfires toprepare a 100 ft (30.5 m) blackline on the downwindsides (Wright and others 1979). This is best done in themorning or early evening during spring and (2) ignitemain fire with an air temperature of 70 to 74 ∞F (21.1to 23.3 ∞C), relative humidity of 20 to 40 percent, and awindspeed of 10 to 20 mi per h (16.1 to 32.2 km per h)(Dwyer and Pieper 1967; Jameson 1962).

Martin (1978) studied western juniper mortalityfollowing fire under four sets of environmental condi-tions. All the sites studied had sufficient herbaceousfuel or sagebrush cover to carry the fire through thejuniper stands. He subsequently suggested the fol-lowing prescription for burning: (1) prepare a 200 ft(61.0 m) fireline on the downwind side of the area to beburned. Use backfires and short strip headfires toburn the fireline and (2) ignite the main headfire withan air temperature of 65 to 80 ∞F (18.3 to 27.8 ∞C),relative humidity of 17 to 23 percent, and a windspeedof 5 to 12 mi per h (8.0 to 19.3 km per h).

Mixed Juniper-Pinyon—Bruner and Klebenow(1979) reported a prescription for burning dense, mixedUtah juniper single leaf pinyon stands in Nevadawithout the use of firelines. They developed a simpleindex to aid in determining where and when theseburns should be attempted. This index consists of totaltree and shrub cover, air temperature, and maximumwindspeed. The index is as follows:

INDEX = tree and shrub cover (percent)+ air temperature (∞F)+ maximum windspeed (mi per h)

where, shrub and tree cover = 45 to 60 percent, airtemperature = 60 to 75 ∞F (15.6 to 23.9 ∞C), windspeed =5 to 25 mi per h (8.0 to 40.2 km per h), and relativehumidity is less than 25 percent. The index must equalor exceed 110 for a fire to carry and kill large pinyonand juniper trees. At values less than 125, reignitionmay be necessary; above 130, conditions are too haz-ardous to burn.

This method is safe, economical, and useful for theareas in which it was designed. This prescription wasdeveloped on a series of fires that carried upslope into



Table 4—Probabilities of successfully applying prescribed fire in aspen forests according tovegetation fuel classes and the influence of grazing and quantities of downed woodymateriala.

Vegetation, fuel classAspen Aspen Aspen Mixed Mixed

Condition shrub tall forb low forb shrub forb

Ungrazed, light downed wood Good Fair Poor Good FairUngrazed, heavy downed wood Good Fair Poor Good GoodGrazed, light downed wood Fair Poor Poor Fair FairGrazed, heavy downed wood Good Poor Poor Good Fair

aAdapted from Brown (1985a).

ravines. Ignition was aided by the upslope, thick standof juniper-pinyon, and the high percentage of pinyon(greater than 90 percent) in the vegetation. Firelineswere not required because of the sparse vegetationoutside of the ravines. Most of the burns were small,ranging from 5 to 60 acres (2.0 to 24.3 ha).

Aspen

Aspen forests have generally been considered diffi-cult to burn (fig. 1, 8, and 13). Fuel loads and flamma-bilities of these communities vary greatly. Carefulselection of locations where fuels are sufficiently flam-mable to offer a high probability of success is critical inaspen communities. Fortunately, some quantitative

Table 3—Vegetation classification of aspen fuels and flammabilitya.

Vegetation and fuel characteristicsCharacteristics Aspen shrub Aspen tall forb Aspen low forb Mixed shrub

Overstory species occupying 50 percent or more of canopy Aspen Aspen Aspen Conifers

Shrub coverage (percent) >30 <30 <30 >30

Indicator species for community type Prunus Bromus Ranunculus Prunus

Amelanchier Heracleum Mahonia Shepherdia

Shepherdia Ligusticum Arnica Spiraea

Symphoricarpos Spiraea Astragalus Amelanchier

Artemisia Calamagrostis Thalictrum Symphoricarpos

Juniperus Rudbeckia Geranium

Pachistima Wyethia PoaaAdapted from Brown (1985a).

guidelines have been developed for burning in aspencommunities. Brown (1985a) states that at least 80percent aspen top kill was necessary to achieve effec-tive suckering following burning. He also stated thatflame lengths averaging 1.3 ft (0.4 m) were a minimumflame size for sustained spread and for consistentaspen top kill.

Flammability of aspen and aspen-conifer communi-ties varies with leaf litter abundance, downed woodymaterial, herbaceous vegetation (table 3), shrubs, co-nifer reproduction, slope, grazing intensity, fuel watercontent, crown closure, and pocket gopher activity(Brown 1985a). Aspen communities can be separatedinto five fuel classes (table 4) with respect to potentialfor prescribed burning (Brown 1985a).



The probability of successful burning of the aspenand aspen-conifer communities can be better pre-dicted when grazing and the amount of woody fuel areconsidered. Using the probability of successful burn-ing information (table 4) developed by Brown (1985a)allows concentration on sites with the greatest likeli-hood of success. These probabilities can be greatlymodified by factors such as aspect, slope, fuel continu-ity, and fuel water content.

Once a potential site is selected, fuel water contentshould be carefully considered. The best indirect indi-cator of live fuel water content is time of year (Brown1985a). In most aspen communities, the snowpacks donot completely melt until the spring greenup. Sum-mers are usually dry in the Rocky Mountain aspenregion, and fuels dry through late summer and fall(DeByle 1985b). As fall approaches, the probability ofa major precipitation event increases (DeByle 1985b).The most reliable time to burn aspen communities isoften after live vegetation is cured, and prior to fallprecipitation.

Live Aspen—Burning live aspen forests usuallyrequires relative humidity below 35 percent. Wrightand Bailey (1982) stated that acceptable burningconditions and a proven prescription for aspenparklands in Alberta are: (1) relative humidity of 15 to30 percent; temperature 65 to 80 ∞F (18.3 to 26.7 ∞C);4 to 15 mi per h (6.4 to 24.1 km per h) windspeed; atleast 14 days since the snow melted in adjacent grass-land or 3 drying days since the last rain; and a surfaceduff water content of less than 20 percent; (2) preparea 500 ft (152.4 m) fireline on the leeside and a 100 ft(30.5 m) fireline on the remaining sides; and (3) stripheadfires are the best ignition method. When burningin aspen parklands, where groves of trees are sur-rounded by grassland, the grassland can be burned toprovide a fireline for the aspen fire.

Dead Aspen—Aspen forests can be killed with anherbicide and burned 2 years later under fairly mod-erate conditions (Wright and Bailey 1982). Underthese conditions, burning should not occur whenrelative humidity is less than 35 percent because thedead aspen bark becomes a dangerous firebrand.Wright and Bailey (1982) recommended the following

prescription for burning dead aspen forests: (1) rela-tive humidity of 35 to 50 percent; temperature 40 to75 ∞F (4.4 to 23.9 ∞C); 2 to 12 mi per h (3.2 to 19.3 kmper h) windspeed; at least 10 days since the snowmelted or three drying days since the last rain; anda surface duff water content of less than 20 percent;(2) prepare a 400 ft (121.9 m) fireline on the leesideand a 100 ft (30.5 m) fireline on the remaining sides;and (3) strip headfires are the best ignition method ifa person can walk around the perimeter of aspengroves. In a continuous forest, perimeter firing isrecommended because strip headfiring is too danger-ous in a dead forest.

When a dead aspen forest is totally surrounded bylive aspen forest, a 1 m (3.3 m) fireline can be con-structed around the perimeter of the dead forest.Relative humidity should be 40 to 50 percent (Wrightand Bailey 1982). More detailed information on pre-scribed burning of aspen communities can be found inBrown (1985a).

Management After Burning _______The success of any wildland rehabilitation project is

largely determined by postfire management (Youngand others 1985). Judicious application of manage-ment practices based on the unique attributes of theresource with consideration for additional concernscreated by burning are the key to successful wildlandrehabilitation. The recommendations made byPechanec and Stewart in 1944 are still appropriate formanaging western rangeland after burning. Theystated: (1) protection of burned areas from trailing bylivestock during the first fall at least; (2) protection ofburned areas from grazing for one full year; (3) lightgrazing for the second year, and thereafter no heavierthan the range can support permanently; (4) the samegrazing management for burned and reseeded areasas for areas not in need of reseeding; (5) for areas withmore than half the understory in cheatgrass, specialprotection against recurrent accidental fires; and (6)for accidentally burned areas, at least as good man-agement after burning as that demanded for the bestresults from planned burning.


12

Selection and Use of Adapted Species _______________

Selection and use of seeds of different species must be carefullyconsidered in range and wildland improvement projects. Theselection of species to be planted in any restoration programusually takes place after the decision has been made to restore orrehabilitate an area, and the objectives of the project have beendetermined. However, availability of seed and planting stock candelay and alter seeding programs. Seeding and planting involvesan introduction of seeds and plants to a site that alters existingplant communities and influences successional processes. Mostseeding projects are conducted only once, and the plant communi-ties that ultimately develop are dependent upon the initial successof the plantings. In contrast to natural seedings that normallyproduce only a few new seedlings each year and may or may notalter plant composition, artificial seedings, if successful, create adramatic and immediate change in community composition.

Stephen B. MonsenRichard Stevens

Seedbed Preparationand SeedingPractices

Chapter


Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Successful site improvement projects are based onthe selection of adapted plant materials (Stevens1981). There is no substitute (manipulation, man-agement) for proper species selection (fig. 1). Thefactor that most often leads to project failure is the useof unadapted species. Seeded species must be able toestablish and maintain themselves, whether growingalone or in mixtures with native or introduced species,often under various management systems. Some pri-mary factors that influence species establishment are:(1) germination attributes, (2) initial establishmenttraits, (3) growth rates, (4) compatibility, (5) seedlingtolerances, (6) persistence, and (7) grazing impacts.These and other characteristics are ranked by speciesin tables found in chapter 18. Some species are verysite specific, whereas many others have a wide rangeof adaptation (Ferguson 1983; Hassell and others1983). Following proper selection, seeds and plantsmust be planted using techniques and practices thatprovide them every possible advantage to establish.New plantings should be protected to insure perpetu-ation of the developing community.

Guides to Species and EcotypeSelection ______________________

Numerous factors can be used to identify speciesthat are adapted to a planting site. Native species arenormally reintroduced in many plantings. If nativespecies have been eliminated and sites are infested withweeds, it may be difficult to determine the most adaptedspecies to seed. If seedings are designed to alter orchange the composition of the existing plant commu-nities, the selection process can become more complex.Following are a number of guides that can be used inselecting adapted species.

Figure 1—Planting adapted and compatiblespecies in mixtures is essential in any restora-tion project.

Species Compatibility and PlantingObjectives

Introduced grasses, including crested wheatgrass,pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass,smooth brome, orchardgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, andRussian wildrye, have been able to withstand adverseclimatic conditions, fires, and severe grazing, and yetprovide excellent forage (Cook 1966; Plummer andothers 1968; Ross and others 1966). Plantings of crestedwheatgrass have remained productive for over 45years on foothill ranges in Utah (Vallentine 1989).Hard fescue, pubescent wheatgrass, and timothy arealso adapted to many sites. The excellent survival,forage attributes, and ground cover values of theseand other introductions have prompted their use.

This universal use of introduced perennial grassesfor most range, watershed, and wildland seedings hascreated some serious problems (Bentley 1967). Theestablishment and persistence attributes of manyintroduced grasses have resulted in the eliminationand decrease of desirable native species. Crested wheat-grass and pubescent wheatgrass formed almostclosed communities 6 years after seeding on Utahfoothill ranges (Cook 1966). Intermediate wheatgrassestablishes more slowly, but is able to restrict growthof oakbrush and maintain nearly complete dominanceof the understory (Plummer and Stewart 1944;Plummer and others 1968). Smooth brome slowlyincreases in dominance, and forms nearly a completesod on many ranges, restricting native grasses andbroadleaf herbs. Plantings of crested wheatgrass haveslowly gained dominance in many pinyon-juniper seed-ings, restricting the recovery of natives (Davis 1987;Stevens 1987b; Walker and others 1995). Monsen andShaw (1983c) reported that both intermediate andcrested wheatgrass seeded as an understory withantelope bitterbrush prevented natural recruitmentof shrub seedlings.

Davis (1987) found no negative seedling establish-ment interactions when crested, intermediate and tallwheatgrasses, smooth brome, orchardgrass, Russianwildrye, sainfoin, hard fescue, cicer milkvetch, alfalfa,yellow sweetclover, and small burnet were seededtogether on a pinyon-juniper site in Utah. This studyindicates these species, all introductions, are adaptedto similar environments and are compatible as seed-lings. However, Stevens (1987b), and Walker andothers (1994), reported that where similar specieswere seeded on a central Utah pinyon-juniper site thecover of native perennial grasses decreased from50 percent to about 30 percent as the introducedspecies attained maturity.

Incompatibility of introduced perennial grasses withnative species, particularly shrubs and broadleaf herbs,reduces the desirability of seeding these grasses as a



principal portion of a seed mixture if restoration ofnative communities is a goal. Where shrubs and othernatives are desired, the use of introductions must becarefully regulated. Although introductions have ex-cellent traits, they should be used for special situa-tions. Studies currently in progress indicate that seed-ing introduced grasses at low rates may enhance therecovery and presence of native species (Davis 1987).Most long-term ecological studies, however, indicatethat many introductions slowly gain dominance, andlow seeding rates simply tend to delay the process.

Various introduced grasses are currently the mostuseful species for controlling weeds that infest andoccupy extensive rangelands (Plummer and others1970b; Vallentine 1989; Young and others 1984c).Introduced perennial grasses are considered betterable to control cheatgrass, medusahead, halogeton,and many summer annual weeds than releases orwildland collections of most native species currentlybeing planted. Native species and undisturbed com-munities can control weeds, but various introductionshave been most successful when seeded on weed in-fested sites. Until the problems associated with weedscan be better addressed, and the availability of adaptednative plant materials increases, the use of someintroduced grasses will probably be relied upon.

Few native species have been developed for seedingmost western rangelands, particularly the arid re-gions occupied by salt desert shrub communities. Con-sequently, introduced grasses have dominated theseed mixtures of many range and wildland rehabilita-tion programs. Many important shrublands andherblands have been converted to introduced grass-dominated communities. Some seedings have beenjustified because of the lack of native seed (McKell1975), and problems associated with the establish-ment of natives (Vallentine 1989). In many situationsthese problems have been corrected. The use of appro-priate native species can be attained through betterplanning, buying, and stockpiling of seeds.

Species that are seeded together must be compat-ible as young, developing plants or certain individualswill succeed and others will fail (Samuel and DePuit1987). The amount of seed sown will affect the degreeof competition, and the number and composition ofseedlings that survive. Seedlings of some native broa-dleaf herbs and shrubs are less aggressive and suc-cumb to competition from more rapidly developingspecies (Hubbard 1957; Stevens and others 1985c).Not all native species are slow growing, and many canbe used as rapidly developing plants. Seeding heavyrates of the slower developing species will not offsetlosses from competition. Seeding slower growing spe-cies in rows separate from fast-growing herbs willresult in the most favorable stands.

Drill seeding causes species in a mixture to be placedin potentially competitive situations. Seeds in a mix-ture that are broadcast planted are not placed in asclose contact with each other as occurs with drilling,and are usually less likely to succumb to competition.

The species used must also be compatible with eachother and with existing species that occur on theplanting site. Few plantings are conducted on areasvoid of other plants. It is important to recognize thatexisting species can help as well as suppress newseedlings. In many situations, the presence of over-story plants improves seedbed conditions, entraps soilmoisture, and protects seedlings from frost (fig. 2).Existing stands of Gambel oak, quaking aspen, ante-lope bitterbrush, and numerous other species enhancethe establishment of understory seeded species unlessthe density of the overstory is excessive.

Many species improve soil fertility by fixation ofnitrogen, and other species benefit by this associa-tion. Both legumes and nonleguminous species areable to increase soil nitrogen, and can be used toimprove vigor and growth of associated plants. Insome situations, various nonnitrogen-fixing speciesappear to enhance the growth of associated plants.Plants of Utah sweetvetch and Sandberg bluegrassare often seeded with other species because they ap-pear to improve stand density of associated species.

Seeding a compatible mixture is often necessary tomoderate seedbed conditions, and aid in the establish-ment of species that otherwise may not be able toestablish alone. Many large, expansive burns in semi-arid ranges are subjected to winds that dry the seedbedand remove snowcover. Big sagebrush and other small-seeded species do not establish very well on dry,barren surfaces. To establish these species, it is oftennecessary to establish a cover or nurse crop.

Figure 2—The presence of overstory plantscan improve the establishment of seedlings.



Plant Community Indicators

Most areas selected for restoration or rehabilitationhave been seriously altered, and usually support onlyremnant numbers of native species (fig. 3). Weedshave often invaded, and dominate the areas. Lessdisturbed and comparable areas usually exist nearbyand can be inventoried to determine the originalcomposition of the native communities. Remnant plantsare important indices to use in determining the nativevegetation. Considerable information is available toassist in classification of seral status, habitat types,and disturbed areas (Blaisdell and others 1982;Daubenmire 1970; Franklin and Dyrness 1969;Hironaka and others 1979).

The presence of remnant native species can be usedto identify the major plant associations that once werepresent. The occurrence of less abundant species can-not always be determined by the presence of one ortwo remnant species, but the principal plant associa-tions can be identified. Major plant communities thatoccur in the Intermountain Region are described inchapter 2. Species adapted to these communities arelisted with guides for seeding mixtures.

Plants that have been successfully used in range andwildlife habitat rehabilitation programs have beenchronicled for most major plant communities thatoccur in the West (Hafenrichter and others 1968;Horton 1989; Plummer and others 1968; Sampson andJespersen 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b; Thornburg 1982).Most native plant communities have been classifiedand grouped with specific soil types, climatic condi-tions, and aspect. The classification system developedby Hironaka and others (1979) identifies site differ-ences and relationships of different plant types thatoccur within the big sagebrush communities. This andother classification systems can be used to determinethe potential of individual sites to support differentplant species. The presence and distribution of differ-ent plant communities that occur throughout a pro-posed project area can be mapped and used to developspecies mixtures.

Some severely disturbed sites may not be capable ofsupporting the original native species, and substitutespecies may be needed.

Climatic Conditions as a Guide

The amount of precipitation an area receives, andthe season or periods when moisture is available,influence seed germination, seedling establishment,and persistence (Frasier and others 1987; Jordan1983). Seasonal and annual precipitation are veryunpredictable in arid regions, and planting sites maynot receive sufficient moisture to facilitate seedlingestablishment every year (Bleak and others 1965).Once established, plants can usually persist during

dry years, but reproduction is often delayed untilperiods of favorable moisture. Attempting to foretellyears when artificial revegetation will be successful isquite difficult.

Sites receiving in excess of 11 inches (280 mm) ofannual precipitation can be successfully planted inmost years. Many sites in the 9 to 10 inch (230 to250 mm) zone are seeded, but success is less likely(Cook 1966; Plummer and others 1968; Reynolds andMartin 1968).

Many introduced grasses have been used in rehabili-tation projects because of their establishment at-tributes. Most are able to establish under dry, unfa-vorable climatic conditions, and are well adapted to abroad range of sites (Hughes and others 1962). Stan-dard crested and fairway crested wheatgrass havebeen the most reliable species to establish on sitesreceiving 8 to 10 inches (200 to 300 mm) of moisture(Hull and Klomp 1966; Shown and others 1969). Con-sequently, introductions have gained considerablepopularity, and frequently are relied upon when plant-ing droughty sites.

Selection and breeding programs continue to providenative and introduced species with improved establish-ment traits. For example, improvements in seedlingvigor of Russian wildrye and forage kochia have beenreported by Asay and others (1985), McArthur andothers (1990a), and Monsen and Turnipseed (1990).Additionally, selections of Sandberg bluegrass, In-dian ricegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Lewisflax with excellent establishment attributes havealso been developed and can better establish underarid situations. Erratic stands of some native speciesoften develop partly because of poor seed quality andgermination characteristics. However, improvementsin seed collection, cleaning, and storage now provide agreater number of native species adapted to arid sites.

Figure 3—Native species recovering withproper management and lack of competitionfrom neighboring species.



It is not advisable to use species or ecotypes on sitesthat are more arid than the collection site from whichthe seed was obtained. Ecotypes of antelope bitter-brush, fourwing saltbush, and many other species,have failed when seeded on sites that are more aridthan the native collection location (fig. 4). Althoughsome ecotypes have become established, they willmost likely succumb to adverse climatic conditions.Moving ecotypes of fourwing saltbush, Indian ricegrass,and gooseberryleaf globemallow from warmer climatesto more frigid environments has not been successful.In most cases, movement of plant materials fromsouthern desert communities to northern regions isnot advised. Some exceptions do occur, as a few south-ern collections of winterfat, desert bitterbrush, Nevadaephedra, and Apache plume have persisted followingestablishment in colder northern environments.

Many rangelands receiving less than 8 to 10 inches(200 to 250 mm) of annual rainfall are infested withcheatgrass and other weeds. Various native and intro-duced species have been seeded in an attempt tocontrol the weeds. Selections of big sagebrush, rubberrabbitbrush, bottlebrush squirreltail, western wheat-grass, and other species have been seeded to controlweeds and initiate successional changes in the plantcommunity (Romo and Eddleman 1988; Young andEvans 1986a). In some situations the ecotypes thatwere seeded exhibit aggressive establishment capa-bilities, but are not fully adapted to the arid sites.They may establish well, but fail to reproduce andultimately succumb. Considerable efforts have beenmade to eliminate weeds and create favorable seed-beds in arid regions to aid seedling establishment(Ogden and Matthews 1959). These practices increaseplanting success, but do not ensure survival of theplanted species. The serious infestation of annual

weeds on arid rangelands continues to promote seed-ing of marginally adapted species and ecotypes. Thissituation will likely continue. However, it is inadvis-able to use marginally adapted species or ecotypes inany area.

Soils and Parent Materials as a Guide

In general, planting sites consist of a mosaic of vari-able soil types that support an array of plant commu-nities. Plants that are adapted to the different soiltypes and physical conditions should be sown. Seedingspecies mixtures has been the most practical approachto establish diverse communities (fig. 1).

Both native and introduced species have evolved onspecific soils. Some ecotypes are not adapted to a widerange of soil conditions. When using native species, itis advisable to obtain seed from soils similar to theplanting location. For example, antelope bitterbrushcollections grown on acidic soils in central Idaho arenot adapted to the basic soils of the Great Basin(Plummer and others 1968). Selections of fourwingsaltbush, Indian ricegrass, Russian wildrye, and al-falfa have also been reported to differ in adaptabilityto soil conditions (Hassell and Baker 1985; Heinrichs1963; Lawrence 1979; Stutz 1983). Nearly all nativespecies consist of an assembly of different populationsthat have evolved under different environmental con-ditions. Certain ecotypes will grow over a wide rangeof sites. However, the range of adaptability of mostnative species has not been well documented. Conse-quently, it is advisable to plant species and sources onsites similar to their origin. It is particularly impor-tant to use plant materials acquired from specific soiltypes when seeding areas with unique soils or parentmaterials. For example, seeding fourwing saltbush onsandy, deep, well-drained soils should be done usingseed produced on bushes growing on a similar site. Onsoils that have uniquely different soil textures, pHlevels, drainage conditions, and fertility, specific eco-types should be used.

Woodward and others (1984), working in Utah,found that dicotyledons (broadleaf herbs) tend to takeup divalent ions more efficiently than monocotyledons(grasses), but monocots take up more monovalentcations than dicots. Also, the root cation-exchangecapacity values for dicots were significantly largerthan for monocots. The characteristic of root cation-exchange capacity helps to explain the differentialdistribution of grasslands and shrublands in commonclimatic zones. Differences in root cation-exchangecapacity result in intense competition between mono-cots and dicots for certain minerals. This suggests thatplants that are similar in root cation-exchange capac-ity coexist best. However, seeding grasses on soilsdeficient in magnesium but with adequate potassiumFigure 4—Death of maladapted New Mexico

fourwing saltbush seeded in southern Idaho.



would not be recommended, as it is unlikely thatgrasses would persist on these soils. In extensive areaswhere soils differing in mineral content exist, the useof adapted species is necessary.

Soils from the desert communities typically containhigh levels of salts and have high pH levels. Few plantsare adapted to these sites and only well-adapted spe-cies should be used. Attempts to convert theseshrublands to grasses have not been successful. How-ever, some grasses such as Russian wildrye and tallwheatgrass have proven adapted to specific sites andhave been seeded to provide additional forage.

Planting introduced species and their varieties re-quires careful consideration of plant growth require-ments. It is important that adapted species are planted,and marginally adapted substitutes are not planted.Also, it is unwise to convert unique plant communitiesto other species and growth forms following a majordisturbance such as a wildfire.

Soil conditions directly affect seedbed features, whichin turn influence planting success. Sites may be ca-pable of supporting certain plant communities, butonce the original vegetation has been removed ordestroyed, the suitability of the site is altered. Nativespecies that have evolved on the site may not be ableto reestablish due to unstable soil conditions. It is notalways correct to assume that native species can beeasily established. For example, saline and alkalinesoils, common in many valley bottoms, present un-usual problems in preparing and maintaining a suit-able seedbed. These soils absorb water slowly, areusually sticky when wet, and crust when dry (Pearson1960). High levels of salt can cause physiologicaldrought (Bernstein 1958). If vegetation is removedfrom these sites, they are extremely difficult to reveg-etate. Seedbed preparation methods often degradesoil structure. If soils are plowed, tilled, and leftexposed, heavy crusting will occur and can preventseedling emergence. Although these soils are capableof supporting a specific group of species, modifica-tions to the area can reduce the success of artificialrevegetation.

Disturbances on riparian sites also illustrate areaswhere disruption of the soils can alter the suitabilityof the site for establishing desired species. Distur-bance of the vegetation can significantly affect soilsand seedbed conditions, restricting the ability of cer-tain species to establish (Platts and others 1987).These sites are usually flooded in the spring for longenough periods to damage the seedbeds. Also, manydisturbed sites are subjected to siltation or erosion,creating unstable seedbeds.

Soil conditions directly influence species adaptive-ness by affecting seedling establishment. Soils thatare exposed to fires or heavy grazing are often altered(Eckert and others 1987). Changes in soil structure,presence of organic matter, standing crops and litter

significantly affect the seedbed. Big sagebrush andwinterfat have been difficult to establish on large openareas disturbed by fire due to disruption of the soilsurface (Monsen and Pellant 1989).

Species Origin

Native Species—In general, native species havebeen more difficult to establish in large project plantingsthan selected introductions. Kilcher and Looman (1983)conclude that the factors limiting the use of nativesare: (1) the lack of seed of local origin; (2) the variabil-ity in seed germination; (3) the physical difficulty inprocessing and seeding some native species; (4) unre-liable emergence and establishment; (5) susceptibilityto winter injury, especially with seed harvested out-side the immediate area; (6) limited ability to competewith weeds during establishment; (7) low seed yields;and (8) comparatively high cost of seed. In most situ-ations the limitations listed by these authors have andare being overcome, and the culture and use of nativeplants continue to increase in importance.

Recent plant selection programs have provided awide complement of species for restoration or reveg-etation. Important advances have resulted in: (1) alarger number of native shrubs, broadleaf herbs, andgrasses for artificial revegetation; (2) identification ofspecific ecotypes having important features and thedetermination of their areas of adaptation; (3) improve-ment of planting practices and seeding techniques; and(4) availability of better quality native seeds.

Native species can be recommended and used onrange, watershed, and wildland sites with more confi-dence than in the past (see Section VII). Many impor-tant native shrub and forb species, ecotypes, andpopulations have been identified and can be recom-mended for planting. Notable advances have beenmade with some shrubs including big sagebrush, blacksagebrush, fourwing saltbush, rubber and low rabbit-brush, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleaf mountain ma-hogany, Martin ceanothus, antelope bitterbrush,winterfat, skunkbush sumac, and green ephedra.Antelope bitterbrush has received the most attention(Ferguson 1983), but seed collection and sales fromspecific ecotypes of big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush,and fourwing saltbush are also quite important(Monsen and Stevens 1987; Shaw and Monsen 1990).

Considerable genetic variability exists in most na-tive species, and selections have been used to enhancegermination and establishment attributes, growthrates, growth habits, forage production, and quality(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1989). Currently,ecotypes of many important species can be recom-mended for seeding specific locations with differentclimatic and edaphic conditions. Programs have alsobeen employed to propagate and increase ecotypeswith important traits.



Figure 5—Site of origin for Lassen antelope bitterbrush.

Hybridization between varieties, ecotypes, and taxahave been used to enhance specific attributes of anumber of woody species. Selection programs havebeen employed to promote features of fourwing salt-bush, big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush (fig. 5), lowand rubber rabbitbrush, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleafmountain and true mountain mahogany, and blacksagebrush (McArthur and Welch 1986; Shaw andMonsen 1990; Tiedemann and Johnson 1983;Tiedemann and others 1984b). The importance ofmaintaining ecotypes with a broad genetic base hasbeen recognized by Stutz (1985). Genetic diversity hasbeen investigated through planting a number of popu-lations or ecotypes at a problem site, and allowingnatural selection to occur. This procedure has not beenwidely used, but represents an important consider-ation in planting native species over a wide range ofsites.

New techniques for culturing many plants havesignificantly aided in their use. Regional seed compa-nies now market seeds of a number of native species.In addition, seed vendors have developed more reli-able collection, processing, and storage techniques toaid in providing a more stable supply of native seeds.Various wildland collection sites are now managed toproduce seeds of different ecotypes. Consequently,seeds of a wider array of native species and a betterand wider selection of species, advanced cultivars, andecotypes are available for planting. The increasedavailability of seed has significantly reduced costs,and continued reductions can be expected. More reli-able seed germination tests have been developed andstandardized by seed laboratories (Stevens and Meyer1990). Seed purity and germination standards havebeen developed to aid in seed marketing (Allen andothers 1987; Kitchen and others 1989).

Seed Dormancy—Seeds of many native speciescollected from wildland sites germinate erraticallydepending upon year of collection, seed origin, andstratification treatments (Kitchen 1988; Silvertown1984; Stevens and others 1981a). Seeds of many nativespecies have embryo dormancy or impermeableseedcoats or both (Moore 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b).These features may delay and regulate germinationand plant establishment (Meyer 1990). Seed dormancyis normally an advantage and aids in natural estab-lishment of the species (Meyer and others 1990b).Dormancy may prevent seeds from germinating dur-ing periods when the chance of survival is low. Seedsof many species are not conditioned to germinate thefirst year after development, but persist, creating aseedbank from which new seedlings may occur over anumber of years. Sporadic germination hinders devel-opment of uniform stands. Seeds of sumac, snowberry,Woods rose, and hawthorn, are difficult to germinateeven if pretreated for extended periods. Seeds of otherspecies are less difficult to germinate, but requirequite different pretreatments to promote uniform ger-mination. Unless adequately stratified, certain seedlotsgerminate so erratically that satisfactory stands gen-erally fail to establish.

Seed dormancy obstacles in a number of nativespecies have been overcome through selection andplanting at appropriate seasons. Selections of ‘Big-horn’ sumac, ‘Montane’ mountain mahogany, ‘Rincon’fourwing saltbush, and ‘Cedar’ Palmer penstemonhave been developed, in part, for their favorable ger-mination attributes (McArthur and others 1982). Inaddition, seeds from certain native collection sites areselectively harvested and sold because of favorablegermination features. Land managers may not beaware of individual differences in germinability of allseedlots, but seeds can and should be tested to assureuse of germinable sources. In addition, records shouldbe maintained to document sources used in successfulseedings.

Rate of germination is also an important attributefor planting success. The length of time required forseeds to germinate appears important to the estab-lishment of species under arid situations.

Drought Tolerance—The success achieved inseeding arid, semiarid, and subalpine sites is mostoften dependent upon soil moisture conditions at thetime of seedling emergence. Quite often soil moistureis only moderately favorable, and seedling survival isdependent upon the drought tolerance and physiologi-cal growth of seedlings (fig. 6). Considerable emphasishas been directed to the selection and use of drought-tolerant strains and ecotypes as many plantings areconducted in semiarid communities (Asay andJohnson 1980; Johnson and others 1982). Differences



in seedling tolerance to drought varies significantlyamong collections, strains, and cultivars (Ford 1988;Wright and Brauen 1971).

If drought problems are anticipated, planting tech-niques should be used that help conserve moisture andassure protection of the less tolerant species. Estab-lishment problems cannot be entirely rectified simplyby planting the most adapted ecotypes. Seedlings ofsome species are especially sensitive to drought. Landmanagers should be aware of this and assure thecreation of suitable seedbeds.

In the Intermountain area, drought frequently causesextensive dieoff of many plants (Harper and others1990; Wallace and Nelson 1990). However, nativespecies that have evolved under these circumstancesexpress considerable tolerance of arid conditions.Selections of western wheatgrass and winterfat com-monly used in wildland seedings are able to persistthrough periods of extended drought. Western wheat-grass, Sandberg bluegrass, purple three-awn, Idahofescue, and bluebunch wheatgrass survived and in-creased during the drought periods of 1986-1989 incentral Utah, when density of cheatgrass was signifi-cantly reduced. Certain introduced species, includingRussian wildrye, also express excellent drought toler-ance, and can be relied upon for seeding arid sites(Asay and Knowles 1985b).

Species seeded in arid sites must be adapted toperiods of low moisture. Substitute species that aremarginally adapted should not be used.

Growth Rates

Range and wildland seedings are currently basedupon the use of species that have demonstrated theability to establish and attain a reasonable stand in arelatively short time. In most seeding projects, species

with rapid development are planted to furnish neededcover and forage (Davis and Harper 1990). Species thatare capable of growing rapidly and can attain a maturestature in a short time are recommended in mostseeding projects (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990). Plantswith the ability to establish and grow quickly gener-ally are better able to compete with weeds and surviveperiods of drought. Species that grow more slowlyshould be seeded separately from more aggressivespecies.

Species growth rate is important in maintainingplant composition and perpetuation of establishedstands. Seedling recruitment is required to perpetu-ate many species, and new seedlings must be able tocompete with established plants. Species that are ableto reproduce when growing with other plants usuallyare the ones that ultimately survive. Introducing ag-gressive and dominating plants to a composition ofnatives may not allow regeneration of the natives, andwould not be recommended.

Cold Tolerance—Cold tolerance and resilience tofrost generally are desired features of most plantspecies selected for revegetation in the IntermountainWest. Cold tolerance is particularly important in youngplants as seedlings usually emerge in early spring.Many young seedings are weakened or killed by springfrosts. Species with sensitive seedlings cannot bearbitrarily deleted from all seedings, but more cold-tolerant ecotypes should be seeded in areas wherefrost is a major problem. Seed sources of big sage-brush, winterfat, fourwing saltbush, and alfalfa areknown to be highly sensitive to frost, and the mostadapted ecotypes should be planted (Plummer andothers 1968). Species with obvious intolerance to coldshould be sown in late spring, if possible, to lessenlosses from early spring frosts.

Palatability—Palatability and resilience to graz-ing are important features that can influence seedlingestablishment. Unmanaged grazing has frequentlyeliminated the more desirable species from mixedseedings. Unfortunately, only species having similarpalatability traits are planted in some projects to limitproblems associated with grazing management. Al-though this is a solution to grazing problems, the mostappropriate species needed for other resources maynot be planted.

New seedings normally attract concentrated use bymany animals. Small mammals, insects, rodents, andoften large game animals selectively graze small seed-lings (Evans and others 1983). Young seedlings areextremely sensitive to heavy and repeated grazing.Livestock use can be regulated to protect new plant-ings. Wildlife populations are not as easily controlled,but reduction in animal numbers may be necessary toprotect new plantings. Protection from heavy usemust be provided until seedings are well established.

Figure 6—Big sagebrush seedlings. Droughttolerant and rapid rate of top and root growth isrequired for establishment in arid areas.



Some species require 2 to 7 years to fully establish andattain a stature that is able to persist with moderateuse (Davis and Harper 1990; Monsen and Shaw 1983a).Less desirable ecotypes of certain shrubs and forbs canbe sown to discourage grazing, but this may not be inline with the rehabilitation goals. In some situations,more resilient, but palatable, species might be sown toattract grazing and defer use from less resilient spe-cies. Seedings of alfalfa (fig. 1), yellow sweetclover,small burnet, orchardgrass, and mountain rye havebeen useful in providing desirable herbage from newplantings. It is most important that, whenever pos-sible, areas seeded should be of sufficient size todissipate grazing and lessen animal use. This may notbe practical in all situations, especially on sites wherewildfires or related disturbances determine the acre-ages to be seeded.

Animal use of emerging seedlings and young plantsusually is not a problem on sites that support aremnant stand of native species. Remnant plantsnormally recover quickly following treatment. As theseplants recover and produce new growth they attractuse and aid in dispersing grazing pressure.

Persistence—Species that are able to persist un-der varied and often adverse climatic conditions, com-petition, and management impacts should be planted.Attempting to maintain a noncompatible compositionof plants is ill-advised. Seeding aggressive, intro-duced understory herbs into many native communi-ties has frequently resulted in the loss of most nativespecies, coupled with a progressive increase of theseeded herb. The changes in plant composition mayoccur slowly, requiring many years to stabilize. Mostproblems have occurred when introduced species makeup the major part of seed mixture. Although someintroductions can enhance native communities, it isimportant that a natural balance in species composi-tion is attained.

Value of Maintaining a Broad Genetic Base—In some situations, plants with desirable attributesare planted exclusively. Some strains have been devel-oped through breeding or selection processes that maynarrow the genetic base of the species, and eliminateother adaptive traits. Maintenance of a broad geneticbase is recommended when seeding native species.Extensive dieoff of plantings attributable to the use ofnarrowly developed strains has not been widely de-tected. However, planting of a single seedlot or ecotypeover a broad range of sites has often resulted indiscernible patterns of success and failure. It shouldnot be assumed that strains or selections with certainfavorable traits are universally adapted to all sites.Plantings should not be confined to the use of seedfrom one very restricted population, or from only alimited number of individuals.

Seeds of many native species are often gatheredfrom small, confined areas where soil moisture orother conditions favor seed production. Considerableamounts of seed are often collected from favorablesites, yet may not include the diverse attributes of thebroader population.

Native species grown under cultivation may alsohave been propagated from seed of a few individuals.Seed that is commercially sold is normally collected orreared from bushes that are high seed producers andare easily harvested. These features may not repre-sent the most desirable traits necessary to assuresurvival of the species.

Land managers cannot regulate or maintain directcontrol over the collection and sale of all seeds, butattention should be given to the origin of the seedacquired, and conditions at the rearing locations.

Adaptability of Released Cultivars—All plantcultivars have been developed for specific plantingconditions. All have particular attributes or featuresthat differ from the norm and encourage their use(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1989b). The selec-tion and development of ‘Rincon’ fourwing saltbushwas instigated, in part, because of the small utriclesand early, uniform germination attributes. Standestablishment of ‘Rincon’ is usually more predictablethan for other ecotypes (Monsen and McArthur 1985).However, it is not advisable to seed this cultivar onsites where it is not adapted. Also, it is obvious thatcultivars are not universally superior in all traits to allother selections or collections of a species. Seedingsshould not be restricted to released cultivars, but seedsources should be determined on a case-by-case basis.Planting of ‘Rincon’ fourwing saltbush on low aridsites has not been successful, and the ecotype has notproven as well adapted to these areas as native ecotypes.Similar results have been recorded when Lassen ante-lope bitterbrush and ‘Hatch’ winterfat were planted onsites to which they are not adapted.

All cultivars have been carefully evaluated andtheir performance can be predicted. The quality ofcertified seed is usually good. However, each cultivarshould be examined and used for the purpose forwhich it was developed. (See discussion of individualspecies and their cultivars in chapters 18-23.)

Seeding Mixtures or SingleSpecies________________________

Wildland restoration projects are usually conductedto reestablish native plant communities. This is notalways possible as seeds or planting stock of manyspecies are unavailable, and knowledge or techniquesrequired for planting some species is lacking. Also,



costs currently limit certain planting measures. How-ever, advances in methodology continue to permit useof a greater complex of native species. As techniquesare further developed, complete reestablishment ofnative plant communities may be possible.

Not all revegetation work is designed to reestablishnative plants. In many range plantings introducedspecies are primarily used to increase forage yield andquality, and to accommodate management practices.In these situations, only a limited number of intro-duced species may be used.

Rehabilitation programs that are designed to pro-vide livestock forage, watershed, and wildlife valueshave, to date, included a preponderance of introducedgrass and broadleaf herbs. Introduced species aremore readily available, seedlings establish more suc-cessfully, and forage values are better understood.

In most range seedings the trend has been to seedsingle species or simple mixtures. Revegetation effortsto satisfy wildlife, watershed, and reclamation needsinclude a wider array of species, and rely upon therestoration of native plants. In general, the advan-tages reported for seeding a single species or a limitednumber of plants apply primarily to the use of intro-duced forage grasses, and do not apply to seedingother species. Hughes and others (1962), Hull andHolmgren (1964), and McIlvain and Shoop (1960)reported that single species or simple mixtures aremore easily managed if species with similar palatabil-ity, growth response, and grazing tolerance are used.However, native rangelands consist of a complex arrayof species that have persisted with natural use. Com-munities are only upset when seriously mismanaged.

Harris and Dobrowolski (1986) concluded that spe-cies mixtures in range seedings planted in northeastWashington are unstable, and that monospecificpopulations of suitable species, selected to fit seasonalgrazing, should be seeded separately. Plantings shouldbe fenced and used separately in a managed grazingsystem. Their studies reported that hard fescue even-tually dominated most planted mixtures. Cook (1966),Currie and Smith (1970), Hull (1971a), and Vallentine(1989) concluded that the relative palatability of thespecies used determines the future of species in amixture. Grazing animals tend to concentrate use onmore palatable species, eventually reducing or killingthem. Regulating the grazing season and period of usehas not prevented the selective loss of more palatablespecies. Cook (1966) also concludes that seeding mix-tures to furnish palatable species throughout the graz-ing season generally failed because all of the speciescannot be maintained.

These conclusions are based on the assembly offorage grasses planted primarily for grazing by cattle.The implications are not directly applicable to wild-life or multiple uses. In addition, the results have

Figure 7—Big sagebrush interseeded into crestedwheatgrass to increase forage quality and quantityfor livestock and big game.

questionable application to range seedings where dif-ferent species are planted. Van Epps and McKell(1977) found that interseeding shrubs with grasses onsemiarid ranges improved the quality of forage con-sumed by livestock, particularly in the fall and winter(fig. 7). Gade and Provenza (1986) found that sheepgrazing on shrub and grass pastures in central Utahincreased their forage intake by 36 percent and theforage consumed contained about 35 percent morecrude protein than when the sheep grazed crestedwheatgrass alone. The response of species when seededin mixtures is directly related to grazing pressure andlivestock management. Revegetation of most wildlandoccurs on sites having a variety of aspects, soils, andmoisture conditions; mixed seedings are necessary topopulate the area (Plummer and others 1968).Rechenthin and others (1965) reported that nativerangelands in good condition are best seeded to nativespecies at approximately the same ratio as found inthe native community.

Regardless of the problems inherent in the use ofmixtures, it is apparent that combinations of speciesshould be seeded. Balancing the use of introduced andnative plants must be considered on a case-by-casebasis. As additional information is gathered, more pre-cise species mixtures will, undoubtedly, be developed.Following are some specific considerations for select-ing and using species mixtures, or using a single or alimited numbers of species.

Advantages of Planting Mixtures

Maintenance of Diverse Plant Communities—Most seedings are conducted on sites that have di-verse microclimates, with varied soil and moistureconditions (Gifford 1975). Different plant communi-ties appear, and different species are used to restore



various plant communities. Soil temperatures, fertil-ity, and aspect differ among microsites, and differentplant species are adapted to the various micrositeconditions. Therefore, a number of species are neededto adequately populate the entire area.

Many areas have been dramatically abused, andsome native species have been eliminated. Neitherexisting plants nor a seedbank remain to repopulatethe site. Consequently, plant communities must bereconstructed by seeding or planting.

Encouraging Successional Changes—Mostplant communities are created through successionalchanges (Eckert and others 1987). Although somespecies and communities can be established directlyby seeding, natural shifts in species density and com-position occur. Seedings of crested wheatgrass andintermediate wheatgrass establish quickly and per-sist for extended periods. In contrast, plantings oftimothy and mountain brome establish quickly, butweaken after a number of years and may be invadedand replaced by other species. Seedings of Wyetheriogonum, Lewis flax, and Pacific aster establishmoderately well, but gain in importance even amidconsiderable competition. Many native shrubs estab-lish slowly, but after attaining maturity may domi-nate the site.

Planting species that may restrict natural succes-sional processes is not advised. Also, misuse of plant-ing sites can disrupt successional changes. Desiredchanges can be adversely affected if weedy speciesare not removed or reduced at the time of planting,and desired species are unable to establish. The com-position of species that initially establish followingseeding sets the stage for future changes in speciescomposition. Although restoration plantings are de-signed to restore entire communities, the proper as-sembly of species and seeding rates are not known.Plantings are currently being conducted using themost desired species expecting natural succession willultimately result in a natural grouping of species.

Improves Weed Control—Seeding a mixture ofspecies usually improves the control of undesirableweeds. Many individual species are extremely aggres-sive, and if planted alone can quickly control weedyplants (Torell and Erickson 1967). However, mixturesnormally enhance weed control over diverse sites.

If plantings are designed to control annual weeds,early growing species usually must be planted (Fosterand McKay 1962). Certain summer annuals are notentirely controlled by early spring species. Plants thatestablish and grow during late spring and early sum-mer are more competitive with these weeds.

Seeded species must be able to restrict seedlingestablishment of weedy plants, and must be able toreduce or prevent spread by vegetative reproduction.Many perennial weeds may not be quickly eliminated

by competition from seeded species, but their densityand spread can be contained.

Reduces Risks of Establishment—Seeding anumber of species together helps to ensure the estab-lishment of a desirable stand. Many species, includingCanada bluegrass, small burnet, slender wheatgrass,bottlebrush squirreltail, and crested wheatgrass haveexcellent establishment attributes. Consequently, anyone of these species can be seeded alone. Few speciesestablish as well as these plants, and seeding combi-nations increases the chance of success. Climatic con-ditions are often so erratic that seeding a single spe-cies over a wide variety of sites may result in poorstand establishment.

Mixtures should not be indiscriminately assembled,but a desirable number of species should be sown.Although weak stands may appear, mixed plantingsgenerally improve over time.

Satisfy Multiple Uses—Use of a number of speciesprovides the vegetative base necessary to support avariety of resource needs (Cook 1962). Revegetationand restoration efforts may be designed to enhancewatershed, wildlife, or aesthetic conditions. In mostsituations, a single species is not able to provide suchdiverse needs. Even when the objective is to furnishforage for livestock, multiple species mixtures shouldbe used. Seeding with multiple species provides longerperiods when succulent forage is available (table 1).Land uses often change, and forage and cover require-ments also change. Revegetation and restoration goalsshould not be limited to immediate uses, but shouldtake into consideration future needs. Once a seeding isestablished, it becomes expensive and difficult tochange.

Watershed and ground cover—Planting combina-tions of species having different growth habits fur-nishes a storied array of species that usually providesbetter ground cover throughout the entire year(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1954). Shrubs andtrees with an upright stature entrap snow and delaysnowmelt and runoff. Herbaceous plants normallyfurnish dense ground cover. Mixtures also contributeto a variety of plant litter, which provides soil protec-tion and site stability.

Wildlife habitat—Game and nongame habitat con-sists of a variety of forage and cover plants. Speciesshould be planted that can furnish seasonal cover aswell as nutritious herbage at different seasons. Not allplantings will be designed to furnish a mixture ofresources, but each planting site contributes to theoverall needs of wildlife. Consequently, it is importantto assure that all aspects of wildlife habitat are en-hanced by rehabilitation measures. Sites that provideseasonal wildlife habitat should be seeded to assureanimal needs are satisfied.



Table 1—Duration of succulence for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Periods of succulenceSpecies Mar-May Jun-Aug Sep-Nov Dec-Feb

GrassesBrome, smooth xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxa 0000b

Fescue, hard sheep xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00Fescue, red xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000Orchardgrass xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0000000000Ricegrass, Indian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00000000Rye, mountain xxxxxxxxxxx 00000000Timothy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 000000000Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 00000

bluebunchWheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 0000000

crestedWheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 00000

standard crestedWheatgrass xxxxxxxxxxx 000000000000

intermediateWheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxx 00000000

pubescentWheatgrass, xxxxxxxxx 0000000

tallWildrye, xxxxxxxxxxxx 000000

Great basinWildrye, Russian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000

ForbsAlfalfa 000000xxxxxxxxxxxx000000000000000000000000000000000Balsamroot, xxxxxxxxxxx

arrowleafBurnet, small 000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000000000Flax, Lewis 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000000000Geranium xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx000000000Globemallow xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000Goldeneye, showy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx000000Milkvetch, cicer 000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000Penstemon, Palmer 0000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000000000Penstemon,

Rocky MountainSainfoin 0000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000Sweetvetch, Utah xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000000000000

Shrubs:Bitterbrush, 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

antelopeCliffrose, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

stansburyEphedra, green xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxMountain xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mahogany, curlleafMountain xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mahogany, trueRabbitbrush, 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000

rubberSagebrush, big xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSagebrush, black xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSaltbush, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

fourwingShadscale xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxServiceberry, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

SaskatoonWinterfat xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

aXXXX = Most leaves and seed stalks are green.b0000 = Only basal or overwintering leaves remain green.



Certain sites may offer limited wildlife benefits, andless diverse plantings will suffice. However, few sitesare void of some form of wildlife, and species mixturesare usually necessary.

Forage production and quality—Grazing animalsseek diversity. Forage resources are generally im-proved by selection of species mixtures. Certain sitesmay not support many species and a single speciesmay be sown to ensure persistence of an adapted cover.However, mixed plantings usually provide more herb-age, and seasonal production is greatly enhanced(Gade and Provenza 1986; Hughes and others 1962).Mixed plantings also improve forage quality (Gomm1964; Van Epps and McKell 1977). For example, plant-ing shrubs with herbs enhances both winter and sum-mer forage conditions. Where possible, mixtures shouldbe used to extend the season of use, increase herbageyields, and improve seasonal quality of forage.

Aesthetics—Nearly all rehabilitation efforts affectthe appearance of the area treated for extended peri-ods. Planting species that are compatible with adja-cent undisturbed sites is recommended. It is usuallynecessary to seed mixtures to reestablish a significantdensity and distribution of species that will blend withadjacent areas.

Little research has been done on the use of revege-tation to improve aesthetics. Planting native commu-nities is usually regarded as the best method to re-establish natural appearance. However, some sitesand circumstances do not facilitate reestablishmentof natives. Thus, plant communities must be recon-structed using species that closely resemble the natives.

Adding species to a mixture to assure improvementof aesthetics may reduce forage production or lessenother resources. However, in most seedings foragespecies usually dominate, and aesthetic values are notfully considered—a practice that should be corrected.

Factors Suggesting Use of a SingleSpecies

Certain plantings favor the use of one or only a fewspecies. Normally, single-species plantings are re-stricted to specific sites, soil conditions, or to satisfyspecific resource needs. In some situations, only a fewspecies may be capable of growing on the planting site(McArthur and others 1987b). Soil or climatic condi-tions may limit the number of adapted species (Blaisdelland Holmgren 1984). Planning a broad complex ofspecies on these sites is usually a waste of seed andeffort.

Sites that could support a number of species arefrequently seeded to only a few, but this should be doneonly after careful consideration of all circumstances.Some factors do influence the decision to plant only a

few species. Following are some reasons for limitingthe number of species used.

Ease of Planting—Seeding a single or only a fewspecies is usually much easier than planting a complexmixture. If only two or three species with similar seedsize, germination, and establishment attributes aresown, planting techniques are simple (Vallentine 1989).Planting methods that are available and can be usedoften determine the species used. The use of a numberof seeding practices is often rejected as being toocomplex and difficult. In many cases only one seedingpractice (drilling, broadcasting, interseeding) is se-lected and employed. Species that cannot be includedin a common mixture and planted in one operation arethus eliminated from the revegetation plan. Althoughplanting one or two species may be quite simple, it isimportant that the species selected and proceduresused are not dictated by convenience.

Planting Costs—Selection of site preparation andrevegetation methods used on wildland sites are oftenrestricted by the costs involved. Using a number ofspecies may require using two or three planting prac-tices. It is costly to treat small areas with one piece ofequipment, and then use different equipment on adja-cent sites. A project must often be quite large, andresources values high, to justify using a number ofrevegetation practices.

Aid in Seedling Establishment—Not all speciescan be established satisfactorily when seeded in mix-tures (Horton 1989). Certain species of shrubs areparticularly sensitive to competition from broadleafherbs and grasses. These shrubs should be seededalone or with a limited amount of understory herbs.Also, the presence of weedy plants often reduces estab-lishment of seeded species, and only the most competi-tive plants can be sown in some situations (Jordan1983).

Shrub-Herb Plantings ____________

Species Compatibility

Most wildlife habitat improvement projects and res-toration plantings differ from the typical livestockrange improvement programs since a wider number ofspecies having different growth forms are planted.Generally, most projects include a mixture of woodyand herbaceous species. In contrast, range seedingsemphasize the use of a limited number of herbaceousplants, principally grasses. Most species of grassesused in range and wildlife plantings establish well anddevelop rapidly. These traits are beneficial, and en-courage the use of these plants. However, aggressivegrowth habits of many seeded herbs may createproblems if slower developing species are also planted.



The problem is further complicated when seedings areconducted on steep, rocky, or inaccessible terrain wheresite preparation and seeding practices are limited.

Mixed plant communities occupy most wildlandsites. Plant composition of these sites undoubtedlydeveloped through various stages of plant succession.Natural changes in plant communities are not fullyunderstood, and attempts to duplicate successionalchanges through artificial restoration are not alwayssuccessful.

Seedling Status—The primary factor influencingspecies compatibility is the degree of competitionexerted upon small, developing seedlings. If seedlingsor young transplants are able to establish, their pres-ence is most likely assured. However, if competitionrestricts or limits survival, plant density and composi-tion are critically affected. Few species have beencarefully evaluated to determine their compatibilitywith other commonly seeded plants. However, guide-lines related to the establishment attributes and com-petitive traits of some species have been developed,and the ratings and evaluations are provided (table 2;also, tables in chapter 17). Matching the most compat-ible species together is essential for the success ofmixed plantings. Species that are able to establishwell and compete in mixtures are generally the mostwidely recommended species used. Seed mixtures rec-ommended for various plant communities are pre-sented in chapter 17. These recommended mixtureshave been developed based upon compatibility amongspecies during stages of community development.

Some species of grasses, including Indian ricegrass,and western wheatgrass establish slowly and are lesscompetitive with seedlings of other species. Theirpresence, or addition to seed mixtures, better assuresthe establishment of associated species than if moreaggressive grass species are sown.

Competition in Mature Communities—Naturalregeneration and change in species composition occurafter plants gain maturity. Many species are long-lived, but natural reproductive or vegetative spreadare essential to their survival. New seedlings must beable to establish and survive amid competition withinmature communities (fig. 8). The entry and survival ofnew seedlings are often dependent upon disturbancescaused by rodents, climatic events, and fires. Thesedisturbances may “open up” small areas and favorseedling establishment.

Seedling establishment of some species may benefitfrom the presence of associated plants. Competitionmay limit natural seedling recruitment, even thoughsome seedlings are able to establish in most years.During years of favorable conditions, seedling sur-vival may be quite high. Monsen and Shaw (1983c)found throughout a 40-year period that natural repro-

duction of antelope bitterbrush occurred regularly onsites supporting an understory of native grasses andbroadleaf herbs. A sufficient number of shrub seed-lings established to maintain stand density. Monsenand Pellant (1989) reported that the presence ofSandberg bluegrass significantly improved the naturalreproduction of winterfat on sites with a preponder-ance of cheatgrass.

The seedbed and soil surface conditions created byexisting plants frequently benefit seedling establish-ment. Soil microsites beneath the crowns of undis-turbed big sagebrush shrubs are favorable to seedentrapment and establishment of small seedlings(Eckert and others 1987). The overstory canopy andlitter provided by Gambel oak, quaking aspen, andRocky Mountain maple enhance seedbed conditionsfor understory herbs (Plummer and others 1968).

Species that are highly ranked in regard to naturalspread are plants that can increase in density amidmature plant communities (tables 2; also, tables inchapter 17). Plants with unusual ability to spread arenot restricted to species normally growing under themost favorable climatic conditions. Seedlings of Apacheplume, and black sagebrush are able to spread quitewell in somewhat arid environments.

Natural reproduction and changes in species compo-sition are related to climatic conditions, and seedlingestablishment may occur quite erratically. Seedlingestablishment is not always confined to years or sea-sonal periods of high moisture. From 1988 to 1990considerable increases in density of perennial grassesoccurred in southern Idaho and central Utah on sitespreviously dominated by cheatgrass. This increaseoccurred during years of drought when annual weedswere unable to establish and produce seed crops.

Benefits of shrub-herb associations—In situationswhere shrubs and herbs normally occur together,there are benefits in maintaining these associations.Species that have evolved together undoubtedly ben-efit by the relationship, or are sufficiently compatibleto survive. In addition to the benefits derived fromfavorable seedbeds provided by associated plants,mixed communities also influence other factors relatedto perpetuation of a seeded community. The presenceof compatible understory herbs frequently preventsthe invasion of weeds that can upset natural regenera-tion processes. Understory plants of Idaho fescue,purple three-awn, bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurberneedlegrass, and western wheatgrass are capable ofpreventing the invasion of annual grasses and sum-mer annual broadleaf weeds. Maintaining a healthyunderstory of perennial herbs has been essential tothe natural reproduction of stands of antelope bitter-brush, big sagebrush, Stansbury cliffrose, winterfat(fig. 9), and curlleaf mountain mahogany.



Table 2—Seeding requirements and seedling characteristics of some major species.

Date Method Depth Compatability Seedlingof of of with other Seedling growth

Species seedinga seedingb seedingc speciesd vigore ratef

GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg F-S A-B A 5 4 4Brome, mountain F-S A-B B 5 5 5Brome, smooth F-S A-B B 4 4 3Canarygrass, reed F-S A-B B 4 2 4Dropseed, sand F-S A-B C 2 3 4Fescue, hard sheep F-S A-B B 3 3 3Needlegrass, green F-S A-B B 3 3 3Oatgrass, tall F-S A-B B 4 4 4Orchardgrass F-S A-B B 4 4 4Ricegrass, Indian F A-B D 3 3 3Rye, mountain F-S A-B B 5 5 5Squirreltail, bottlebrush F-S A-B B 4 5 4Timothy F-S A-B B 4 4 4Wheatgrass, bluebunch F-S A-B B 2 2 3Wheatgrass, crested F-S A-B B 2 2 3Wheatgrass, standard crested F-S A-B B 5 5 4Wheatgrass, intermediate F-S A-B B 5 5 5Wheatgrass, pubescent F-S A-B B 4 5 4Wheatgrass, western F-S A-B B-C 3 3 3Wheatgrass, tall F-S A-B B-C 3 4 4Wildrye, Great Basin F A-B B 2 2 2Wildrye, Russian F-S A-B B 3 2 2

ForbsAlfalfa F-S A-B-C-D B 4 4 5Aster, blueleaf F-S Ag-B-C-D A 4 4 4Balsamroot, arrowleaf F A-B-C-D B-C 2 3 1Burnet, small F-S A-B-C-D B 4 5 5Crownvetch F A-B-C-D B 3 3 3Flax, Lewis F-S A-B-C-D A-B 5 4 4Globemallow F A-B-C-D B 3 3 3Goldeneye, showy F-S A-B-C-D A-B 4 2 2Lupine F A-C-D B-C 3 4 4Milkvetch, cicer F A-B-C-D A-B 4 4 3Penstemon, Palmer F A-B-C-D A-B 5 4 3Penstemon, Rocky Mountain F A-B-C-D A-B 4 4 3Sainfoin F-S A-B-C-D B-C 4 4 3Sweetclover, yellow F-S A-B-C-D A-B 5 5 5Sweetvetch, Utah F A-B-C-D B 3 2 3

ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope F B-C-D B-C 4 5 4Chokecherry F B-C-D B-C 2 2 2Cliffrose, Stansbury F B-C-D B-C 3 3 2Currant, golden F A-B-C-D A-B 5 3 5Elderberry, blue F B-C-D A-B 2 2 3Ephedra, green F B-C-D B 3 2 2Greasewood, black F B-C-D B 2 3 2Kochia, forage F-S A-B-C-D A 5 5 3Mountain mahogany, curlleaf F B-C-D B 3 3 3Mountain mahogany, true F B-C-D B 3 3 3Oak, Gambel F C-D C 1 2 2Rabbitbrush, low F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 5 5 4Rabbitbrush, rubber F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 5 5 4Sagebrush, basin big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 4 4Sagebrush, black F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 5 4Sagebrush, mountain big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 4 5 4Sagebrush, Wyoming big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 4 4Saltbush, fourwing F A-B-C-D A-B 3 4 4Shadscale F B-C-D B 2 2 2Serviceberry, Saskatoon F C-D B 3 3 3Sumac, skunkbush F C-D B 2 2 2Winterfat F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 4 5 3aF = fall to winter; S = early spring.bA = aerial or ground broadcast; B = drill; C = surface compact seeding; D = browse interseeder.cA = surface to 0.12 inch (3.0 mm) deep; B = 0.12 to 0.25 inch (1.6 to 6.4 mm) deep; C = 0.25 to 0.75 inch (6.4 to 19 mm) deep; D =

greater than 0.75 inch (19 mm) deep.d1 to 5 with 5 being highly compatible.e1 to 5 with 5 having high seedling vigor.f1 to 5 with 5 having the highest rate of growth.gIf cleaned to 60 percent or greater purity.hIf cleaned to 30 percent of purity.



Figure 8—Natural recovery of native species.New seedlings must be able to survive amidcompetition from established plants.

Value of legumes in species mixtures—Legumes havebeen widely used as agricultural crops and in culti-vated pastures. The addition of legumes to grassseedings has resulted in an increase in herbage pro-duction and an improvement in forage quality (Gomm1964; Hughes and others 1962). Legumes supplysoil nitrogen that can be used by associated plants(Derscheid and Rumbaugh 1970; Holland and others1969; Nutman 1976). For these reasons legumes havebeen actively promoted for range and wildlife plantings.

Many introduced and native legumes have beenevaluated for rangeland and disturbed land plantings.Legumes do occur in most native communities, andshould be planted in restoration projects. They may beimportant in the recovery of native communities, butare more commonly used to provide forage or restoreharsh mine sites or related disturbances.

Species of alfalfa, including common alfalfa andsicklepod alfalfa, have been the most successful broad-leaf herbs for range and wildland seedings (Dahl and

others 1967; Kilcher and Heinrichs 1966b; Lawrenceand Ratzlaff 1985). Alfalfa is primarily used for itsforage value. Nitrogen fixation has been observed tobenefit associated plants, but rangeland varieties havenot been developed for this characteristic. Few otherspecies are comparable to alfalfa for establishmenttraits and forage value (Lorenz and others 1982). Moststrains are adapted to sites receiving at least 12 to 14inches (305 to 355 mm) of annual moisture. Onceestablished, alfalfa survives periods of drought andconsiderable grazing (Rosenstock and others 1989).

Root-proliferating or rhizomatous cultivars haveproven well adapted to semiarid regions (Berdahl andothers 1986). The most successful cultivars include:‘Nomad’; ‘Rambler’; ‘Rhizoma’; ‘Sevelra’; ‘Teton’;‘Travois’; ‘Roamer’; ‘Drylander’; ‘Spreader II’; and ‘Kane’(Lorenz and others 1982). Strains with spreading rootsystems are able to recover from root damage causedby gophers. ‘Nomad’, ‘Rambler’, and ‘Ladak’ have beenthe most widely used strains throughout the Inter-mountain Region. ‘Ladak’ has preformed extremelywell in pinyon-juniper, mountain brush, and big sage-brush sites in Utah. It is not considered a decumbentform, yet it withstands grazing and persists muchbetter than cultivated field varieties (Heinrichs 1975).Berdahl and others (1986) concluded that the slowregrowth after grazing, and dormancy during long dryand cold periods are traits that contribute to thesurvival of dryland types.

Alfalfa provides excellent forage to all classes ofgrazing animals and is widely planted to provide highquality, palatable forage (Rumbaugh 1983). It hasbeen planted in the foothills to draw big game animalsaway from cultivated farms and residential areas andis particularly well adapted to seeding with grasses.It establishes well, but seedlings are vulnerable tospring frost. Alfalfa is also very compatible with nativeherbs and grasses. It has usually been seeded in mix-tures at rates up to 2 lb per acre (2.25 kg/ha). Morerecently, seeding rates of 2 to 5 lb per acre (2.25 to5.63 kg/ha) have been used, with the amount of grassseed in the mixture being decreased significantly. Insome earlier seedings, alfalfa was sown at 0.25 lb peracre (0.25 kg/ha). At this low seeding rate the plantswere excessively grazed. Increasing the seeding rateto 2 to 4 lb per acre (2.25 to 4.5 kg/ha) significantlyincreases the density and forage production, and re-duces concentrated grazing. Using alfalfa at thesehigher rates has not restricted the recovery of nativeherbs and shrubs. In fact production has been in-creased by higher seeding rates.

Kilcher and others (1966) concluded that on dry-land sites in the northern Great Plains, seeding morethan one grass with alfalfa had little advantage; how-ever, reliance on one or two species for most range orwildland plantings is not advisable. Alfalfa has beenFigure 9—Aerial seeded winterfat stand and

considerable natural spread that followed.



eliminated by selective grazing when seeded in mix-tures with grass and grazed with livestock. Use ofalfalfa in range and wildlife planting in the Inter-mountain Region has improved yields, and with propermanagement the legume has persisted even underheavy use by game, livestock, rodents, and insects(Rosenstock and others 1989).

Other exotics, including cicer milkvetch, crown-vetch, birdsfoot trefoil, and sainfoin have improvedgrass plantings, but their areas of adaptation are morelimited than alfalfa (Hafenrichter and others 1968;Heinrichs 1975; Nichols and Johnson 1969; Plummerand others 1968; Townsend and others 1975; Wiltonand others 1978).

Kneebone (1959) concluded through extensive trialsthat native legumes offer little promise for range use.However, considerable use has been made of Utahsweetvetch in range and wildland seedings (Ford 1988).Establishment features have been improved, and ni-trogen fixation and areas of adaptability have alsobeen evaluated and selections developed with superiorattributes (Redente and Reeves 1981). The release‘Timp’ is now available.

Seeding some native legumes has resulted in im-provement of stand density, vigor, and forage produc-tion of associated species (Dahl and others 1967;Johnson and others 1983). In addition to Utahsweetvetch, plantings of silky lupine have been suc-cessful. Excessive animal use has not occurred witheither of these two forbs, and they have demonstratedexcellent longevity. Other native legumes are veryimportant but have not been widely planted.

Considerable progress in development of other nativeforbs has resulted in the wide use of Lewis flax, Palmerpenstemon, globemallow, showy goldeneye, sweetanise,arrowleaf balsamroot, Rocky Mountain penstemon,nineleaf lomatium, and Pacific aster. Contrary toearlier reports (Heinrichs 1975; Kneebone 1959;Vallentine 1989) native herbs have been found to haveexcellent forage characteristics. Many selections curewell and provide useful year-around herbage. In gen-eral, these species are easily established and currentrevegetation projects can be seeded with the appropri-ate herbs.

Some nonleguminous plants, including variousshrubs, are associated with nitrogen-fixing organismsand improve soil fertility (Becking 1977; Hoeppel andWollum 1971; Klemmedson 1979; Nelson 1983; Roseand Youngberg 1981). The list includes various spe-cies of alder, buckbrush, cliffrose, elaeagnus, andbuffaloberry. Various woody legumes fix nitrogen,and understory species benefit from association withthese shrubs (Becking 1970; Bermudez-DeCastro andothers 1977). Including these species in range andwildlife plantings improves stand establishment andlong-term productivity.

Seeding Rate ___________________Sufficient seed should be used to assure the develop-

ment of a good stand, yet at the same time prevent thewaste of seed. Use of excessive seed amounts is need-less and expensive. It can result in considerable seed-ling competition within and among seeded species,and can lead to high seedling mortality and evenseeding failures. On the other hand, skimpy seedingmay jeopardize establishment of good stands or indi-vidual species. This is not economically wise when con-siderable money has been spent to prepare the site.Hull and Holmgren (1964) listed three disadvantagesof low seeding rates: (1) a longer period is required forthe seeding to reach maximum productivity; (2) thinstands are more subject to invasion by undesirablespecies; and (3) robust and unpalatable plants tend todevelop, plant distribution is irregular, and subse-quent use is uneven.

Seeding rate can be influenced by species includedin the mixtures, seed size (table 3), purity, viability,type and condition of seedbed, method of seeding,amount of competing vegetation present at time ofseeding, and project objectives. Ease of establishmentvaries greatly among species. Number of seedlingsestablished from a given number of seeds can begreater for fairway crested wheatgrass, alfalfa, smallburnet, and smooth brome than for cicer milkvetch,Russian wildrye, western wheatgrass, and arrowleafbalsamroot.

Seed Quality

The amount of seed sown is influenced by the qualityof seed to be planted. Seeds of many species are grownunder cultivation, and acceptable seed purity andgermination standards have been established. BothState and Federal seed certification standards havebeen established to assure that viable, high qualityseed is sold and planted. Seed is certified on a State-by-State basis, and administered by an agency organi-zation such as the Crop Improvement Association, theState Department of Agriculture, or the AgricultureExtension Service (chapter 27).

Various strains and varieties of individual speciesthat have superior attributes have been developedthrough selection and breeding programs. Theseitems may be released for sale as named cultivars.Numerous cultivars are currently available for rangeand wildlife plantings. Seed that is produced and soldas certified seed has been produced under specific fieldconditions to insure genetic purity, and has beencleaned and processed to meet minimum standards ofgermination, purity, and the absence of weed seeds.Certified seeds are grown, processed, and sold undersupervision of State regulatory agencies. They are



bagged and labeled with identifiable tags and sealedto prevent the bags from being opened unofficially.The tags provide information of State certification,crop variety name, and the grower’s lot number. Thecertified seed must also include a label showing germi-nation, date tested, weed seeds, and so forth. Seedcertification and labeling laws have worked well toassure the availability of high quality seed.

Considerable amounts of noncertified seed are alsogrown and sold, but are not likely to be a geneticallypure line, variety, or cultivar. Noncertified seed shouldalso be tested and labeled to indicate the germinationand purity of the seedlot. In addition, seed shouldmeet standards related to the presence of noxious

Table 3—Number of seeds per pound for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs as compared to numberof seeds per pound in fairway crested wheatgrass.

Pounds of seedrequired to equal the number

of seeds in one pound ofSpecies Number of seed per lb fairway crested wheatgrass

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 percent purity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Grasses

Bluegrass, Kentucky 1,525,000 0.21Brome, mountain 135,600 2.46Brome, smooth 106,000 3.00Fescue, hard sheep 633,500 0.50Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ 600,000 0.53Ricegrass, Indian 188,300 1.70Wheatgrass, fairway crested 319,600 1.00Wheatgrass, intermediate 88,100 3.63Wheatgrass, pubescent 102,800 3.11Wheatgrass, standard crested 192,800 1.66Wildrye, Great Basin 130,700 2.45Wildrye, Russian 210,000 1.52

ForbsAlfalfa 213,800 1.49Balsamroot, arrowleaf 55,200 5.79Burnet, small 55,100 5.80Flax, Lewis 278,300 1.15Milkvetch, cicer 113,700 2.81Penstemon, Palmer 609,700 0.52Sainfoin 26,300 12.15Sweetclover, yellow 258,600 1.24

ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope 20,800 15.36Cliffrose 64,600 4.95Kochia, forage 520,000 0.61Mountain mahogany, birchleaf 55,000 5.80Mountain mahogany, true 59,000 5.42Rabbitbrush, whitestem rubber 693,020 0.46Sagebrush, basin big 2,576,000 0.12Sagebrush, mountain big 1,924,000 0.16Sagebrush, Wyoming big 2,466,000 0.13Saltbush, fourwing 55,400 5.78Winterfat 112,300 2.85

weed seeds. Noncertified seed is referred to as “com-mercial” or “common” seed and is often advertised asmeeting certified seed standards. However, seed thathas not been certified will probably not be geneticallyidentical to a certified variety.

Harvesting and sale of native species has grownrapidly in recent years, creating a new series of prob-lems related to seed quality standards and verifica-tion of seed origin. Seed quality standards are beingconstantly updated to standardize seed laboratorytesting, and provide uniformity in the procedures andtechniques used to determine seed germination, vi-ability, and purity.



To assure that seeds from specific wildland locationsare harvested and sold, regulatory agencies have es-tablished a seed certification program to inspect andverify the origin and sale of source-identified collec-tions. This program complements the more traditionalseed certification process (Young and others 1995).

Seeds of native species will vary a great deal inquality among collection sites and among years ofcollection (Toole 1940, 1941). Seed quality is affectedby climatic conditions, insects, previous browsing,the timing of seed harvest, methods of collection,seed cleaning, and storage conditions. Seeds thatripen irregularly such as many berry crops are oftenharvested before the seeds have fully matured. Seedsof antelope bitterbrush, arrowleaf balsamroot, andMartin ceanothus are often damaged by insects(Ferguson and others 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b), andseedlots must be carefully inspected to assure thatviable seeds are planted. The cleaning processes usedto clean fruits of mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush,lomatium, and winterfat may damage the seed. Re-moving seed appendages from rabbitbrush or winter-fat can reduce seedling establishment success (Simpson1952; Stevens and others 1986). Seeds of fourwingsaltbush, redstem ceanothus, and various other spe-cies are subject to insect damage during periods ofstorage.

To maintain viability, seeds should be stored undercool, dry conditions (Stein and others 1974). Someseeds, particularly forage kochia, must be dried to aspecific moisture content of about 7 percent or seedviability declines rapidly.

Seed germination percentages do not always revealquality of the seed. Seeds may germinate normally,but seedlings may not grow satisfactorily. Erraticperformance of the seedlings may result from beingdamaged during cleaning, or because seeds wereharvested before they were mature. Good seedlingvigor is essential to survival of young plants. Tests arenot currently available to fully discern the potential

vigor of the seedlings. In general, larger seeds withina seedlot usually produce the most vigorous seedlings,germinate and emerge sooner, and often have highergermination (Green and Hansen 1969). However, at-tempting to separate and seed only large seeds is notconsidered a practical procedure for field plantings. Itis important to select and use seeds from collectionsites or varieties that consistently express good seed-ling vigor and germination features.

Seedlots often contain a high percentage of inertmaterial. Seedlots of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, winterfat,aster, needlegrass, alder, and many other speciescannot be easily cleaned to a high purity. Such speciesare normally processed by screening, chopping, orrelated treatments to condition the material to passthrough most conventional seeders. Thus, seedlots arefrequently sold and used that have only 10 to 20percent purity. Seeds of these and other small-seededspecies would have to be diluted with an inert carrierto facilitate seeding if the seed was cleaned to a purityapproaching 40 percent.

Seed acquired from wildland collection sites shouldbe submitted to certified seed laboratories for germi-nation and purity tests. All seeds should be properlylabeled with germination and purity percentages, datetested, and location of collection. As possible, infor-mation related to the conditions of the collection siteshould be made available by the vendor.

Seeding rates should be based upon the amount ofpure live seed (PLS) (table 4) within the seedlot.Percent PLS is determined by:

PLS =

percent Germination percent Purity100

x

Selling seed on a PLS basis is much more practicalthan attempting to market bulk seedlots. Seedgermination of individual seedlots is an importantfactor, and seedlots with unusually low percentagesshould be avoided. Seedlots with high germinationpercentages and low purity may still produce excellenthealthy seedlings.

Table 4—Computing seeding rates and number of seeds sown.

PLS of Bulk seed Seeds perSpecies Mixture PLSa desired bulk seed needed pound (PLS) Seeds sown

Percent lb/acre Percent lb/acre No. No./ft2

Bluebunch wheatgrass 23 3.0 85 3.45 142,640 9.8Western wheatgrass 19 2.5 72 2.95 115,000 6.6Idaho fescue 15 2.0 88 2.24 497,370 22.8Needlegrass 15 2.0 81 2.38 94,895 4.4Arrowleaf balsamroot 15 2.0 85 2.30 55,245 2.5Eaton penstemon 12 1.5 94 1.59 351,085 12.0Mountain big sagebrush 2 0.2 .20 0.36 1,924,000 8.8

Total 100 15.27 66.9aPure live seed.



The condition of the seedlot is important to con-sider. Seedlots that contain considerable debris thatwill not flow through a seeder should be avoided.Extraneous material may be small enough to passthrough a seeding mechanism, but too light in weightto flow under its own weight. Adding a carrier may benecessary to facilitate seeding. Seed cleaning pro-cesses may cut small stems and sticks into particleshaving rough and ragged ends. These small particlesbecome clogged in the seedbox, drop tubes, and smallgates of a seeder. Seed processing and cleaning shouldremove stems, weed seeds, leaves, and other debristhat interfere with seeding, reduce bulk and handling,absorbs moisture, or causes heating in storage. Mostseeds can be processed to facilitate seeding. Only a fewlightweight, fluffy seedlots present unusual problems.

Determining Seeding Rates

Seeding rates for range and wildlife plantings havegenerally evolved through experience gained fromseeding agronomic grasses. Studies in New Mexico bySpringfield (1965), and in Idaho by Mueggler andBlaisdell (1955) reported that seeding crested wheat-grass at rates ranging from 2 to 6 lb per acre (2.3 to6.8 kg/ha) produced nearly the same plant density,herbage yield, and plant sizes 5 to 6 years afterseeding. However, this grass establishes very easilyand seeding other perennial grasses at slightlyhigher rates varying between 5 to 12 lb per acre(5.6 to 13.5 kg/ha) has been recommended (Cook andothers 1967; Hull and Holmgren 1964; Hull and Klomp1967; Keller 1979; McGinnies 1960b; Plummer andothers 1955; Reynolds and Springfield 1953).

Usually 8 to 16 lb per acre (9 to 18 kg/ha) for a totalmixture is suggested for seeding game ranges to adiverse mixture of species. Actual volume depends onthe individual sites and whether seeds are drilled orbroadcast. As additional species are added to a seedmixture, the total weight of the mixture may or maynot increase. If additional species of grasses are addedto a mixture, the total amount sown is usually notincreased. This is accomplished by reducing the amountof seed of each species in the mixture. If additionalspecies of broadleaf forbs are added to a mixture, thetotal amount sown may or may not increase dependingupon the other species in the mixture and the competi-tive problems that may occur. Sufficient seed of eachspecies should be added to assure uniform and ad-equate distribution during planting.

As seeds of additional species are added to a mix-ture, the amounts of other species may often be re-duced. However, the reduction is not necessarily pro-portional to the amounts added. Number of seeds perpound varies greatly between species (table 3). Whenseeds of a number of species are planted, usually more

than one method of seeding is used. Some seeds may bebroadcast sown, and others drilled or planted in sepa-rate furrows.

Total seed used is based upon the number of liveseeds applied per square foot. Numbers vary some-what, but approximately 20 live seeds per square foot(211 seeds/m2) is recommended (Bryan and McMurphy1968; Rechenthin and others 1965).

Light seeding rates normally require longer periodsfor complete stands to develop, whereas moderaterates produce a full stand in a shorter period (Muegglerand Blaisdell 1955). However, when weeds are not aproblem, light seeding rates result in better recoveryof native plants and a better chance for all speciessown to establish. Higher seeding rates control weedsbetter (Hull and Klomp 1967), which is desirable sincepoor initial stands may not develop dominance ifweeds exist (Launchbaugh and Owensby 1970). Hulland Holmgren (1964) concluded that irregular plantdistribution and uneven grazing results from thin seed-ings. Hyder and Sneva (1963) reported that plantingwheatgrass in rows not over 12 inches (30 cm) wideincreased the proportion of vegetative shoots andpalatability. Irregular plant spacings have been ob-served to be more conducive to the establishment of agreater number of species than close, uniform, rowplantings.

When seeding grasses for range or pasture purposes,planting approximately 20 seeds per ft2 (211/m2) is anappropriate standard. However, species that estab-lish and spread quickly by tillering, rhizome expan-sion, or natural seeding may be seeded at rates as lowas 6 seeds per ft2 (60/m2) (Hughes and others 1962).Increasing the seeding rate for slower developingspecies and species producing weaker seedlings isappropriate (Launchbaugh and Owensby 1970).

Confining seeding rates to 20 seeds per ft2 (211/m2)for many seed mixtures is not always appropriate.Seed mixtures that contain small seeds of big sage-brush, Canada bluegrass, western yarrow, Pacificaster, or various species of penstemon will normallycontain more than 20 seeds per ft2 (211/m2). Thesespecies have between 1 to 3 million seeds per lb (2.2 to6.5 million/kg). Seeding just 1 pound of seed contain-ing 2 million seeds per lb would result in nearly 46seeds per ft2 (485/m2). It is often impractical to reduceseeding rates below 0.5 lb per acre (0.56 kg/ha) just tomaintain a 20 seed per ft2 (211/m2) standard. It isdifficult to uniformly spread very small amounts ofseed in large-scale projects. Small amounts can besown if a carrier is added to provide the volumenecessary to handle and distribute the material. Add-ing small amounts of seed of certain species to amixture with other species also provides a means ofmixing, handling and dispensing the material.



Seeding rates should be based upon plant densityand distribution patterns desired. When a number ofspecies are sown, the distribution and density achievedare based upon survival of the seedlings. Usually agreater density of grasses and broadleaf herbs isdesired than shrubs when mixed seedings are con-ducted. Often only one shrub may be required for each100 sq ft (9.2/m2), amounting to approximately 435plants per acre (1,074/ha). The percent success of seedsown is often influenced by the species and amountof seed sown. Richardson and others (1986) reportedthat slightly more than 2,200 plants of mountain bigsagebrush, 2,788 rubber rabbitbrush, and 1,040 ante-lope bitterbrush established per acre (5,436, 6,889,and 2,570/ha) when seeded as a mixture at 4 lb per acre(4.5 kg/ha) in southern Idaho. Shrub numbers droppedto 81 plants of mountain big sagebrush, 116 rubberrabbitbrush, and no antelope bitterbrush plants peracre (200, 287, 0/ha) when perennial grasses wereseeded at 12 lb per acre (13.5 kg/ha) with the shrubs.Increasing the seeding rate of the shrubs to 20 lb peracre (22.5 kg/ha) and grass to 18 lb per acre (20.3 kg/ha) resulted in increased establishment of sagebrushand rabbitbrush seedlings, but no antelope bitterbrushseedlings survived.

Mueggler and Blaisdell (1955) reported that whencrested wheatgrass was seeded alone, exceptionallyheavy seeding rates did not cause stand failure fromexcessive competition among seedlings. Similar re-sults have been obtained when individual nativegrasses and herbs are seeded as single species. How-ever, when mixtures are seeded, increasing the seed-ing rate of individual species affects the survival ofothers sown. When aggressive grasses are seededwith broadleaf forbs or shrubs, the seeding rate ofthe grasses should not exceed 2 to 4 lb PLS per acre(2.25 to 4.5 kg/ha). Certain circumstances may alterthis amount, but grass seed should be limited to assuresurvival of other species.

The seeding rate of alfalfa when sown with grasses inirrigated and nonirrigated pastures has usually beenbetween 0.5 and 2 lb (PLS) per acre (0.56 to 2.25 kg/ha)(Allred 1966; Kilcher and Heinrichs 1968; Rumbaughand others 1965). Seeding rangelands with as much as5 lb per acre alfalfa (5.6 kg/ha) has resulted in excel-lent stands. Seeding rates of other broadleaf herbsare quite different from alfalfa. Small-seeded speciessuch as western yarrow, Pacific aster, and Lewis flaxcan be seeded at much lower rates. However, higherrates are required to attain similar results for large-seeded species such as Utah sweetvetch, arrowleafbalsamroot, or silky lupine.

Results from seeding a single species indicate thatincreasing the seeding rate usually increases the num-ber of seedlings that emerge, but reduces the numberof plants established per 100 seeds sown (Cook andothers 1967; Launchbaugh and Owensby 1970;

McGinnies 1960b; Vallentine 1971). When mixturesare seeded, increasing the seeding rate will normallyresult in an increase in number of seedlings thatemerge, but seedlings of certain species will survivebetter than others. For example, increasing the amountof Lewis flax, sulfur eriogonum, and alfalfa seeds sownusually results in a proportional increase in plantsthat establish and survive. In contrast, increases areless apparent for arrowleaf balsamroot andgooseberryleaf globemallow.

Determining Seeding Rates Based UponMethods of Seeding—The amount of seed sown alsodepends, in part, on the planting methods and equip-ment used. Certain practices are more efficient thanothers. Approximately 50 to 75 percent more seed hasbeen recommended when broadcast seeding is usedcompared with drilling (Cook 1966; Plummer andothers 1955). However, evaluations of numerous aerialbroadcasting and anchor chaining projects of pinyon-juniper sites in Utah have shown that an increase ofabout 20 percent is necessary for development ofsatisfactory stands. Aerial seeding usually distributesseeds very uniformly, and chaining provides adequatecoverage. Unless broadcast seeds are covered or incor-porated in the soil many do not germinate or becomeestablished. Broadcast seeding is not advisable unlesssome method of seed coverage is used. Increasing theseeding rate will not substitute for poor plantingtechniques. Drilling usually results in more uniformplacement of the seed in the soil than broadcastingfollowed by harrowing or chaining. Seeds of certainspecies, particularly small seeds, establish better fromshallow or surface placement, and broadcast plantingfollowed by light harrowing provides an ideal seedbedfor smaller seeds (table 5).

Seeding rates for mixed seedings can usually be re-duced if the seedbox is partitioned into separate com-partments, and seeds of similar sizes are grouped andseeded in separate rows from seeds with different sizesor shapes (Wiedemann 1975). If this is done, theseeding rates can be more precisely metered and moreuniform distribution is also achieved. If planting depthscan be separately adjusted for each furrow seeder,better seed placement will result and a higher percent-age of the seed will establish. Various seeders, includ-ing drills and imprint planters, have multiple seedboxesand can simultaneously plant seeds of different spe-cies in separate rows and at different rates and depths.

Seeding grasses, broadleaf herbs, or shrub seeds inalternate or separate rows increases the chance ofsuccess as seedling competition is reduced(Hafenrichter and others 1968; Plummer and others1968). Species mixtures seeded in alternate rows main-tain their original composition better than when mixedin each row (Gomm 1964; McWilliams 1955). Seedingin alternate or separate rows also allows greater



flexibility in spacing and seeding rates. Certain shrubscan be seeded separately from grasses, and a greaterpercent of the shrub seed sown will establish (fig. 10).

Various seed agitators and regulating mechanismsnow exist that more uniformly plant seeds of irregu-lar shape and size (Wiedemann 1983; Wiedemann andothers 1979). Seed loss due to irregular plantings hasbeen decreased with the use of new seeders, and seedis more efficiently planted.

Interseeding into existing stands is often employedto improve stand composition (Stevens 1985a,b). Inaddition, seeding some species in strips, rows, orselected spots is commonly done (Welty and others1983). Species are often seeded using single row plant-ers or Hansen Seed Dribblers mounted on wheeledtractors or track-driven “cats”. These seeders may beused to plant areas where broadcast or drill seedingis also being used. Seeding individual species usingseparate items of equipment can greatly reduce theamount of seed planted. Shrub seeds that are sown infurrows spaced 10 to 20 ft (3.1 to 6.1 m) apart oftenprovide an acceptable cover, and subsequently furnishan adequate seed source for natural seeding. If fur-rows are spaced 10, 15, or 20 ft (3.07, 4.6, 6.14 m) apart,only 10, 6.7, and 5 percent of the total area is actuallysown. Seeding rates and amount of seed sown atdifferent row spacings are presented in tables 5 and 6.

Spot seeding is a practical method of seeding manyspecies, particularly with highly expensive seed orspecies that may require specific seedbed conditions.Spot seeding following chaining on pinyon-junipersites is a useful and successful practice. Certain browseseeds can be hand planted into the pits and depressionscreated where trees are uprooted. These depressionsor catchment basins are favorable sites for seedlingestablishment.

Table 5—Pounds of seed per acrea required to seed one, five,and 10 seeds per linear foot (0.3 m) (drilled) orsquare foot (0.01 m2) (broadcast).

Number of seedsper linear foot

One Five TenSpecies seed seeds seeds

- - - - lb Seed/Acre - - - -Grasses

Brome, smooth 0.32 1.6 3.2Dropseed, sand 0.008 0.04 0.08Fescue, hard sheep 0.08 0.40 0.8Needlegrass, green 0.27 1.35 2.7Orchardgrass 0.09 0.45 0.9Ricegrass, Indian 0.27 1.35 2.7Rye, mountain 0.77 3.85 7.7Timothy 0.03 0.15 0.3Wheatgrass, bluebunch 0.30 1.5 0.3Wheatgrass, fairway crested 0.14 0.7 1.4Wheatgrass, intermediate 0.50 2.5 5.0Wheatgrass, pubescent 0.50 2.50 5.0Wheatgrass, Siberian 0.20 1.0 2.0Wheatgrass, slender 0.33 1.65 3.3Wheatgrass, standard crested 0.23 1.15 2.3Wheatgrass, tall 0.56 2.8 5.6Wheatgrass, western 0.38 1.9 3.8Wildrye, Great Basin 0.33 1.65 3.3Wildrye, Russian 0.25 1.25 2.5

ForbsAlfalfa 0.20 1.0 2.0Balsamroot, arrowleaf 0.77 3.85 7.7Burnet, small 0.77 3.85 7.7Flax, Lewis 0.16 0.8 1.6Globemallow, gooseberryleaf 0.09 0.45 0.9Goldeneye, showy 0.04 0.2 0.4Lupine, mountain 3.45 17.25 34.5Milkvetch, cicer 0.38 1.9 3.8Penstemon, Palmer 0.07 0.35 0.7Sainfoin, common 1.67 8.35 16.7Sweetvetch, northern 1.30 6.5 13.0

ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope 2.8 14.0 28.0Ceanothus, redstem 0.37 1.85 3.7Chokecherry, western 10.0 50.0 100.0Cliffrose, Stansbury 0.68 3.4 6.8Ephedra, green 1.75 8.75 17.5Kochia, forage 0.08 0.4 0.8Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 0.83 4.15 8.3Mountain mahogany, true 0.71 3.55 7.1Rabbitbrush, low mountain 0.06 0.3 0.6Rabbitbrush, white rubber 0.06 0.3 0.6Sagebrush, basin big 0.02 0.1 0.2Sagebrush, black 0.05 0.25 0.5Sagebrush, mountain big 0.02 0.1 0.2Sagebrush, Wyoming big 0.02 0.1 0.2Saltbush, fourwing 0.77 3.85 7.7Serviceberry, Saskatoon 1.0 5.0 10.0Winterfat 0.38 1.9 3.8

aBased on seeds per pound at 100 percent purity (table 1).Figure 10—Seeding of whitestem rubber rab-bitbrush in alternate rows with fairway crestedwheatgrass.



Table 6—Seeding requirements for some Intermountain shrubs. Shown are pounds of pure live seed required per acre, for fourseeding rates, at each of four different row spacings.

Number seeds per linear footFive Ten

Row spacings ftPurity/ No. 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Species germination PLS per lba Amount of seed sown, PLS lbs per acreb

PercentBitterbrush, antelope 95/90 15,370 2.83 1.42 1.0 0.71 5.67 2.84 1.98 1.42Ceanothus, Martin 98/75 82,900 0.53 0.26 0.18 0.13 1.05 0.53 0.37 0.26Ceanothus, redstem 98/85 131,860 0.33 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.66 0.33 0.23 0.17Chokecherry, black 98/80 4,150 10.50 5.25 3.67 2.63 11.00 5.50 7.35 2.75Cliffrose, Stansbury 95/85 64,615 0.67 0.34 0.24 0.17 1.34 0.67 0.47 0.34Currant, golden 95/65 356,180 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.06Elderberry, blue 95/50 216,770 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.11Ephedra, green 95/85 24,955 1.75 0.88 0.61 0.44 3.50 1.75 1.22 0.88Eriogonum, Wyeth 95/75 141,310 0.31 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.62 0.31 0.22 0.16Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 90/80 51,865 0.84 0.42 0.29 0.21 1.68 0.84 0.59 0.42Mountain mahogany, true 90/80 59,030 0.74 0.37 0.26 0.19 1.48 0.74 0.52 0.37Rabbitbrush, 15/75 693,220 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.03

whitestem rubberRose, Woods 95/70 45,300 0.96 0.48 0.34 0.24 1.92 0.96 0.67 0.48Sagebrush, big basin 12/80 2,575,940 0.02 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01Sagebrush, black 12/80 907,200 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02Saltbush, fourwing 95/50 55,365 0.79 0.40 0.28 0.20 1.58 0.79 0.55 0.39Serviceberry, Saskatoon 95/85 45,395 0.96 0.48 0.34 0.24 1.92 0.96 0.67 0.48Shadscale 95/35 64,920 0.67 0.34 0.24 0.17 1.34 0.67 0.47 0.34Snowberry, mountain 95/80 54,065 0.81 0.41 0.28 0.21 1.62 0.81 0.56 0.41Sumac, smooth 94/40 62,430 0.70 0.35 0.24 0.18 1.40 0.70 0.49 0.35Winterfat 50/85 112,270 0.39 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.78 0.39 0.27 0.20

Number seeds per linear footFifteen Twenty

Row spacings ftPurity/ No. 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Species germination PLS per lba Amount of seed sown, PLS lbs per acreb

PercentBitterbrush, antelope 95/90 15,370 8.50 4.25 2.98 2.13 11.34 5.67 3.97 2.83Ceanothus, Martin 98/75 82,900 1.58 0.79 0.55 0.39 2.10 1.05 0.74 0.52Ceanothus, redstem 98/85 131,860 1.0 0.5 0.35 0.25 1.32 0.66 0.46 0.33Chokecherry, black 98/80 4,150 31.49 15.75 11.00 7.87 41.98 20.99 14.69 10.49Cliffrose, Stansbury 95/85 64,615 2.02 1.0 0.71 0.50 2.68 1.34 0.94 0.67Currant, golden 95/65 356,180 0.37 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.50 0.25 0.17 0.12Elderberry, blue 95/50 216,770 0.60 0.30 0.21 0.15 0.80 0.40 0.28 0.20Ephedra, green 95/85 24,955 5.24 2.62 1.83 1.31 7.00 3.50 2.44 1.75Eriogonum, Wyeth 95/75 141,310 0.93 0.46 0.32 0.23 1.24 0.62 0.43 0.31Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 90/80 51,865 2.52 1.26 0.88 0.63 3.36 1.68 1.18 0.84Mountain mahogany, true 90/80 59,030 2.21 1.10 0.78 0.55 2.96 1.48 1.03 0.74Rabbitbrush, 15/75 693,220 0.19 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.06

whitestem rubberRose, Woods 95/70 45,300 2.89 1.44 1.01 0.72 3.84 1.92 1.35 0.96Sagebrush, basin big 12/80 2,575,940 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01Sagebrush, black 12/80 907,200 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.07 0.05Saltbush, fourwing 95/50 55,365 2.36 1.18 0.83 0.59 3.15 1.57 1.10 0.78Serviceberry, Saskatoon 95/85 45,395 2.88 1.44 1.01 0.72 3.84 1.92 1.34 0.96Shadscale 95/35 64,920 2.01 1.00 0.70 0.50 2.68 1.34 0.94 0.67Snowberry, mountain 95/80 54,065 2.42 1.21 0.85 0.60 3.22 1.61 1.13 0.81Sumac, smooth 94/40 62,430 2.09 1.04 0.73 0.52 2.80 1.40 0.98 0.70Winterfat 50/85 112,270 1.16 0.58 0.41 0.29 1.55 0.78 0.54 0.39

aNumber of PLS/lb is determined on the number of pure live seeds per pound.bAmount of seed sown is computed in pounds of pure live seed.



Spot seeding also allows for more careful control ofthe number of seeds sown. Ferguson and Basile (1967)reported that a lone seedling of antelope bitterbrushis less likely to survive than if a group of seedlingsemerge together. Seedlings grouped together providemutual protection from heat and aid in breaking of asoil crust during emergence. Evans and others (1983)reported rodent depredation of planted antelope bit-terbrush seeds is reduced if seeds are not placed on acontinuous, uniform row. Also, placing seeds at dif-ferent depths in the soil and seeding fewer seedstogether in a spot reduced the chance of rodents beingable to locate and destroy the seeds.

Compensating for Seed and Seedling Losses—A high percentage of seeds sown fail to emerge orestablish. Seed and seedling losses normally resultfrom poor seedbed conditions, unfavorable moistureconditions, frost, animal depredation, damage by in-sects and disease, and competition. Less than 10 per-cent of viable wheatgrass seeds sown produce seed-lings (Cook and others 1967). Luke and Monsen (1984)reported from plantings in southern Wyoming thatseedling establishment of different species of shrubsvaried between 0.01 to 3.30 percent of all seed planted.

Plantings of fourwing saltbush in central Nevadahave resulted in established plants from over 10 per-cent of the seed sown (Monsen and Richardson 1984).Big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush exhibited ex-cellent ability to establish amid considerable competi-tion, but less than 3.5 percent of the seed sown for eachof these two species produced seedlings. Seedlingdensity is apparently regulated by site factors, andoverseeding is not necessary.

Rodents feed on the seed of numerous species (Everettand Monsen 1990). These animals frequently destroynearly entire plantings by foraging upon the seeds andseedlings (Nelson and others 1970; Nord 1965; Sullivanand Sullivan 1982). Although rodents consume themajority of seeds produced each year, their caches arealso instrumental in plant recruitment (McAdoo andothers 1983; West 1968). Rodent caches benefit spe-cies that respond favorably to grouped seedings(Ferguson and Basile 1967).

Deer mice eat or dig up seed of commonly seededspecies equal to approximately one-third of their bodyweight daily (Everett and others 1978b). The amountof seed taken in the field is proportional to the amountavailable (Sullivan 1978). Thus, animals quickly gatherand use planted seeds (fig. 11).

Rodents apparently operate under an “optimal fac-tor” strategy where they harvest seed from densepatches or clumps rather than dispersed seeds (Priceand Jenkins 1986; Pyke and others 1977). However,seeds broadcast on the soil surface are nearly entirelyconsumed even though located in a random pattern(Nelson and others 1970). Buried seeds are less pre-

Figure 11—Mouse excavation of plantedantelope bitterbrush seed.

ferred because of the energy spent in digging (Priceand Jenkins 1986). Rodent mining for seeds has beenreported to occur if seeds are concentrated in rows(Nord 1965), and high losses can result if seeds areplaced at uniform depths. Drilling may place seeds infixed horizontal and vertical planes. Therefore, if seedscan be randomly located in the soil, losses to rodentscan be reduced. Rodents favor large seeds over smallseeds (Everett and others 1978b; Howard 1950;Standley 1988), because they are more easily located(Price and Jenkins 1986). Large seeds may be pre-ferred as the relative number required to meet dailyenergy demands is less (Kauffman and Collier 1981;Reichman 1977).

Rodents are able to locate buried seeds by olfactorysearch image (Sullivan 1979). The size and plantingdepth of the seed affects detection (Reichman andOberstein 1977). Evans and others (1983) found thatseeds of antelope bitterbrush planted in groups of 2,10, 45, or 100 were much more easily located andconsumed by rodents than if one seed was plantedper spot. Also, rodents never dug up one bitterbrushseed, but if two were planted together, over 75 percentwere removed. Over 98 percent were taken if morethan two were planted. Rodents were able to detectmost bitterbrush seeds if planted at normal seedingdepths. Planting fewer seeds per spot or randomlyplacing desirable seeds in the soil are procedures thatcan be used to lessen losses to rodents.

Although sacrifice foods have not been fully testedas a means to protect range seedings, laboratory andfield trials suggest millet, sunflower, and rolled barleyas potential sacrifice foods (Everett and Monsen 1990;Kelrick and MacMahon 1985; Kelrick and others 1986).Feeding sunflower seeds as sacrifice food to rodentsincreased conifer survival from 5 to 70 percent (Sullivan1979).



Various repellents have been applied to seeds toreduce animal depredation. Endrin has been the mostsuccessful (Plummer and others 1970b), but use ofthis compound has been prohibited because of envi-ronmental concerns. Everett and Stevens (1981) foundthat alpha-naphthylthiourea (ANTU) reduced deermice consumption of bitterbrush seed more than otherchemicals tested. Passof (1974) reported that the chemi-cal effectively doubled seedling stocking rates of conifers.

Late fall or winter seedings are recommended toreduce the loss of seeds to rodents. At this time rodentactivity has declined. Rodent populations are at theirlowest point in the early spring, but spring seedingsare not the most desirable.

Modification of Seeding Rates—Seeding ratesand planting procedures can be modified when neces-sary. In high risk areas where soil stability, aesthetics,or habitat are of prime concern, increasing seedingrates and intensifying planting may be justified. Usinghigh quality seed, and delaying planting until condi-tions are ideal for seeding are useful practices that canincrease success (Phillips 1970).

Using high seeding rates and planting techniquesthat may be less than optimal may be justified incertain situations. For example, aerial seeding of bigsagebrush, winterfat, and rubber rabbitbrush followedby chaining or harrowing may not produce as manyseedlings as using a modified ground seeder. However,satisfactory stands can be achieved, and savings inseeding costs more than compensate for losses of seedby broadcast seeding.

Low seeding rates can also be justified at some loca-tions. If weed invasion is not a problem, some pinyon-juniper chainings can be lightly seeded to allow morecomplete recovery of desirable species. Although theplanting sites may initially appear weedy or support aweak ground cover, the ultimate plant communityusually forms a diverse, acceptable cover.

Effects of Seed Characteristics on SeedingRates—Seed size occurring in different seedlots ofmany species may vary enough to require adjustmentsin seeding. Differences in seed size of fourwing salt-bush (Foiles 1974), black chokecherry (Grisez 1974),curlleaf mountain mahogany (Deitschman and others1974a), and bottlebrush squirreltail necessitate con-siderable adjustment in computing seeding rates andoperation of seeding equipment.

The percent moisture in seedlots of fourwing salt-bush, winterfat, Apache plume, and vegetable-oystersalsify can also affect the amount of seed needed.Also, the amount, size, and shape of debris in seedlotscan determine the choice of equipment, planting meth-ods, and seeding rates used. Seedlots of Apache plume,Rocky Mountain maple, and western virginsbower aredifficult to clean, and the methods used to collect and

clean the seed often determine the methods that canbe used in planting.

Seeds extracted from berries or dry fruits sometimehave portions of the fruit attached to the seed. Therough surface of the attached material reduces theflow of the seed through most seeders. Seed regulatorygates or control openings must be opened wide toaccommodate movement of the seed through theseedbox and dispensing mechanisms. In doing so,seeding rates become difficult to regulate. Such seedmust often be diluted to prevent overseeding.

Seeds of extremely different size, shape, density,and purity often cannot be seeded together withoutmodification of planting equipment. Seeds of big sage-brush, rubber rabbitbrush, and winterfat are com-monly seeded with other species and this may neces-sitate improvisations to permit seeding. Additions ofvery small or extremely large seeds to a mixture canbe accommodated by using materials to reduce plant-ing rates. Some seeding equipment, particularly picker-type seeders or fluted seeders and are designed toplant irregular sized and mixed seedlots. However,trashy seedlots are not easily planted. In most situa-tions extremely trashy seedlots must be plantedseparately with special equipment. Spending time toclean seed to a desired condition is usually well worth-while. Some time should be spent calibrating theselected seed dispensing mechanism to achieve therate of seeding desired.

Treating Seeds to Improve Establishment

Preconditioning Seeds—Various treatmentshave been employed to pretreat seeds that are difficultto germinate. Seeds with thick, impermeable seed-coats or structures can be mechanically fractured topromote germination (Stein and others 1974). Ham-mermilling utricles of fourwing saltbush and shad-scale fractures the tough wall and allows seeds togerminate quickly and more uniformly. Hard seed-coats or fruit structures can also be treated withsulfuric acid (Brinkman 1974g; Krugman and others1974), but this treatment is difficult to apply, particu-larly to large seedlots.

Pretreating some seeds with various chemicals canrelieve dormancy and allow seeds to germinate. Ante-lope bitterbrush and Stansbury cliffrose are two spe-cies that respond to treatment with hydrogen peroxideor thiourea (Everett and Meeuwig 1975; Young andEvans 1983). Breaking seed dormancy with chemi-cal treatment facilitates seeding in the spring. How-ever, seeding success is not as good as with fall seed-ing, and this practice is not usually recommended.

Priming seeds to hasten germination is a tech-nique that appears practical to improve seedlingestablishment (Bleak and Keller 1972) particularly



when seeding in semiarid communities. Hardegreeand Emmerich (1992) reported seed priming can beused to regulate seed germination of perennial grassesand enhance seedling establishment when seeded inareas occupied by cheatgrass.

Seed processing—Improving seed cleaning and seed-ing practices has significantly increased planting suc-cess. Removing fruit and floral structures by improvedcleaning techniques greatly enhances seeding andhelps ensure that seeds are correctly placed in the soil.However, removal of tissue attached to seeds of rabbit-brush and winterfat can reduce seedling establish-ment (Booth and Schuman 1983; Stevens and others1986). Slight heating of seeds of Utah sweetvetch bygrinding to open or remove the pod is very damaging.In this case, the seeds are not visually damaged, butgermination is greatly reduced. Planting techniquesand equipment have been developed to plant seedlotshaving trashy, lightweight, and fluffy seeds (Carltonand Bouse 1983; Hardcastle 1983; Stevens and others1981b; Weidemann 1983). These advances have reducedcleaning and conditioning processes that often dam-age some seeds. Seed cleaning techniques have alsobeen devised to condition seeds of sagebrush, alder,forage kochia, buckwheat, aster, and numerous otherspecies without damage to the seed (Dewald andothers 1983).

Seed inoculation—Seeds of all legumes should betreated with a commercial inoculate prior to planting.Lowther and others (1987) reported strains of rhizo-bia have limited distribution in the IntermountainWest and those present have low nitrogen fixationcapabilities. Thus, strains of the rhizobia specific forthe legume being planted should be used. Pretreatedseed can be purchased from most vendors. Strains ofadapted inocula are available for some native legumesincluding Utah sweetvetch (Ford 1988).

At present, 162 species in 19 genera in 7 families ofwoody plants are known to form actinomycete-typeroot nodules (Bond 1976; Heisey and others 1980;Righetti and Munns 1980). Certain species of westernshrubs of the Rose family function as symbiotic nitro-gen fixers (Klemmedson 1979; Lepper and Fleschner1977; Vlamis and others 1964; Wagle and Vlamis1961). Nelson (1983) reported that actinorhizal rootnodulation occurs with Stansbury cliffrose, desert andantelope bitterbrush, and curlleaf mountain mahogany,but procedures to inoculate the seeds have not beendeveloped (Becking 1977; Nelson and Schuttler 1984).

Seed pelleting—Various methods have been tried toimprove success from broadcast seedings. Techniqueshave been employed to substitute for harrowing, drag-ging, or chaining to eliminate the costs associated withseed coverage. Pelleting seed has been extensively

tested for range, wildlife, and forestry seedings, butplantings have not been very successful (Hull andothers 1963). Pelleted seeds require seed coverage orcreation of a seedbed as does nonpelleted seed(Chadwick and others 1969). Seeds that establishfrom surface or shallow planting depths are bestadapted to this method of seeding.

Monsen and Pellant (1989) reported that pelletseeding of winterfat significantly aided in aerialdistribution of this lightweight seed. Seedlingsestablished well from this method of planting, butsuccess was not an improvement over broadcastingnonpelleted seed. Although pelleting of lightweight,trashy seed can enhance the flow and distribution ofthe seed through conventional drills and aerial seed-ers, pelleting is a difficult and expensive process.Pelleting does not overcome problems created by smallsticks or other debris that cause material to cluster orlodge in the seeder.

Increasing the seeding rate of pelleted seed has notimproved seedling establishment (Bleak and Hull1958; Hull 1959) and no improvement in rodent deter-rence has been detected with treated seed. Applicationof fungicides has been proposed as an added benefitwith pelleted seed, but results have not been conclu-sive. Also the costs of pelleting, and the added ship-ping and handling fees are very high (Chadwick andothers 1969).

Treating seeds to control pathogens—Treating seedsand soil to prevent damage by pathogens may bebeneficial, but it is not widely done in range or wildlifeseedings. Seed collected from wildland stands is ofteninfested with seedborne pathogens (James 1985;James and Genz 1981), and various treatments havebeen tested to eliminate or reduce pathogenic organ-isms, particularly on conifer seeds (Barnett 1976; Jamesand Genz 1981; Trappe 1961; Wenny and Dumroese1987). Treatments have included the use of 100 per-cent ethanol or sodium hypochlorite with lowered pH,and soaking seeds in a 2 percent aqueous suspensionof thiram for 24 hours (Maude and others 1969; Sauerand Burroughs 1986). Dodds and Roberts (1985) dis-cuss the sterilization of seed using a 1 to 3 minute soakin a 70 percent ethanol solution, followed by a soak insodium hypochlorite. Hot water treatments have alsobeen employed without reducing seed germination(Baker 1962a,b), and the use of a microwave oven toheat water to the desired temperature (Lozano andothers 1986).

Damping-off fungi are particularly damaging toantelope bitterbrush, winterfat, and fourwing salt-bush seedings (Ferguson and Monsen 1974). Organ-isms can be transitted through ingestation of the seedor potting media. Treatment with a mixture of Benlate(methyl 1-[butylcarbamcyl] -2 benzimidazole-carbamate)



and Dexon [p-dimethlamino] benzenediazo sodium sul-fonate has been successful as a drench. Treatment ofnursery beds using a soil drench (Pawuk and Barnett1974) has been effective in controlling fusarium fungithat are responsible for seedling mortality (Landis1976) due to damping-off and rootrot.

Pretreating seeds may be effective in reducing seeddisease problems, but the use of disease-free seeds ispreferable, whenever possible. Nelson (1984) cautionsthat fungicidal treatments to prevent seedling dis-eases often only suppress the pathogen which willlater induce further disease. However, sufficient seeddamage from pathogens has been observed in variouswildland plantings to suggest that control measureswould be beneficial to some species. Heavy lossesoccur with lupine, balsamroot, Utah sweetvetch,antelope bitterbrush, serviceberry, and blue elder-berry. Seeds should be pretreated if disease problemsare likely to be serious.

Seedbed Preparation andSeeding _______________________

An ideal seedbed for range or wildlife seedings: (1) isfree of competitive weeds (seeds and plants) that mayprevent establishment of seeded species; (2) has afriable structure that allows infiltration of moistureand does not puddle or become compacted by seedingequipment or rainfall; (3) can be easily worked toincorporate seed into the soil; (4) has a firm soilbeneath the seeding depth; and (5) contains sufficientsurface mulch to prevent rapid drying. The principalpurpose of seedbed preparation is to control weedsand condition the soil for seeding. A minimum numberof tillage or treatment operations are used on mostwildland sites. Access is often limited; debris, rock, orterrain limit the techniques that can be used. Oftenonly one or two techniques are used to control weeds,prepare, and seed a site.

Control of Competition

Seedings have been most successful when existingcompetition has been eliminated (Cox and others 1986;Holmgren 1956; Hubbard and Sanderson 1961). Mostcontrol measures are designed to remove existingvegetation and seedbanks. These procedures are par-ticularly important in semiarid and arid regions wheremoisture is critical to seedling establishment(Vallentine 1989), and in vegetative types where com-petition is severe. Adequate weed control is usuallydifficult to accomplish, particularly on sites infestedwith annuals (Plummer and others 1955).

Weed control or reduction of competition is neces-sary to (1) allow seeded species to establish; (2) releaseexisting, but suppressed desirable plants; and (3) allow

Figure 12—Well designed pinyon-juniper chain-ing. Allowances given for aesthetics, thermal, es-cape and travel cover, and sufficient edge effect.

the spread of native and seeded species. To facilitateseeding, weed control measures are necessary forat least one season and sometimes for 1 or 2 yearsthereafter.

Control measures do not always require completeelimination of all plants (fig. 12). Chaining of pinyon-juniper stands, dense patches of oakbrush, or thickstands of big sagebrush usually leave considerablevegetation, but the overstory plants are suppressedand seeded species are able to establish (Aro 1971;Davis 1987; Plummer and others 1968). Plant controlmeasures are most critical in areas receiving limitedrainfall (Houston 1957). Complete elimination ofblack greasewood or low rabbitbrush is not as criticalif normal amounts of moisture are received followingtreatment. These plants are not overly competitiveand some can be left in place. However, rainfall is toooften unpredictable and leaving a high number ofplants in place is risky.

Cook (1966) reported that complete removal of brushon low foothill ranges in the Intermountain area al-lowed seeded species to reach maturity in 5 years.Seeded stands required 10 to 11 years to attain fullpotential when brush control was only 60 to 80 per-cent. The time required for seeded stands to attainmaturity is not as critical as the chance of havingseedlings fail to establish. Control measures shouldbe designed to assure stand establishment. Matura-tion and productivity levels may be delayed but can betolerated.

Planting sites that are infested with annual weedsusually requires complete weed control (fig. 13). Cheat-grass, medusahead, and most summer annuals offerserious competition to seeded species (Evans andYoung 1978; Hull 1963a; Hull and Pechanec 1947;Robertson and Pearse 1945; Rummell 1964). Decreas-ing the density of annuals does not always reduce thedeleterious competitive effects of the remaining plants.



Nearly complete removal of all annual plants and seedis necessary to establish new seedlings of most seededspecies (Hulbert 1955; Robertson and Pearse 1945;Young and others 1969a). Annual weeds competedirectly with natural seedlings of Stansbury cliffrose(Cline 1960), and shrub seedlings succumb in the latespring and early summer as soil moisture is depleted.Summer annuals are also highly competitive (Haasand others 1962), particularly when mixed stands ofRussian thistle and pepperweed exist with annualgrasses.

‘Hycrest’ crested wheatgrass (Asay and Knowles1985a,b), forage kochia (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990),bottlebrush squirreltail, and ‘Appar’ Lewis flax arespecies able to compete as seedlings with a moderatepopulation of annual weeds. However, direct seedinginto unprepared weedy seedbeds should be avoided. Ingeneral, shrub seedings are less competitive withannual grasses than are most commonly seeded herbs(Hubbard 1964). Seedlings of antelope bitterbrush arebetter able to compete with summer annuals thanwith cheatgrass (Holmgren 1956). Monsen and Pellant(1989) found that seedlings of winterfat competed bet-ter with perennial native grasses than with cheatgrass.If cheatgrass cover approached 10 to 15 percent, fewwinterfat seedlings survived.

Giunta and others (1975) reported differences inestablishment success among several shrub speciesseeded on a pinyon-juniper site in central Utah, whenvarious size clearings were used to reduce cheatgrasscompetition. Most shrub seedlings required clearingsthat were 30 and 40 inches (76 to 102 cm) wide toestablish (fig. 13). Holmgren (1956) reported similarsized openings were required in cheatgrass-infestedranges in Idaho to assure the establishment of seededantelope bitterbrush. From studies in California(Hubbard 1964) and Idaho (Medin and Ferguson 1980)clearings of 30 to 40 inches (76 to 102 cm) were recom-mended for antelope bitterbrush seedling establishment.

In more mesic sites where annual rainfall exceeds14 to 16 inches (360 to 410 mm), herb seedings areusually more successful, and weed control is not asdifficult. However, even here shrub species cannot beestablished without seedbed preparation. Mountainsnowberry, Saskatoon serviceberry, Martin ceanothus,and true mountain mahogany are commonly seeded inthese sites, but are sensitive to the competitive effectsof associated herbs. Weedy or competitive plants mustbe controlled for 1 to 3 years to allow seedlings time toestablish.

Dense stands of highly competitive perennial sod andannual weeds occur on high summer ranges and re-quire control measures (McGinnies 1968). Treatmentof cluster tarweed (Hull 1971b) is essential for seed-ling establishment of seeded species. Seeding of inlandsaltgrass and disturbed meadow sites also requiresextensive weed control.

Riparian disturbances often require considerablecontrol measures to eliminate persistent and compe-titive weeds (Platts and others 1987). Disturbancesare often occupied by rhizomatous sod and root-proliferating noxious weeds. These plants must beeliminated or dramatically reduced. Treatments suchas deep plowing or disking may not kill the plantswithout repeated treatments (Platts and others 1987;Plummer and others 1968). These measures leave thesurface subject to serious erosion from spring runoffand storm events. However, such extensive controlmeasures are necessary to seed many sites (Neilandand others 1981).

Conservation of Moisture

Site preparation treatments should be designed toconserve and aid in storage of soil moisture. Mostmechanical practices—plowing, railing, disking—tendto dry the soil surface, and should be done whenmoisture loss is kept at a minimum.

The most practical means of providing the maxi-mum soil moisture to the seedbed is to treat sites atthe right season. Site preparation and seeding shouldbe conducted prior to the season when most precipita-tion is received. In most situations, late fall treat-ments are most successful. Disturbance to the soil canreduce infiltration and cause crusting and moistureloss. Disturbances should be limited in both seedbedpreparation and seeding. Hyder and others (1955)found that rolling loose seedbeds improved seed place-ment and seedling emergence. Rolling, after broadcastseeding, was also a reliable method of covering seedand firming the seedbed, but rolling can also compactsome soils, reducing seedling emergence.

Within the Intermountain area, seeding and weedcontrol conducted in the fall allows spring-germinatingspecies a better opportunity to use winter moisturestored in the soil. Stored moisture, coupled with spring

Figure 13—Antelope bitterbrush seeded into clear-ings where competition has been removed.



rainstorms, provides the most favorable conditions forseedling establishment.

Fall or spring treatment of annual weeds, particularlycheatgrass, is helpful in eliminating annual growth(Klomp and Hull 1972). Treatments must be con-ducted after cheatgrass plants have germinated andemerged (Evans and Young 1978; Plummer and oth-ers 1968; Young and others 1969a).

Weed seeds normally are not eliminated unless thesoil is deeply plowed and seeds are planted too deep toemerge. Light or shallow cultivation in the spring orfall can normally kill small seedlings (Bement andothers 1965; McGinnies 1968).

Summer fallowing can be used to control plantgrowth and prevent the development of a seed crop(Harris and others 1972; Hart and Dean 1986). Sum-mer fallowing is a useful technique to conserve soilmoisture in areas of low annual rainfall, but fallow-ing practices are often quite expensive. Fallowing overa 1- to 2-year period is often necessary to control sod inmountain meadows.

Pitting, trenching, deep-furrow drilling, and creationof catchment basins have been used to intercept andaccumulate moisture near the seedbed (Barnes 1952;Branson and others 1966; Hubbard and Smoliak 1953).Chaining also creates pits and small depressions,especially in areas where trees or large shrubs areuprooted (fig. 14). These spots also collect additionalsoil moisture that aids seedling establishment.

Treating soils that are wet can cause compactionand crusting. This reduces infiltration and may inter-fere with seedling emergence. On the other hand,treating sites when the surfaces are dry and loose cancause serious wind erosion. Such sites should not beleft barren for long periods. Loose soil surfaces also dryrapidly, and site preparation treatments that leave aprotective surface mulch should be used to conservemoisture (Hyder and Bement 1969).

Maintaining surface mulch and a standing crop toprotect the soil surface improves seedling establish-ment (Malakouti and others 1978). Most plantingsites contain some surface litter or mulch. This mate-rial should be kept in place, if possible, to lessensurface evaporation, provide protection to small seed-lings, and reduce soil crusting (Herbel and others1973). Mulch is particularly important for soils thatdry rapidly, and may be subjected to fluctuatingtemperatures.

Deep furrow drilling using 12 to 16 inch (30 to 41 cm)row spacings has been a method used to concentrate soilmoisture and improve seedling density (Anderson andothers 1953; Artz and others 1970; Fisser and others1974; Neff 1973; Wight and White 1974). Deep furrowshave been reported to increase soil moisture duringthe period of spring germination by an average of 50percent and sometimes up to 100 percent (McGinnies

1959). The deep furrows reduce soil moisture loss fromevaporation, allow seedlings to use deeper stored mois-ture, and reduce temperatures near the seedling(McGinnies 1959). Deep furrow drilling should not bedone when soils are dry, as sloughing normally occurs,causing seeds to be buried too deep.

Entrapment of winter snow cover is essential toseedling establishment of many small-seeded, surfacegerminators. Meyer and others (1990a) reported thatentrapment of winter snow on the planting site untilthe time of seed germination in the spring resulted ina significant increase of sagebrush seedlings fromplantings in Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming.Entrapment of snow by standing plants, particularlyshrubs, is important to natural seedling establish-ment in arid and semiarid sagebrush communities ofthe Intermountain area. Maintaining some erect orstanding plants can improve the soil moisture fornew seedlings. Downed pinyon and juniper trees re-sulting from chaining trap snow and greatly improveseedling establishment in the affected areas. The treelitter remains effective for over 25 years.

Seedbed Firmness

Most undisturbed seedbeds are loose enough to bedrill-seeded or seeds can be incorporated in the soil bychaining or harrowing. Sites that have been plowed ordisked may require mechanical compaction to reducemoisture loss (Hyder and others 1961) and the prob-lem of seeding too deep. Loose soil surfaces normallyresult in seeds being planted too deep and at irregulardepths (Hyder and others 1955). Also, loose soil haspoor moisture-holding capacity (Vallentine 1989). Incontrast, firm seedbeds retain moisture near the seedzone and are much easier to plant at the desired depth.A loose or friable soil with an underlying firm soil isideal for seeding. These surfaces are easy to plant atthe proper depth.

Figure 14—Chaining can create excellent seed-beds, pits, and small depressions.



Figure 15—Result of aerial seeding forbs,grass, and shrubs on top of snow.

Most drill seeders are equipped with packer wheelsto compact the seeded furrow and lessen the depth ofthe soil overlying the seed. Rollers and other compac-tion equipment are available to pack or compress loosesoils prior to seeding (Anderson and others 1953;Hyder and others 1955; Hyder and others 1961).Rolling or compaction before drilling allows for betterseed placement (Hyder and others 1961). Cultipacker,roller type, or press seeders can be used to seed loosesurfaces (Anderson and others 1953; Booster 1961;Richardson and others 1986). These seeders do notplant at depths exceeding 0.5 to 1.5 inches (1.3 to3.8 cm). Depth bands and other modifications areused on many conventional drills to aid in suspendingor preventing the disk from digging and planting toodeep (McGinnies 1962). Hydraulically supported fur-row openers and no-till seeders are also designed tocontrol seed placement.

Offset furrow openers, or disks, are used to cut intodense litter and hard surfaces (Asher and Eckert1973). Front-mounted rippers and no-till seeders aredesigned to plant firm seedbeds. Anchor chain modifi-cations, pipe harrows, and chain harrows are effectiveimplements used to seed and prepare firm or hardsurfaces (further information related to the function ofseeders is presented in chapter 9).

Seeding—Seeding is normally intergrated with theseedbed preparation. Often, chaining or drilling ac-complishes both practices. To be successful, both prac-tices must be conducted during the appropriate seasonor period. Seedbed preparation and seeding may becompleted in the fall or early winter. During theinterval between seeding and seedling emergence, theseedbed may be altered. Soil sloughing may bury someseeds too deep, or wind erosion can expose plantedseeds. Dry, loose seedbeds can be expected to settle,which may result in satisfactory or unsatisfactorystands depending on the methods used in planting.

Planting Season

Fall or early winter seeding is necessary to provideseed stratification for many species (fig. 15). Mostnative shrub seeds require a cold, moist period toadequately overcome embryo dormancy (Shopmeyer1974b). Seed germination may not occur until afterstratification of 100 to 150 days for some species.Prestratified seed is frequently spring planted at nurs-eries, but gauging the stratification period to coincidewith spring weather conditions is extremely hazard-ous. Pretreating seeds of antelope bitterbrush and afew other shrub species with hydrogen peroxide orthiourea can induce germination, but is not a satisfac-tory means of seeding large projects (Alexander andothers 1987; Everett and Meeuwig 1975; McConnell1960; Neal and Sanderson 1975; Pearson 1957; Youngand Evans 1983). Different seedlots of antelope bitter-brush respond differently to the chemicals; some germi-nate quickly and uniformly and others do not. Springplantings of naturally dormant seeds should be avoided.

Seeds of alfalfa and certain collections of winterfatand fourwing saltbush and many commonly seededgrass species are nondormant, and may be springsown at certain locations. However, fall seedings gen-erally provide more favorable stands of most speciesparticularly under arid situations (Cook and others1967; Plummer and others 1968). Alfalfa seeds thatare fall sown often germinate in the early spring andmany are killed by frost. Spring planting in earlyApril, on a fall-prepared seedbed, usually reduces theproblem. Spring planting may also reduce seedlinglosses to frost for some ecotypes of fourwing saltbushand winterfat. Seedlings of most grasses are quitefrost tolerant, and stands normally are not lost tospring frosts.

Recent studies have demonstrated considerablevariability in seed dormancy and germination require-ments among ecotypes of different native species(Kelsey 1986; Kitchen 1988; Meyer and Monsen 1990;Shaw and Haferkamp 1990). Plantings of mountainbig sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush seed obtainedfrom areas having relatively warm winters show differ-ent germination and emergence responses from collec-tions acquired from cold winter locations (Meyer andMonsen 1990). Seeds of big sagebrush and rabbit-brush collected from areas with warm climates didnot survive well from fall plantings in more northernregions. Collections from warm climates that were fallsown germinated quickly, usually in the late fall andwinter, but were unable to survive beneath the snow.Germination requirements undoubtedly vary for manyspecies, seedlots, or ecotypes, and these requirementsshould be understood before extensive seedings aremade.

Vallentine (1989) concluded that range seedingsshould be made prior to the period of longest favorable



moisture conditions. Within the Intermountain Re-gion between 45 to 65 percent of the annual precipita-tion is received in the winter months. Rapid dryingnormally occurs following germination and seedlingemergence in the spring. At most elevations late fallor early winter seeding is recommended. Seeding shouldbe delayed long enough in the fall to prevent germina-tion until the following spring (Gates 1968; Harris andothers 1972; Plummer and others 1968; Vallentineand others 1963). Seeding early in the fall can besuccessful if sufficient moisture is available to ger-minate and maintain seedlings until cold tempera-tures arrive. Generally, sufficient soil moisture is notmaintained for the entire period, and seedlings oftensuccumb.

Jordan (1983) concludes that sites seeded in the fallto cool-season species should receive on the average 3.5inches (89 mm) of precipitation through the months ofNovember, December, January, and February. Theaverage annual precipitation should be a least 10inches (250 mm).

In the Southwest and the southern portions of theIntermountain Region where summer rains are com-mon, spring seeding is advised for species havingnondormant seed. Jordan (1981) recommended thatwarm-season species be seeded in the spring. Ideally,sites seeded in the late spring to either warm- or cool-season species should receive an average of 5.0 inches(127 mm) of moisture through July, August, andSeptember. The average annual precipitation shouldbe at least 11 inches (280 mm).

With respect to precipitation, Jordan (1983) reportedthat average annual precipitation values are often usedto characterize range sites, but they are not adequateto describe the potential for reseeding. He developeda predictive model to determine the potential of a sitefor seeding based on precipitation, the arid or semiaridboundary, and the average annual temperature. Inaddition, the soil texture and water holding capacity ofthe soil is used to determine the availability of storedmoisture. The predictive model developed by Jordanhas not been widely applied to the germination andestablishment of all species normally seeded in theIntermountain area, but it appears useful in definingareas that may or may not be seeded with success.

Fall seedings are more reliable for low valley andfoothill communities where the annual precipitationwould be less than 12 to 14 inches (300 to 260 mm).These sites normally dry quite rapidly in the springand are subjected to a long, dry summer. Slow develop-ing seedlings are often too small and weak to survivea dry summer period. Seeding in the spring on a fall-prepared seedbed is most successful if planting oc-curs early in the season. However, soils may be toowet and muddy to permit early spring seeding. If sitesare allowed to dry, additional rain will be needed to

germinate and maintain the seedlings. Usually, onlya short period exists in the spring when conditionsfavor seeding (Evans and Young 1987a). Attemptingto seed large areas in the spring is therefore, oftenimpractical.

Considerable fluctuation occurs in both tempera-tures and soil moisture of the seedbed in the spring.Vallentine (1989) reported wet periods may lastonly 2 days, but seeds of most grasses that do notgerminate are able to survive. If the wetting periodlasts 5 days or longer, most seeds germinate andseedlings are able to survive subsequent drought peri-ods of 5 to 7 days. Wester and Dahl (1983) reporting onstudies in west Texas, concluded that alfalfa requiresat least 0.4 inches (10 mm) of moisture at 75 ∞F (24 ∞C)to give high germination. Metabolic processes wereinitiated with only 0.2 inches (5 mm) of moisture, butseeds dried rapidly enough to halt germination beforeseed energy was spent if no additional moisture wasreceived. Alfalfa seeds germinated and emerged in 3days, and seedlings were able to survive 7 to 9 days ifwatered each of 2 days with 0.4 inches (10 mm) ofmoisture. Because alfalfa emerges so quickly, follow-up rain is needed sooner than for most grasses. Allenand others (1994) reported that seeds of some speciesmay be able to accumulate germination events acrossperiods interspaced with drying, and that continuousmoisture is not necessary to sustain germinating seeds.Evans and Young (1987a,b) studying soil moistureconditions in arid regions of the West, found that soilmoisture in the first centimeter of soil may decrease to–1.5 MPA and below in less than a week. Natural soilmoisture depletion often coincides with the period ofactive seedling emergence.

Most seeds are conditioned to germinate in thespring after fall plantings. Fall sown seeds usuallyhave imbibed necessary moisture, and exist in a moistmedium under the snow. Seeds in this state cangerminate quickly as the snow recedes. Seedlings thatemerge first in the spring are better able to survive thedry summer period.

Seed Coverage and Planting Depths

Seed should be in firm contact with the soil toincrease moisture availability (Stevens and Van Epps1984), thus a majority of seeds require some amount ofsoil coverage (table 2). Soil can also act as an anchor tohold or maintain seed in a proper position, especiallyseeds with hairy or fluffy appendages that are carriedor moved by wind (Booth and Schuman 1983; Stevensand others 1986). Proper depth of planting is generallygoverned by the size of the seed. However, the seed orfruit structure that is sown does affect planting depth.Care should be taken to distinguish between fruitsand seeds. For example, dewinged utricles of fourwing



saltbush are normally sown. The wings that are at-tached to the bracts are often quite large, as is thestructure that encloses the small seed (utricle). Clean-ing usually removes most of the wings. This dewingingreduces the size of the structure by three or fourtimes. The degree or amount of wings, awns, or at-tached appendages removed in cleaning can affect theplanting depth. In most cases, the entire structuremust be incorporated in the soil to reduce or preventdifferential drying.

Generally seeds of most species should be coveredabout 2.5 to 3 times the thickness of the cleaned seed.For small seeded grasses this would be more appli-cable to length than diameter. Ragsdale and others(1970) suggest not planting any deeper than seventimes the diameter of the seed for plantings in Texas.The optimum planting depth for small seeded grasses,including Sandberg bluegrass and mutton bluegrass,is about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm). Planting depths of 0.5inches (1.7 cm) are suitable for Idaho fescue, and 1 inch(2.5 cm) for larger seeds such as mountain brome andwestern wheatgrass (Hull 1966; Hull and others 1958;Reynolds and Martin 1968; Plummer and others 1968;Vallentine and others 1963).

Soil texture and the nature of the soil surface influ-ence planting depth. There are few points of contactbetween the soil particles and the seedcoat with coarse-textured soils. Seeds have more points of contact withfiner textured soils. The moisture is held tightly to theclay particles, but the soil capillaries are much finer(Young and others 1987).

Clay soils that expand and contract during wettingand drying may leave seeds in a pedestaled situationthat is a harsher environment than is provided by asandy seedbed (Koller and Hadas 1982). Clay soilsgenerally hold more water than sandy soils, andrewetting is not required as often to maintain soilmoisture for germination. Generally, seeds should beplanted deeper in sandy soils than in clay or loamysoils.

Determining the appropriate seeding depth pre-sents a paradox. The closer a seed is located to thesurface, the less energy is required for emergence andinitiation of photosynthesis. However, greater diurnalfluctuations in temperature and soil moisture occurnear the surface that dry the soil and seed. The soilparticles and soil atmosphere act as an insulationbarrier to lessen changes in soil temperature andwater availability (Chippendale 1949). Having at leastsome soil covering the seed prevents or lessens drying.The ideal seedbed is one in which the seed is firmlyenclosed within soil particles to provide hydraulicconductivity of moisture to the seed (Collis-Georgeand Sands 1959). Seed should be placed deep enoughto prevent rapid drying but shallow enough to allownatural emergence.

Some seeds must be seeded on or near the surfacebecause of physiological restrictions. Young and oth-ers (1987) list four principal physiological systemsinvolved: (1) germination requires light or specificlight quality; (2) seeds require fluctuating tempera-tures for germination; (3) nearly complete lack of seedreserves make rapid establishment necessary; and(4) other undefined physiological requirements thatprecondition germination to the surface seedbeds.

Seed placement in or on the soil influences germi-nation through factors other than the availability ofsoil moisture. As mentioned, some seeds require lightto germinate and burial in the soil restricts germina-tion (Young and others 1987). In addition, soil tem-perature also regulates germination. Positioning seedat different depths in the soil allows seeds to germi-nate at different times due to differences in soil tem-perature. Young and others (1987) reported that soiltemperature regimes have different effects upon thegermination of ‘Fairway’ and ‘Nordan’ crested wheat-grass, ‘Covar’ and ‘Carbar’ canby bluegrass, and Rus-sian wildrye.

In most situations seeding depth is based on thesize or germination requirements of the primary spe-cies sown. Too often, seed mixtures are sown at onedepth, based primarily on the requirements of grassspecies included in the mixture. If shrub and manyforb seeds are sown with the grasses, different plant-ing depths are required. Springfield (1970a) suggeststhat winterfat seed should be sown at a shallow depth,about 0.17 inch (0.42 cm). In his studies no emergencewas achieved below 0.5 inch (1.27 cm). The optimumseeding depth for antelope bitterbrush is 0.5 inches(1.27 cm) (Basile and Holmgren 1957).

Planting seeds too deep has been a major reason forseeding failures. Forage kochia, sagebrush, rabbit-brush, Lewis flax, Palmer penstemon, and winterfatgenerally do best when seeded on top of disturbed soil(Stevens and Van Epps 1984). Most conventional drillsplace seed of these species too deep. Depth rings havebeen developed for use on the rangeland drill to controlplanting depth (Larson 1980). Depth rings, however,are fairly ineffective in loose soils and are not able tomaintain shallow depths. Beside placing seed toodeep in loose soil, drilling generally places the seed inthe bottom of small furrows. Unstable furrows can fillin with soil following seeding before seedlings emerge.As a result seed drilled in loose seedbeds can becovered many times too deep.

With proper attention, seeds can be placed at ashallow depth when drill seeded. Also, seed can beplaced at the bottom of stable furrows where moistureand temperature conditions are most favorable andseedlings ultimately appear (Hull 1970). In semiaridregions, planting in the bottom of deep but stablefurrows is a useful technique as soil moisture is



greater at this position in the seedbed (Tischler andVoigt 1983). Deep furrow drilling should be avoided onsoils that are loose and unstable causing sloughing ofthe furrows.

Some soil compaction at the time of seeding can behelpful in regulating planting depths, especially inloose soils. Cultipacker seeders of various kinds havebeen developed (Larson 1980) to be used in seedingloose soils and planting at controlled depths.

Various drills and special furrow openers are nowavailable and can be used to more closely controlseeding depths (Baker 1976; Baker and others 1979;Haferkamp and others 1987; Hauck 1982; Monsenand Turnipseed 1990; Nyren and others 1981;Wiedemann 1987). Punch seeding and compact seed-ers are particularly useful in seeding loose soils andplanting on the surface or at shallow depths.

It is essential that seeds having different depthrequirements be sown separately at the appropriatepositions in the soil. Where mixed seedings are planted,drill seeders should be used that can dispense seedsof different sizes in separate rows and at appropriatedepths. Broadcast seeding followed by anchor chain-ing or harrowing plants seed at different depths in thesoil, and is an appropriate technique for seeding mix-tures. Two or more planting methods may be neces-sary to properly seed all species. Unless seeds can becorrectly sown the chance of establishment is usuallyquite low. Overseeding or seeding heavily is not acorrective measure that can be used to substitute forimproper seed placement.

A discussion of seeding machinery is presented inchapter 9.

Row Spacing

Row spacing recommendations have generally beendeveloped for seeding irrigated and nonirrigatedpastures, primarily with grasses. Most range-typedrills use row spacings of 8 to 14 inches (20 to 36 cm).Maximum forage production of herbaceous species isnot significantly affected by row spacing between10 and 18 inches (25 to 46 cm) (Bement and others1965; Conrad 1962; McGinnies 1960b; Springfield1965). Consequently, most drill seeders have beendesigned to seed rows at these intervals. Wider rowspacings on semiarid sites are generally recommended,particularly when native forbs and shrubs are seeded.Increasing the distance between rows is beneficial tothe survival and growth of certain species. Plantingsof globemallow, lupine, and Utah sweetvetch benefitfrom row spacings of between 15 and 18 inches (38and 46 cm).

Narrow row spacings normally result in greaterinitial production (McGinnies 1960b; Sneva andRittenhouse 1976), but differences disappear in later

years. Narrow spacings usually foster better weedcontrol (Cook and others 1967; McGinnies 1960b),particularly during the initial stages of communitydevelopment.

Shrub seedings are becoming more important inrange and wildlife projects. In general, row spacingsfor shrubs depend on the mature stature of each speciessown. Normally, seedings of big sagebrush, winterfat,Martin ceanothus, fourwing saltbush, and antelopebitterbrush planted in rows are not adversely affectedby high seedling density or close row spacings. How-ever, seedlings of green ephedra, Saskatoon service-berry, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleaf mountain ma-hogany, and skunkbush sumac are more easilystunted by severe intraspecies competition. The den-sity of plants occurring within the seeded row has agreater affect on shrub establishment than does rowspacing. In general, shrub rows should be at least asfar apart as the maximum height of the shrub seeded.

Separate Row Seedings

Seeding individual species in separate rows is auseful technique (fig. 6 and 10) when using a numberof species with different seedbed and establishmentrequirements. Seeding a mixture of grasses in certaindrops of a drill, and individual forb or shrub species inother drops or furrows, allows all species a betterchance to establish. Alternate row seeding has been asuccessful method of planting grasses with legumes orgrasses with shrubs (Hafenrichter and others 1968;Leyshon and others 1981). Slow developing speciesbenefit from being planted alone, particularly whenseeded in arid situations. Grasses and legumes havebeen seeded in alternate rows as a means of increasingherbage production (Kenno and others 1987) andmaintaining desired species composition (Gomm 1964;Kilcher 1982). Alfalfa has been most productive whenseeded in separate rows from grasses on semiaridpinyon-juniper and big sagebrush ranges in Utah.Kilcher (1982) found that alfalfa comprised a greaterpercent of the plant composition when seeded in crossor alternate rows than in mixed rows with grasses—40percent compared to 15 percent. Various native shrubsalso exhibit better growth in separate row seedingsthan when seeded in mixtures with grasses.

The spacing of separate row seedings affects sub-sequent natural reproduction. Monsen and Shaw(1983c) found that antelope bitterbrush seedlings es-tablished better from mature shrubs originally spaced10 ft (3.1 m) apart than from shrubs having a closerspacing. Closely spaced mature shrubs apparentlyshade or prevent new seedling establishment. Thus,row spacings may influence the ultimate compositionof seeded species when shrubs and forbs are planted inalternate rows. Seeding shrubs in close row spacings



will create shading and overstory competition. Under-story species that are not able to tolerate shade canand will be eliminated. Row spacing of seeded shrubsis an important consideration in all communities.

Individual species can be seeded in alternate orseparate rows with some broadcast-type seeders. TheBrillon seeder has been successfully used in easternIdaho to seed shrubs through one portion of the seed-box and herbs through a separate section (Richardsonand others 1986).

Separate row seedings are important in reducingthe amount of seed sown. By seeding individual spe-cies in separate rows, the seeding rate can be morecarefully regulated. Drills or seeders that are usedmust be capable of metering seed at different rates foreach seed drop. Partitions must be temporarily in-stalled in the seedbox to keep seeds separated. With

some equipment the seeding rates cannot be individu-ally adjusted for each seed drop, and carriers must beadded to dilute the material and regulate the flowand amount of seed sown.

No single factor—species selection, planting depth, orplanting season—can be ignored when seedings aremade. Each factor is important, and unless all conditionsare favorable seedings will fail. Not properly coveringthe seed, or planting at the wrong season because ofscheduling constraints, is unwise. Because seedingsare too often scheduled to accommodate other activi-ties, failures can result and considerable funds may bewasted. Problems associated with the expenditure offunds from one year to the next have plagued agenciesfor many years and have resulted in numerous seedingfailures. Solving such problems would significantlyimprove the success of rehabilitation programs.


Richard Stevens

13Chapter

Incorporating WildlifeHabitat Needs intoRestoration andRehabilitation ProjectsHabitat Concepts_________________________________

Wildlife species richness, densities, and distribution are di-rectly related to the quality and quantity of habitat (Autenrieth1983; Autenrieth and others 1982; Bodurtha and others 1989;Call and Maser 1985; Caughley 1979; Kindschy and others 1982;Leckenby and others 1982; Reynolds 1980; Russo 1964; Thomasand others 1979a,c; Yoakum 1980). Productive big game ranges,are generally productive livestock ranges. Productive livestockranges can, with proper planning and management, be produc-tive wildlife ranges (fig. 1); however, many livestock rangeimprovement projects have been detrimental to wildlife, par-ticularly to big game and sage-grouse.


Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Any decision a manager makes that changes oralters a vegetative community or landscape, alterswildlife habitats. Range and wildland restoration andrehabilitation projects that increase habitat diversitywill most likely be beneficial to wildlife (MacArthurand MacArthur 1961; Roth 1976; Yahner 1988). Reha-bilitation projects that result in monocultures of anyplant species or group of species, large open spaces,minimal edge, limited cover, and scarcity of water areundesirable and should be reconsidered. A primarygoal of any wildlife or wildlife-livestock rangelandimprovement project should be to improve wildlifehabitat.

Each wildlife species is a product of its environ-ment. If an area has the right combination of habitatcomponents, it will have the potential to produce themaximum amount of healthy wildlife. If an area lacksjust one habitat factor, or it is limited in quantity andquality, then it is hindered in its ability to produce agood balance of wildlife populations (Caughley 1979;Dasmann 1971; Maser and Thomas 1983; Russo 1964;Thomas and Bell 1987; Yoakum 1983). Improvingnonlimiting factors without improving the limitingfactors will do little to enhance the overall habitat orpositively affect the key habitat users.

No two wildlife species are affected by habitat changesin the same way or to the same degree. Enhancementof habitat for all species within a given area is notalways practical or possible. Key wildlife speciesmust be identified and projects designed and imple-mented to meet the needs of those species. Projectplanning and implementation requires informationon the habitat needs of each selected wildlife species.

Figure 1—Productive wildlife and livestock rangerehabilitation project characterized by good diver-sity, high quality forage, and a good mixture ofgrasses, forbs, shrubs, cover, and edge.

If an area provides optimum habitat for a key wild-life species, then wildlife habitat improvement cannotbe used as a justification for a rehabilitation andrestoration project. Wildlife habitat improvement canbe used in assessing costs and benefits of a proposedimprovement project only on those areas that provideinadequate habitats for the key wildlife species andwhere the project will enhance habitat needs.

A key to productive wildlife habitat is diversity inspace, cover, food, and water (Thomas and others1979a,c) (fig. 2). As diversity in a plant communityincreases, so does the diversity and health of theanimal community (Dealy and others 1981; Reynolds1980; Thomas and others 1979c). If diversity is notincreased, the project most likely will not enhancewildlife habitat.

Each plant community has its own individual poten-tial as wildlife habitat. What is maximum diversityand productivity in one community, most likely willnot be in another. Type and amount of diversity andproductivity in a black greasewood community forexample, will be vastly different from that in a moun-tain brush community.

Habitat improvement projects may be undertakenfor a number of reasons:

l. Reduction in erosion and sedimentation.2. Revegetation of depleted or severely disturbed

areas.3. Improvement of wildlife habitat.4. Replacement of undesirable plant species with

more desirable species.5. Improvement in livestock forage production and

distribution of grazing animals.

Figure 2—Well planned and implemented3-year-old deer and elk rehabilitation project.



Whatever the basic reason for the project, thesewildlife considerations should be included in the plan-ning and implementation of all projects:

1. Identify wildlife species that use the area and thetime of year the use occurs.

2. Identify wildlife species that would make use ofthe area and the time of year the use would occur oncethe project is completed.

3. Identify the key wildlife species for which theproject is being designed. Key species are not limitedto big game. Upland game birds, waterfowl, or non-game species might be key species.

4. Identify the types of use that the key wildlifespecies make or have the potential to make of an area.Types of use may include: (a) feeding, (b) sleeping andresting, (c) security cover, (d) thermal cover, (e) traveland migration, (f) breeding, (g) nesting, (h) birthing,(i) rearing, (j) social activities, and (k) watering.

5. Determine the habitat factor(s) that currentlylimit the key wildlife species; then plan, design, andimplement projects to ameliorate the limiting factor(s).

Food and Cover

Food and cover are usually interrelated. For someanimal species food and cover are provided by thesame plants. Sage-grouse eat sagebrush leaves, anduse the sagebrush as nesting and hiding cover. Muledeer will use sagebrush, mountain mahogany, cliffrose,Gambel oak, and other shrubs only as cover duringthe spring and early summer while grazing under-story herbs, yet these same shrubs furnish both forageand cover in the fall and winter. Forage may beavailable on an area but may not be used due to thelack of proper cover.

When planning a rehabilitation project, diversity inboth the vertical and horizontal community, alongwith the composition, location, amount, and type of

Figure 3—Two well designed, 1-year-old biggame range rehabilitation projects, on juniper-pinyon areas. Allowances are made for securityand thermal cover, travel lanes, maximum edgearea, and quality forage.

cover are major components of wildlife habitat thatneed to be considered. Manipulation of plant commu-nities will create gradation in vegetation betweentreated, and untreated areas (fig. 3). On some areasmore than one revegetation technique may be neces-sary, due to variation in site potential over the area.The use of more than one seed mixture on a site canresult in ecotones between mixtures. Ecotones com-monly produce high quality, heavily used security andthermal cover, as well as forage (Yahner 1988).

The number of species used in seeding or plantingmixtures will vary with site potential, key speciesrequirements, and economics. For maximum wildlifevalue, no single species should make up more than 35percent (seed per pound, number of transplants) of anymixture. Seedings that consist of only a few species orone plant type (grass, forb, or shrubs) generally pro-vide less productive wildlife ranges than do morevaried mixtures. In many cases, wildlife values arecompromised when improvement projects consist offew plant species and only one plant type.

Multi-species revegetation projects can benefitwildlife habitat by providing: (a) vertical and hori-zontal plant diversity, (b) increased forage production,(c) improved variety and nutritional quality in thediet, (d) more and better cover, (e) increased edgeeffect, (f) increased diversity of the animal communi-ties (Stevens 1986b; fig. 4), and (g) species that will beresistant to drought, and responsive to normal andabove-normal precipitation. This allows the site to beproductive regardless of climatic conditions. Multi-species mixtures also help to enhance ground coverand soil stabilization, make the seedings more aes-thetically pleasing, and decrease the susceptibility ofthe plant community to plant disease and insect prob-lems (Stevens 1986b).

Figure 4—Mixture of native and exotic grasses,forbs (alfalfa, small burnet, Utah sweetvetch),and shrubs (mountain big sagebrush, antelopebitterbrush, and Gambel oak) on a 12-year-oldjuniper-pinyon rehabilitation project.



Individual Species Needs _________

Mule Deer and Elk

Daily and seasonally, mule deer and elk use a vari-ety of terrain and vegetation types for cover andforaging. Migrating animals use lower winter rangesthrough spring, then move to higher elevation sum-mer ranges. Fawning and calving usually occur onupper spring and lower summer ranges. Fall migra-tion is largely influenced by weather. Snow precedesmigration from fall to winter ranges. In light or mod-erate winters, deer and elk may not move to winterranges at all. Elk generally winter at slightly higherelevations than deer; however, during winters withheavy and continuous snow, deer and elk may winterfor various periods of time in the same area. Springand fall ranges, therefore, need to provide plant spe-cies that will fulfill fall, winter, and spring require-ments. Both cover and forage in proper quantity andquality are essential for big game animals (Brown1987; Leckenby 1984; Leckenby and others 1982;Leege 1979b; Lyon and others 1985).

All age classes of mule deer and elk require highquality succulent forage in the spring to recover fromwinter stress, replenish body reserves, and to growand reproduce at optimal rates. Thus, rangeland im-provement projects on fall, winter, and spring rangesrequire the establishment of succulent, high qualityforbs, grasses, and browse. Small burnet, Lewis flax,and Palmer penstemon are semi-evergreen forbs thatprovide nearly year round forage. Alfalfa, cicermilkvetch, nineleaf and Nuttall lomatium, RockyMountain penstemon, and arrowleaf balsamroot pro-vide early spring growth. Utah sweetvetch, sainfoin,yellow sweetclover, crownvetch, and showy goldeneyedevelop later in the season. All of these species areheavily used in some seasons by all big game. Alfalfaleaves and seed heads are sought out during all sea-sons. Sufficient plants of alfalfa or other highly soughtafter species must be initially established in highenough numbers to ensure their survival, as suchhighly desirable plants can be killed through over use(Rosenstock and Stevens 1989). On juniper-pinyon andsagebrush-grass areas, a minimum of 1.5 to 2 lbs(0.7 to 0.9 kg) of seed per acre must be applied toensure the establishment of a viable stand.

Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, needle-and-thread, Russian wildrye, mountain rye, and bottle-brush squirreltail begin growth in early spring. Spe-cies that start growth later include crested wheatgrass,sheep fescue, and orchardgrass. Grasses that begingrowth last include Great Basin wildrye, intermedi-ate, slender, pubescent, and tall wheatgrass, andsmooth brome.

Generally, evergreen shrubs provide more nutri-tious forage during the dormant season than do

deciduous shrubs. Major evergreen shrubs includecurlleaf mountain mahogany, cliffrose, big sagebrush(fig. 5), ephedra, rubber rabbitbrush, winterfat, andforage kochia. Serviceberry, true mountain mahogany,Gambel oak, bitterbrush, and fourwing saltbush losetheir leaves in the fall and early winter and supplyonly twigs for winter forage.

Seed mixes should include species that fulfill sea-sonal forage quality requirements. Seed of a largenumber of species are now available; care must beused in selecting species and sources that are adaptedto each site and that satisfy animals needs (Asay andKnowles 1985a,b; Ferguson 1983; McArthur 1983a;Monsen 1987; Stevens 1983a,b; Urness 1986).

Some winter and spring-fall deer and elk rangesmay have sufficient browse, but lack forbs andgrasses. Succulent herbaceous species can be intro-duced on these depleted ranges. A pipe-harrow, disk-chain, or chain can be used to thin mature depleted bigsagebrush (fig. 6), fourwing saltbush, rubber rabbit-brush, serviceberry, and Gambel oak stands, and tocover broadcast seed. Spot or strip spraying witheffective herbicides, and selected prescribed burns areeffective methods of reducing and thinning Gambeloak, aspen, pinyon-juniper, and big sagebrush stands(Neuenschwander 1980; Wright and others 1979).Seeding of desirable species should follow. Where asingle species of grass has been seeded on big gamewinter or spring-fall ranges, other desirable speciescan be established by transplanting or interseedinginto scalps, pits, spots, or strips created by mechanicalor chemical tillage (fig. 7) (Crofts and Carlson 1982;Monsen and McArthur 1985; Otsyina 1980; Provenzaand Richards 1984; Rumbaugh and others 1981;Stevens 1981).

Livestock management can be used to increase shrubdensity in grass and shrub seedings. Early spring

Figure 5—Mule deer using low elevation moun-tain big sagebrush.



Figure 6—(A) A mature basin big sagebrush site with a depleted understory 1 year following disk-chaining in strips and seeding. This area serves as habitat for sage-grouse, as well as winter rangefor deer and elk. (B) Species seeded (bluebunch wheatgrass, orchardgrass, basin wildrye, alfalfa, cicermilkvetch, sainfoin, small burnet, yellow sweetclover, and forage kochia) into a disk-chained area. Forageand cover value of adjacent big sagebrush is retained, and succulent, nutritious, forage, and edgeareas are provided.

A B

Figure 8—Excellent high-elevation summer rangesoffer good diversity in forage and cover.

grazing with cattle can be used to reduce the vigor ofgrasses and provide shrubs the opportunity to in-crease (Stevens 1986 b).

Ideal summer ranges consist primarily of grassesand forbs (fig. 8). Rangeland improvement projects inaspen, coniferous forest, and other higher elevationsummer ranges are appropriate in areas that aredepleted of perennials, highly erodible, and supportclosed, unproductive vegetative communities (Debyle1985a; Frischknecht 1983; Lyon and others 1985;Patton and Jones 1977).

Figure 7—A palatable variety of rubber rabbit-brush transplanted into a crested wheatgrassfield 3 years after planting. Deer, elk, and pheas-ants moved into and used the area once theshrubs were established and desirable forageand cover were available.

Summer succulents are generally lacking on mostdesert ranges. Rehabilitation project should includeadapted forbs, grasses, and shrubs. The tendencyhas been to convert desert shrublands to single orfew-species grass communities. Many of these con-version projects have decreased wildlife values. Ev-ery effort should be made to ensure that adapted forbsare included in seedings and that a variety of grasses,forbs, and where needed, shrub species are used.

Elk generally summer in aspen, spruce-fir, ponderosapine, lodgepole pine, and subalpine areas (fig. 9). They



prefer grasses and forbs, wet and semi-wet meadows,forest openings, and open grass herblands next tocover (fig. 10). Elk seek out clearcuts and burns inaspen and conifer forests, especially those with smallopenings and irregular edges (Brown 1987).

Fire can be used as an effective tool for improvingwildlife habitat in aspen and conifer stands (Brown1985b; Canon and others 1987; DeByle 1985b; DeByleand others 1989). Openings in these stands can becreated by prescribed burns (fig. 11), timber harvest,fuelwood harvests, and herbicides (Harniss and Bartos1985). Optimum size of openings for maximum elk usevaries considerably. Factors affecting optimum sizeinclude variation in topography, aspect, vegetativecommunities, makeup of adjacent tree communities,shape of opening, location of roads, and other distur-bance sources (Brown 1987; Thomas and others1979a,c). An opening can be larger if the edges are

Figure 9—Elk on excellent summer range with agood mixture of succulent forbs and grasses.

Figure 10—Elk prefer openings and meadowsin aspen and conifer forests. Succulent forbsand grasses are preferred on summer ranges.

Figure 11—Forbs and grasses have respondedto removal and thinning of mountain big sage-brush in this burned forest opening.

irregularly shaped, providing maximum edge effectand ensuring that maximum distance between edgesat any one point in the opening is less than 500 ft(152.4 m). Patches or islands of cover within openingsare sometimes desirable (Peek and Scott 1985; Winn1985). Greatest benefits are realized when islands areconnected to edge by stringers of trees. The Inter-agency Workgroup (1981a) recommends that patchesor islands be 30 to 60 acres (12.1 to 24.3 ha). Allen(1971) and Brown (1987) suggested that pattern andjuxtaposition of cutting units and openings may bemore important than number of acres treated.

On many summer ranges, forage is not a majorlimiting factor. Lyon and others (1985) working on elksummer ranges, concluded that selection of habitat forforage alone was a less specific requirement thanselection for shelter and security. Collins and Urness(1983) found that elk preferred aspen stands overadjacent clearcut areas, even though the clearcutsproduced considerably more available and palatableforage. The proper ratio between cover and forage forelk differs from area to area and from forest type toforest type (Brown 1987; Interagency Workgroup1981a,b; Peek and Scott 1985; Thomas and others1979c; Winn 1985). Slash left following timber harvestcan adversely affect elk use of clearcuts and adjacentareas (Lyon 1975). It is recommended that slash beremoved, preferably by broadcast burning to a heightof less than 1.5 ft (0.5 m) (Interagency Workgroup1981a,b).

Spring and fall ranges for elk are generally in themountain brush and lower aspen community. Elk seekout succulents in the form of green grasses and forbs.Dry and semi-evergreen grasses and forbs, and someshrubs, are consumed during fall and spring. Rehabili-tation projects in these areas should emphasize species



that green early in the spring and stay green late intothe fall. Escape and thermal cover are especiallyimportant on spring, fall, and winter ranges (Peek andScott 1985; Winn 1985). Rehabilitation and restora-tion projects should leave undisturbed cover in suffi-cient quantity and quality, strategically placed toaccommodate elk and deer requirements (fig. 3). Knowncalving and fawning areas should be left undisturbed.

In the Intermountain West (Idaho, Montana, Nevada,and Utah), hundreds of thousands of acres of pinyonand juniper have been chained or burned and seeded.In the late 1950s and 1960s, projects involved seedingprimarily introduced grasses, a few forbs (alfalfa andyellow sweetclover), and a few slow-growing shrubspecies. Projects usually produced large openings withlittle edge and a lack of thermal or security cover. Asthese older projects developed with time, deer and elkuse increased (Barney and Frischknecht 1974; Stagerand Klebenow 1987; Stevens 1986a; Tueller and Mon-roe 1975). Trees that were not killed during chaininghave grown and now provide much needed cover(fig. 12) (Stevens 1986a; Van Pelt and others 1990).Introduced and native shrubs have had a chance togrow, reproduce, and spread (Skousen and others1986; Stevens 1987b). Many mature seedings are nowproviding forage and cover for elk and deer during fall,winter, and spring. Elk especially are staying on older,more mature juniper-pinyon improvement projectsthe entire year (fig. 13). The question is often asked,“What are we going to do about the juniper and pinyontrees that are growing on older chainings?” As far asbig game is concerned, the answer should be, “Verylittle or nothing.” Juniper and pinyon trees, espe-cially those over 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, provide excellentthermal and security cover. As habitat requirementswere better understood and techniques, equipment,

Figure 12—Young pinyon and juniper trees inan 18-year-old juniper-pinyon chaining. Deermake extensive use of forage where cover isavailable.

Figure 13—Eighteen-year-old juniper-pinyonproject used extensively by elk year round, and bydeer during winter and spring.

seed of additional grass, forb, and shrub species be-came available, projects improved. Almost immediatepositive effects on mule deer and elk populationshave occurred on more recent, well-planned juniper-pinyon chainings and burns. These have incorporatedmulti-species mixtures of succulent forbs, grasses, andrapidly growing shrubs, employed proper treatmentdesign for maximum edge area (fig. 14), regulated sizeof openings, and left travel lanes and escape-and-thermal cover within the project area.

Thermal cover becomes very important, and manytimes it is the limiting factor for survival of winteringelk and deer (Fowler and Dealy 1987; Hobbs 1989).Maximum distance between edges should not exceed325 ft (99.1 m). Best results have been obtained whengroups or islands of trees have been connected withcorridors and edges, rather than with isolated is-lands. No more that 50 percent of an area should betreated. Undisturbed areas should be no longer or nosmaller than disturbed areas. Patches or islands oftrees, and travel lanes (fig. 14) that are left for deershould be selected carefully. Leckenby and others(1982) recommend that either evergreen or deciduoustrees and shrubs can be used for thermal cover, butthey should be at least 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, and the crownclosure within the island should be greater than 75percent. Cherry (1984) recommends that security is-lands can be from one tree to 100 acres (40.5 ha). Thesize of areas left for thermal cover should be at least2 to 5 acres (0.8 to 2.0 ha). Topographic features areused for security cover, but have limited value asthermal cover (Fowler and Dealy 1987; Wood 1988).Activities of mule deer are associated with vegetationdensity (Owen 1980). Security cover requirements aregenerally highest during fawning, calving, and hunt-ing seasons. Optimum security cover for mule deer onshrublands has been defined as vegetation over 24inches (61.0 cm) tall and capable of hiding 90 percentof a bedded deer from view at 150 ft (45.7 m) or less



(Leckenby and others 1982). Security cover require-ments are less for bedded fawns, and more for stand-ing fawns and mature animals. Phenological develop-ment of plants can influence the effectiveness of anarea to provide cover. During the growing season,shrubs, trees, and grasses furnish maximum cover.Cover decreases as leaves drop. Size of thermal andsecurity cover areas varies with density and height ofvegetation. Areas with vegetation over 5 ft (1.5 m) talland fairly dense can be smaller than areas with shorter,less dense vegetation or where mature conifers arehighlined. Downed trees can be used as cover (Cherry1984; Short and McCulloch 1977); however, as downedtrees break up and decay their effectiveness as coverdecreases.

Figure 14—Five-year-old range rehabilitationprojects with excellent and intermediate big gamevalues. (A) A good mixture of succulent, early-greening grasses and forbs, and fast-growing(white rubber rabbitbrush, fourwing saltbush,and big sagebrush) and slower growing (bitter-brush and green ephedra) shrubs. Quality edgeareas and security and thermal cover are avail-able. (B) This seeding mixture was made upprimarily of exotic aggressive grasses on thisarea. Thermal and security cover are lacking.Edges are too straight and openings too large,resulting in a project of only intermediate value.

A

B

Big sagebrush occupies a considerable area in theIntermountain West. In many places it is the domi-nant plant on winter and spring ranges for mule deerand elk. On many desert ranges it is browsed andused as cover year round. In the basin big sagebrushtype, where the understory has been lost, the potentialfor range improvement is generally high. Big sage-brush can be killed with prescribed fire (Bunting andothers 1987), herbicides, plows, rails, chains, anddisks. Thinning and spot or strip treatments (fig. 6)are recommended on most big sagebrush ranges. Alarge number of grasses, forbs, and shrubs are adaptedto the various big sagebrush types (Stevens 1983b,1987a). Diversity of food and cover types over shortdistances is the key to enhancing mule deer populationsin big sagebrush areas (Holecheck 1981). The distribu-tion and pattern of a shrub stand is generally far moreimportant than the quantity of brush. If sufficientsagebrush is available to meet an animal’s cover andbrowse requirements, quantity and quality of succu-lent forbs and grasses become the second most limitingfactor.

Ideal late fall and winter ranges for mule deerand elk are sites where shrubs extend above the snow(fig. 15). Elk and deer also make use of most herbs thatare exposed by snowmelt or that extend above thesnow. Austin and others (1983) report that ungrazedcrested wheatgrass is more available and is used moreby deer than are grazed plants. Snow around and onungrazed plants melts faster and plants are availableover larger periods of time. On some winter ranges, elkspend considerable time on open, windswept ridgeswhere plants are exposed. Great basin wildrye (fig. 16)

Figure 15—Quality deer winter ranges require shrubsthat extend above the snow. Mountain and basin bigsagebrush, black sagebrush, fourwing saltbush, andrabbitbrush are available during the winter period.



Figure 16—Elk range rehabilitation project. GreatBasin wildrye was seeded to provide forage thatwill extend above snow level.

and, to a lesser extent, tall wheatgrass and intermedi-ate wheatgrass are three species that can extendabove moderate snow levels. Evergreen shrubs suchas cliffrose, big and black sagebrush, curlleaf moun-tain mahogany, ephedra, rubber rabbitbrush, foragekochia, and winterfat (fig. 17), generally provide moreforage than do deciduous shrubs such as fourwingsaltbush, bitterbrush, true mountain mahogany, andserviceberry. In the absence of snow, or when elk anddeer are able to paw through the snow, they prefer andwill seek out evergreen and semi-evergreen speciessuch as forage kochia, Lewis flax, small burnet, andPalmer penstemon. Range improvement projects shouldinclude adapted species that provide nutritious forageduring the dormant season.

Figure 17—Rubber rabbitbrush, mountain bigsagebrush, and forage kochia established byseeding, provide evergreen forage year round toelk and deer on an 8-year-old-rehabilitationproject.

Rapid seedling development of a shrub is an impor-tant consideration in selecting shrubs for wildlifeplantings (fig. 17). Big sagebrush, fourwing saltbush,winterfat, rubber rabbitbrush, and forage kochia ex-ceed most other shrubs in their growth rate, rate ofrecovery following browsing, and ability of young plantsto survive browsing. Planting these shrubs with slowergrowing shrubs is a means of providing forage andcover very quickly and allowing slower developingspecies time to establish (Monsen 1987). Fall, winter,and spring range improvement projects should bedesigned to encourage and increase desirable onsiteshrubs. Bitterbrush, cliffrose, mountain mahoganies,ephedras, serviceberry, blue elderberry, big sagebrush,Gambel oak, and rubber rabbitbrush can all be sup-pressed by pinyon and juniper. Once the trees areremoved these shrubs will respond rapidly, put onconsiderable growth, and may reproduce. Smooth an-chor chains or cables should be used for chainingpinyon and juniper with the intent of releasing shrubs.A smooth chain does less damage to shrubs than doesany other type of chain. Less shrub damage results ifthe chain is held taut and the crawler tractors travelfurther apart. When sufficient shrubs exist, shrubscan be left out of the seeding plan. Forbs and a fewgrasses may be seeded to fill in the interspaces andtree root pits to prevent invasion of undesirable annu-als and to stabilize soils and reduce erosion.

In most cases, areas heavily used by animals aresites that are the most difficult and costly to improve.South and west facing slopes and ridgetops are gener-ally more open and heavily used. They are also mostoften depleted of desirable vegetation. Poor access,less favorable soil temperatures, high evaporationrates, winds, shallow soils, predominance of annualweeds, and concentrated use by animals can reducethe success of improvement projects. Rehabilitationprojects on more favorable sites such as basins, valleybottoms, and north and east facing slopes will notcompensate for lack of treatment on the more pre-ferred south and west slopes, and ridgetops (fig. 2, 3,10, 14). It is on these latter sites where big gamenaturally concentrate. Many times these areas are theonly sites open and available when other areas arecovered with snow. Rehabilitation projects should beplanned for areas most used by big game. Sites shouldnot be selected for treatment based on forage potential(Short and McCulloch 1977) ease of treatment, oranticipated future use by big game.

Big game depredation problems on agriculturallands can be reduced, and in some cases eliminated,by providing game animals cover and an alternatesource of forage. Wildlands adjacent to farm lands canbe used to intercept big game. On agricultural landsdeer and elk generally seek succulent plants. Wheresufficient succulent and highly preferred plants are



provided along with security and thermal cover, ani-mal use can be diverted from agricultural fields. Rangeimprovement projects with travel lanes and escapecover adjacent to agricultural fields encourage biggame to use the fields. Establishment of travel lanesand escape cover that enhance access to agriculturalfields should be avoided. However, at times, big gamewill cross large, open areas to use highly desirableforage.

Shiras Moose

Shiras moose (fig. 18) are generally found in moun-tain brush, aspen, mixed conifers, and subalpine com-munities. In central Utah they use juniper-pinyon andupper sagebrush-grass areas. As snow melts andsucculent grasses and forbs appear, moose turn fromtheir browse diet to succulent species. Grasses andforbs are used abundantly from snowmelt to mid Juneand early July. Willows and aspen (Babcock 1981;Wilson 1971) are major components of their diet in latesummer and early fall. By September their diet isalmost exclusively browse. Willow and aspen are im-portant browse species all winter, along with Gambeloak, serviceberry, chokecherry, and true mountain,and curlleaf mountain mahogany. Depending on oc-currence and availability, cottonwood, birch, elder-berry, snowberry, maple, antelope bitterbrush, andcliffrose can be important fall and winter browse. Itdoes not appear that moose use mountain big sage-brush to any great extent.

During summer months, moose require water andshade in close proximity to succulent forage. Aspen,aspen-spruce-fir, aspen-lodgepole pine, and willow bot-toms are important summering areas. Movement fromsummer to fall and winter ranges can mean movingonly from a north or east facing slope, around the hillto south- or west-facing slopes at the same elevation,or it can mean movement down a drainage, or from onedrainage to another (Babcock 1981). Time of move-ment is triggered by the switch in diet from succulentsto browse and not by snow depth. Fall, winter, andspring ranges are generally shrub communities withopen side hills. Moose generally winter at a higherelevation than elk. Snow depths of 4 to 5 ft (1.2 to 1.5 m)are not detrimental to moose and do not cause them tomove.

Beneficial range improvement projects on springand summer moose ranges are those that increaseherbaceous succulents. This can be accomplished byseeding adapted grasses and forbs into depleted open-ings in aspen, conifer, and subalpine communitiesthat are adjacent to water and shade. Where summer,fall, and winter ranges overlap, special consider-ation should be given to enhancing the availabilityand quantity of browse. Projects should never de-crease browse quantity.

Figure 18—Moose on a summer rangewith a variety of succulent forage.

Fall, winter, and spring range improvement projectsin moose habitat should be designed to increase andimprove browse. Prescribed burning or accidental firein aspen, aspen-spruce-fir, and aspen-lodgepole pinecommunities can promote sprouting of aspen (DeByle1985b). Burning closed, mature lodgepole pine standsdoes not generally benefit moose. Moose show particu-lar preference for aspen reproduction. On fall, winter,and spring ranges commercial harvest, chaining, orany other type of disturbance that promotes aspensprouting should be encouraged. Chaining and burn-ing of thick, tall Gambel oak (Stevens and Davis 1985),willow, chokecherry, and maple stands can result inmore nutritious and available browse. As on all mooserange, no treatment should decrease the amount oravailability of browse.

Antelope

Forage needs, plant size, and species density re-quirements for pronghorn antelope are specific, andcritical to animal survival (fig. 19) (Yoakum 1983).Rehabilitation of antelope ranges must include con-sideration of proper forage and plant structure re-quirements (Autenrieth 1983; Kindschy and others1982; Neff 1986; Yoakum 1980, 1983).

In most cases, rehabilitation of antelope ranges isbest restricted to flats, bottoms, and valleys. Openridges and slopes on some areas should not be treated,because plant community structure is generallyadequate. Flat bottoms and valleys are the areaswhere forage and plant structure requirements aregenerally lacking. These areas frequently have thehighest site potential and provide the best opportu-nity for rehabilitation efforts that will benefit ante-lope.

Shrubs are a most important component of antelopehabitat. Availability of shrubs as winter forage hasbeen directly linked to antelope survival (Barrett



Figure 19—Antelope on black sage and Wyomingbig sagebrush range. This community has a goodmixture of grasses, forbs, and low-growing shrubs.Clear, unrestricted vision is provided.

1982; Bayless 1969; Kindschy and others 1982; Neff1986; Smith and Beale 1980; Yoakum 1980). Shrubsare used as cover for young fawns as well as foradults. Big and black sagebrush, low and rubberrabbitbrush, winterfat, budsage, and bitterbrush areall important forage and cover species for antelope.These shrubs should be protected and managed as apart of the natural plant community. If necessary,they should be included in improvement projects onsites where they are adapted.

Excessively high shrub density can suppress muchneeded forbs and grasses (Yoakum 1980, 1983). Shrubsover 2 ft (0.6 m) tall can impede animal mobility andprovide cover for predators (Yoakum 1983). Yoakum(1983) suggested that a plant community containingfive to 10 shrub species that comprise 30 to 50 percentof the ground cover provides optimum vegetation forantelope. Shrub communities that are too dense ortoo tall can be thinned using a pipe harrow, disk-chain(fig. 6), anchor chain, or rail. Grasses and forbs can beseeded prior to or in conjunction with the treatment.

Forbs are essential to antelope. Fawns as well asmature animals use forbs when available. Rehabili-tation projects should be designed to encourage andincrease forbs on all antelope ranges. Alfalfa is highlypreferred by antelope. Other forbs that antelope use,and for which seed is available are small burnet,Lewis flax, sainfoin, Utah sweetvetch, yellow sweet-clover, cicer milkvetch, globemallow, alfileria, westernyarrow, balsamroot, goldeneye, lupine, and Palmerpenstemon.

Monotypic shrublands and grasslands are gener-ally poor antelope habitat. Antelope make only slightuse of pure fairway crested wheatgrass stands. Con-siderable use is made of areas where alfalfa and otherforbs are found along with fairway crested wheatgrass(Hall 1985; Kindschy and others 1982; Urness 1986;Yoakum 1979). Diversity in plant community makeupenhances antelope ranges. Forbs and grasses can be

incorporated into shrub communities as well as forbsand shrubs into grass communities.

Rehabilitation projects should be designed to en-courage and increase forbs on all antelope ranges.Prescribed burns are sometimes used as a range im-provement technique. Burns should be planned forseasons when they are the least harmful to forbs.Livestock management plans should be designed sothat severe competition for forbs between antelopeand livestock is avoided.

Antelope consume grasses year-around in smallamounts (Urness 1986; Yoakum 1980, 1983). Use isgreatest in the spring when new growth is available.They prefer the less coarse species like the bluegrassesand fescues. Grasses should be included in rehabilita-tion projects, but should not make up the majority ofany seed mixture.

Mature antelope generally do not require securitycover; but fawns do. Security to mature antelope isclear unrestricted vision and rapid mobility. Antelopeprefer low growing vegetation, open valleys, and levelto moderate topography. Antelope will, however, modifytheir behavior according to local conditions. In centralUtah, antelope are found in a number of vegetativecommunities ponderosa pine, aspen parklands, sage-brush grass, and salt desert shrublands.

Barriers to antelope movement include net wirefences, large bodies of water, large rivers, deep can-yons, rocky ridges, and dense brush and trees. Danger-ous and restrictive fences can be removed or rebuiltand dense shrubs and trees can be removed andtrimmed. An inadequate water supply can restrictantelope use. Where needed, consideration should begiven to developing and improving water sources.

Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep are generally found in remote, ruggedterrain such as mountains, canyons, and escarp-ments (fig. 20). The major habitat requirements forbighorn are forage, water, thermal cover, escapecover, and adequate rutting and lambing areas.

Bighorn sheep prefer to feed in open areas with lowvegetation, like grasses and low shrubs (Hansen 1980).Various sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, and wetand semi-wet meadow communities are preferred.Successional communities that result from wildfire,prescribed burns, and seedings are used if location andcomposition are suitable. Grass can be the staple of thebighorn sheep diet. They do, however, use a variety ofshrubs and forbs (Johnson and Smith 1980). Bighornsheep are opportunistic foragers, and will adapt theirdiet to what is available (Browning and Monson 1980).They prefer green forage, and will move to differentareas to find more-preferred forage. Bighorn sheepforaging areas usually have tree and shrub cover of



Figure 20—Bighorn sheep prefer remote, steep,rugged terrain. (A) Desert bighorn. (B) Rocky Moun-tain bighorn.

A

B

less than 25 percent with shrub height less than 2 ft(0.6 m) (VanDyke and others 1983).

The availability of water and escape terrain canaffect the use of feeding areas. Foraging areas locatedmore than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from escape terrain, andfarther than 1 mi (1.6 km) from water are used verylittle (VanDyke and others 1983).

Escape and rutting areas are generally associatedwith cliffs and steep, rough, rocky, inaccessible terrain(fig. 20). Disturbances, and increased human andlivestock use can destroy the value of areas for escape,rutting, and lambing purposes. Travel corridors be-tween seasonal feeding areas should be protected, andnot disturbed.

Lambing and foraging areas can be improved throughrehabilitation projects and water development. Be-cause escape cover and availability of water are soimportant to bighorn sheep, little to no use of improvedareas will occur unless escape cover and water isavailable. Water developments can be undertaken toimprove existing sources and to make new sourcesavailable. Development of water near escape cover canmake otherwise unused ranges usable.

Location of a proposed improvement project onbighorn sheep range should be considered first.

Increasing the amount of open habitat and the quan-tity of high quality forage should be the primary goalsof bighorn sheep habitat improvement projects.

Fire or chaining can be used in opening up tree andshrub stands and in improving forage quality andquantity. Where understory species density and rich-ness is lacking, preferred species can be seeded.

Sage-Grouse

Seventy-five percent of the annual diet of an adultsage-grouse may consist of sagebrush leaves and shoots(Autenrieth 1980a). During the fall and winter over95 percent of the diet may be sagebrush; during thespring, 85 percent; and during the summer, 40 per-cent. The species and subspecies of sagebrush usedvaries among areas. The birds do, however, makemore use of shrubs where adequate cover is provided.

Forbs are especially sought out by both adults andyoung during spring and summer. Insects and forbsare very important to chicks and subadults (Autenrieth1980a; Roberson 1986). A chick’s diet for the first 30days may consist primarily of insects. Brood-rearingareas, therefore, need to contain a rich diversity offorbs and shrubs; which in turn will help supply anabundance of insects. Wet meadows are importantbrood-rearing areas, as they provide an abundance offorbs and insects.

Over the past 150 years, hundreds of thousands ofacres of prime sage-grouse habitat have been dis-turbed or destroyed by excessive livestock use, con-struction activities, mining, petroleum production ac-tivities, fire, herbicides, mechanical treatment, andthe seeding of grasses (Braun and others 1976, 1977;Fleischner 1994; Swenson and others 1987). All ofthese factors have resulted in fragmentation and re-duction of sagebrush communities. Many remainingsagebrush areas are too small to support viable sage-grouse populations. Populations have been over-harvested in many areas. From loss of habitat andover-harvest, sage-grouse densities have decreased inmany areas, and populations have been completelyeliminated in others (Autenrieth 1980b; Welch andothers 1990).

Range and wildland rehabilitation projects thattake into consideration the habitat requirements ofsage-grouse provide benefits for both wildlife andlivestock. When sagebrush control is being planned,serious consideration should be given to sage-grousehabitat requirements. These requirements have beenidentified and described by a number of agencies andauthors (Autenrieth and others 1982; Braun and others1977; Call 1979; Call and Maser 1985; Roberson 1986).These authors report sage-grouse require year round,quality sagebrush habitat for breeding, nesting, broodrearing, loafing, and cover.



Hens nest almost exclusively under big sagebrushplants. They prefer tall plants and those with anumbrella type canopy (Autenrieth 1981; Call 1979)(fig. 21). Canopy cover requirement for nesting hasbeen found to be from 20 to 40 percent (Roberson 1984;USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975). If there is toomuch or too little canopy cover, nesting will not occur.Nest success and early brood survival appear relatedto residual cover of grasses and forbs during Aprilthrough June (Drut and others 1994; Gregg and others1994). It has been found (Beck 1977; Patterson 1952)that winter survival is dependent upon the amount ofsagebrush available from January through March.Within each range rehabilitation project, the specifictype of use that occurs within the area needs to beidentified.

Sagebrush control, thinning, or other efforts aimedat reducing shrub density should not occur on winter-ing areas, within 2 mi (3.2 km) of a lek (fig. 22), whennesting or brooding habitat is limited, or during peri-ods of nesting and brood rearing. Sagebrush densityshould not be reduced when live sagebrush canopycover is less than 20 percent (this does not mean anaverage of 20 percent of the complete area, but 20percent where sagebrush reduction is to occur), onshallow soils, or where sagebrush is less than 12inches (30.5 cm) high (Braun and others 1977; Call1979; Call and Maser 1985). Mountain big sagebrushadjacent to spruce-fir and aspen should be avoided ortreated very sparingly. Ideal brood-rearing areasshould have meadows or herbland openings next to orwithin sagebrush stands. Meadows and herblands canhave invading shrubs removed. No sagebrush controlshould occur within 300 ft (91.4 m) of meadows,herblands, and streams (perpetual or intermittent).

Figure 21—Sage-grouse nest under an um-brella canopy of mountain big sagebrush.

Ridgetops and slopes in sage-grouse habitat aregenerally not treated because sagebrush is generallysparse in these locations. Bottoms and meadows aremore likely areas for sagebrush control.

A number of techniques are available for enhancingmeadows, increasing herbs within sagebrush stands,increasing edge, and changing the vertical and hori-zontal structure of a sagebrush stand. Sagebrushstands can be improved for sage-grouse by strict andproper use of a number of herbicides; however, me-chanical control and prescribed burns are the mostdesirable techniques.

The most widely used herbicides are 2,4-D andRoundup. Herbicide application early in the spring,when the ground is still covered with snow, is pre-ferred as it will kill only those sagebrush plants thatextend above snow level, and not the forbs. Sprayingfollowing snowmelt will increase sagebrush kill andalso kill most emerged forbs (Carpenter 1974). Properuse of an herbicide will thin dense sagebrush andrelease understory forbs and grasses.

Herbicides can also be used to create mosaics insagebrush stands and to increase edge area. Caremust be taken when applying herbicides to ensurethat only targeted areas are sprayed. To avoid herbi-cide drift, spraying should not occur when windspeedis greater than 6 mi per hr (9.7 km/h). Spraying is bestdone with ground rigs and from low-flying helicopters.When herbicides are used to create openings, onlyirregular strip and spot spraying should occur. A totalof no more than one third of any area should be sprayed(including the area affected by drift). Treated areasshould not be wider than 100 ft (30.5 m) (Klott andLindzey 1990; USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975),and unsprayed areas should be as wide or wider thanthe sprayed areas.

When range rehabilitation projects are done onsage-grouse areas, anchor chaining, and the use of apipe harrow is preferable to the use of herbicides. Apipe harrow can be used to: (1) thin sagebrushstands; (2) create edge area and mosaic openings;

Figure 22—Male sage-grouse on a lek.



(3) encourage forb, grass, and meadow communitiesby removing competing shrubs; and (4) prepare seed-beds and cover broadcast seed. Meandering strip chain-ing, pipe harrowing, or light disk-chaining followingterrain features are preferred methods (fig. 6). Blockand checkerboard clearing and thinning of large areasare not recommended. As with herbicide treatments,treated strips should not be wider than 100 ft (30.5 m)(Klott and Lindzey 1990), nor cover more ground thanthe untreated areas. When chaining, less damage willoccur to shrubs when the chain is dragged somewhattight rather than in a deep U or J shape between thecrawler tractors. Plowing and disking of sagebrush isvery destructive to sage-grouse habitat and is notrecommended. When disturbance does occur, desir-able species should be seeded to establish desirableplant cover and to prevent establishment of annuals.A number of forb species are available that can beseeded successfully into various sagebrush and meadowcommunities. These include: alfalfa, white and yellowsweetclover, adapted clovers, birdsfoot trefoil, crown-vetch, cicer milkvetch, lupine, sainfoin, small burnet,Rocky Mountain and Palmer penstemon, western yar-row, Lewis flax, globemallow, vegetable-oyster salsify,Louisiana sage, alfileria, lomatium, showy goldeneye,and Nevada goldeneye.

Prescribed burns, when used properly, can be ben-eficial to sage-grouse. Meadow areas and valley bot-toms that are being invaded by sagebrush and othershrubs can be burned to remove shrubs. Shrub re-moval can result in meadow enhancement andhealthier insect populations. Fire should occur earlyin the spring, prior to forb and grass emergence, or inthe fall after grasses and forbs have dried. In thespring, snow will leave areas with sparse shrub coverprior to areas with heavier cover. Fire should be setonly in the snow free areas (meadows and bottoms).Snow and damp ground can help confine the fire to thedesired areas and can result in an improved mosaicburn pattern. Forbs and grasses are generally not outof the ground immediately following snowmelt andare less harmed by fire (Wright and others 1979). Firecan create openings that may be used as leks. Call andMaser (1985) recommended that such lek openings beof l to 10 acres (0.4 to 4.0 ha).

Wet to semiwet meadows are important to sage-grouse. Those that have deteriorated through live-stock use lack forbs and desirable species. Properlivestock management of riparian sites will signifi-cantly benefit sage-grouse.

Columbian Sharp-Tail Grouse

Columbian sharp-tail grouse are absent from 90 per-cent of their original range (Marks and Marks 1988)due to loss of habitat caused by farming activities,excessive grazing, fire, herbicides, and mechanical

disturbance. Sharp-tail grouse habitat consists pri-marily of hills, benchlands, and rolling topographydominated by sagebrush and perennial grasses, withadjacent mountain brush and aspen. They also inhabitriparian areas extending out into sagebrush-grass ar-eas (fig. 23) (Klott and Lindzey 1990; Marks and Marks1988).

The diet of Columbian sharp-tail grouse is made upprimarily of seeds, leaves, and floral parts of forbs,grasses, shrubs, and agricultural crops. During win-ter, buds from chokecherry, serviceberry, mahogany,poplar, maple, rose (hips), aspen, and hawthorn areused extensively (Hart and others 1950; Marks andMarks 1988; Marks and Marks 1987; Moyles 1981).

Once snow is deep enough to allow sharp-tail grouseaccess to sagebrush seedheads, considerable use ismade of the seed, floral parts, and upper leaves.Snow may, however, cover up this important sourceof food and cover. Insects are very important in thediet of juvenile birds 2 to 4 weeks old.

Cover, feeding, nesting, and brood-rearing areas areclosely associated with edge areas, riparian areas, andcommunities having a rich diversity of shrubs, forbs,and grasses. Lek are very sparsely covered by lowstature vegetation, often having numerous bare areas(Kobridger 1965; USDA Forest Service 1985; Waage1989; Ward 1984). Areas of use can vary betweenseasons (Marks and Marks 1987; Moyles and Boag

Figure 23—Columbian sharp-tailgrouse on a 5-year-old grass-forbseeding.



1981). Movement to wintering areas can be triggeredby snow depth and availability of food and cover.

Sharp-tail grouse prefer mixed vegetative commu-nities. Shrub communities with a variety of covertypes and a diversity in food items are preferred.Canopy cover of shrubs should not exceed 20 to 40percent (Marks and Marks 1987; McArdle 1976). Densesagebrush stands can restrict the grouse’s visibility,adversely affect the desired variety and abundance ofunderstory forbs and grasses, and provide ideal habi-tat for predators. Sharp-tail grouse habitat can beenhanced by proper vegetative manipulation(Autenrieth and others 1977). Reducing the density ofsagebrush, creating mosaic patterns within variousplant communities, and introducing desirable andadapted grasses, shrubs, and forbs can all improvesharp-tail grouse habitat. Plant communities can bethinned by chaining, disk-chaining, use of herbicides,and fire. The same precautions and concerns expressedfor the use of herbicides on sage-grouse range applyto sharp-tail grouse range.

Comparing the effects of chaining, spraying, andburning on sharp-tail grouse activities, McArdle (1976)found that sharp-tail grouse showed a definite prefer-ence for rehabilitated areas during spring, summer,and fall, and that chained areas were most preferred.Cover, edge area, and quantity and quality of foodwere greatest on the chained areas. Mosaic patternscan be effectively created and desirable species seededwith the proper use of a disk-chain followed by seeding(fig. 6). DeByle (1985c) reports that sharp-tail grouseprefer the early successional stages of aspen, whichwould suggest that fire or logging can be used toremove mature aspen and increase sprouting, therebyincreasing sharp-tail grouse use. Variation in vegeta-tive communities, species composition, density, cover,edge area, and disturbance is especially importantwithin a 1 mile (1.6 km) radius of leks (Baydack andHein 1987; USDA Forest Service 1985; Ward 1984).

Preferred species that can be seeded on favorablesites include: alfalfa, small burnet, Lewis flax, lupine,yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, sunflower,balsamroot, yarrow, showy and Nevada goldeneye,wheatgrasses, perennial and annual grains, GreatBasin wildrye, and orchardgrass.

Ruffed Grouse

Aspen is the primary home of ruffed grouse in theIntermountain West. Aspen is heavily used as foodand cover throughout most of the year (fig. 24) (Barberand others 1989a,b; DeByle 1985c; Doerr and others1974; Phillips 1965; Roberson and Leathan 1988).However, an aspen community must possess suitabledensity and plant species composition to make it goodgrouse habitat.

During the spring, ruffed grouse feed almost exclu-sively on aspen flower buds, catkins, and leaves (Barberand others 1989b). As the season progresses, catkinsand leaves of other poplars and willows and leaves ofemerging forbs are consumed. During the summermonths, leaves, fruits, and seeds of forbs, grasses, andsedges are selected. In the fall, the diet graduallychanges to leaves and flower buds of mature aspen.Rose hips, and seeds of forbs, especially those ofmeadowrue are very important and are used exten-sively. Winter diets are dominated by buds and twigsof mature aspen, chokecherry buds, and rose hips.Buds of willow, serviceberry, and maple are also used(Doerr and others 1974; McGowan 1973; Phillips 1967).Fruits and seeds are used when available. Chicksuse insects very heavily for the first 5 weeks and thenstart to use increasing amounts of vegetative matter(Barber and others 1989b; DeByle 1985b,c; Gullion1968; Landry 1980; Phillips 1965).

The home range of males and females is generallysmall, 20 to 50 acres (8.1 to 20.2 ha). Small homeranges are characteristically found in localized, widelyseparated patches of suitable habitat, or in areaswith considerable diversity of habitat types.

Ruffed grouse do not generally migrate. They arethe most widely distributed nonmigrating game birdin North America (Barber and others 1989b). In theIntermountain West they are found year round inaspen, spruce-fir-aspen mixes, and in patches ofmaple and other shrub species along streams andaround springs.

Preferred habitats are those that have a diversityof plant communities. The single most importantcomponent of ruffed grouse habitat is brood cover(Barber and others 1989a,b; Landry 1980). Good

Figure 24—Ruffed grouse.



brood habitat consists of sapling aspen, intermediateaged aspen, and aspen intermixed with, or adjacentto, mountain brush species along streams with suffi-cient understory of grasses and forbs to supply qual-ity summer food (Barber and others 1989a,b; Gullion1990; Runkles and Thompson 1989; Thompson 1989).Summer and fall activities are greatest in saplingand immature aspen stands; winter and spring ac-tivities are greatest among mature aspen.

Well planned and executed vegetative manipulationcan be beneficial to ruffed grouse. The goal in habitatimprovement should be to provide a diversity of aspenage classes so that food, roosting, and cover require-ments are met in a manner consistent with the limitedmobility of this bird (Gullion 1990; Thompson 1989). Anumber of recommendations for improving ruffedgrouse habitat have been made (Gullion 1968, 1990;Landry 1980; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources1978). Recommendations include: aspen saplings 5 to25 years old, with densities in the range of 3,000 to8,000 per acre (7,400 to 12,300 per ha); small irregularclearcuts up to 10 acres (4.0 ha) in size, but no morethan 330 ft (100.6 m) wide; burning of clearcut areasfollowing cutting; use of cutting cycles and cuttingpatterns that will maintain both young and old aspenin close proximity or interspersed; maintenance ofdense shrub borders and the seeding of clearcuts;burns; creation of disturbed areas with succulent forbs(with special emphasis on clovers, vetches, other le-gumes, and shade tolerant succulent grasses).

Blue Grouse

Blue grouse are migratory. In the summer and fallthey can be found in aspen, mountain brush (fig. 25),and mountain big sagebrush. In the late fall theygenerally migrate up in elevation into Douglas-fir,subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and other higherelevation conifers (Roberson and Leatham 1988).Spring migration is triggered by snowmelt. Birdsmove down in elevation when openings in the snowappear under the aspen, in the mountain brush, andthe mountain big sagebrush communities. Fall move-ment generally occurs in September (Rogers 1968;Utah DWR 1978; Weber 1975).

Conifers are used extensively in the winter for coverand food (Hoffman 1961). In Utah, Douglas-fir needlesare the single biggest winter food item. Considerableuse is also made of currant bushes as cover. In thesummer, adults feed extensively on seeds and leavesof forbs, especially legumes. As the season progressesand the forbs dry up, feeding shifts to leaves of shrubs,particularly serviceberry and snowberry. Juvenilebirds’ major food item for the first 3 months of life isinsects, especially grasshoppers (Weber 1975). Plantmaterial and seeds become more important as theygrow and mature.

Weber (1975) reports that most nesting occurs undermountain big sagebrush. Diversity in communitymakeup is very important to blue grouse. They preferareas with trees, shrubs, open flats, and riparian sitesin close proximity to each other.

Vegetative rehabilitation projects can be beneficialto blue grouse if planned and executed properly. Itemsthat should be considered on blue grouse ranges in-clude: creation of small openings or clearcuts up to5 acres (2.0 ha) in any of the inhabited communities;creation of openings with maximum edge area; andseedings that include the maximum number of succu-lent forbs, with special emphasis on legumes. Open-ings can be created by clearcutting, prescribed burns,chaining and proper use of herbicides, plowing, anddisking. All treatment methods should result in amosaic treatment pattern.

Chukar Partridge

The chukar prefers arid, rough foothills, and lowmountainous country that consists of steep ruggedranges with cliffs, bluffs, rocky outcrops, talusslopes, and brushy creek bottoms and swales (BLM1970; Bohl 1957; Roberson and Leatham 1988; Young1981). Areas inhabited by pinyon, juniper, big sage-brush, black sagebrush, bitterbrush, ephedra, rubberrabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, and bunchgrassesare prime chukar habitat (fig. 26). Cheatgrass can bethe principal understory or interspace species.

Chukar migration is very limited. In early fall,birds tend to move to lower elevations. When annualgrasses germinate and green up in the hills andcanyons, birds move into these areas. Heavy snow willmove chukars to lower elevations (USDI Bureau ofLand Management 1970; Bohl 1957; Molini 1976).Cover requirements are generally met with rocky out-crops, talus slopes, cliffs, small trees, and sagebrush.

Figure 25—Blue grouse make extensive use ofconifer and deciduous trees for cover and food.



Figure 26—Chukar partridge on winter areaconsisting of juniper, big sagebrush, and annualand perennial grasses.

Nesting is on the ground next to or under rocks andshrubs.

Chukars will eat grains, fruits, berries, and plantparts including stems, blades, and seeds. Plant materialfrom perennials and annual forbs and grasses areconsumed (Bohl 1957; Roberson and Leatham 1988).Alfalfa leaves are highly preferred. Cheatgrass is amajor food item, seeds and leaves are consumed yearround (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1970;Christensen 1970; Young 1981). Insects, principallygrasshoppers, beetles, crickets, and ants are also con-sumed. Most feeding occurs within 1 to 2 miles (1.6 to3.2 km) of water. Availability of water can be impor-tant on dry, summer ranges.

Most range and wildland rehabilitation projects aredesigned to reduce the density of cheatgrass andshrubs associated with chukar habitat. Care shouldbe taken to identify areas important to chukars. Whenmajor chukar populations exist, rehabilitation projectsshould not occur that will adversely affect chukarhabitat. Projects that leave islands of shrubs andcheatgrass, or irregular edges within these types, canbenefit chukars. Seedings in treated areas should notbe composed of any one species but should includesucculent species. Improving available water sourcescan be most critical on many ranges.

Water _________________________Water is critical to the survival of all wildlife. All

areas must have sufficient water available throughoutall seasons. Free or running water or moisture con-tained in snow may be satisfactory. Most gallinaceousbirds are able to satisfy their water requirements fromdew and succulent forbs, if available (Barber andothers 1989b).

Many rehabilitation projects may be unused bywildlife because water is lacking during specific sea-sons. Water should be a major consideration of everyimprovement project, especially on arid desert ranges(Gubanich and Panik 1987; Hervert and Krausman1986). Water is generally less limiting on more mesicsummer and spring-fall ranges. Snow, when present,can provide sufficient water for most species. Whenwater is unavailable, provisions need to be included inrehabilitation projects for the development of watersources. This could include the development of springsor wells, construction of water catchment structures(Frasier 1985; Menasco 1986), and the diversion ofwater from one point to another.

Care must be taken when developing a spring andtransferring water to another area. Some water mustbe retained throughout the year at the spring or collec-tion site. Water catchment devices and areas need tohave water available to all wildlife at all times. Watercatchments cannot be emptied by livestock when wild-life remain in the area. Water troughs should not beturned off or accessibility to watering areas restrictedwhen livestock leave the area (fig. 27). All too often,when springs are developed and the water is moved toa trough, the free water that previously existed at thesource is eliminated. Such developments also damageor eliminate the attendant mesic vegetation, and ri-parian values that may be present.

Some water developments may not be beneficial towildlife. Extending water to new areas can encourageand increase livestock use in areas where they wereonce seldom grazed, especially on fall-winter-springranges. This may be especially harmful if it is an areathat presently receives use by wildlife near or abovecarrying capacity. Water development can also in-crease livestock and human use of areas during criti-cal periods, such as calving, fawning, lambing, andnesting. Water developments generally require accessroads, which may or may not be beneficial to wildlife.

Figure 27—Guzzler water development on sheepand antelope range. Once livestock leave the area,water must be left on for antelope and other wildlife.



Water development requires continual maintenanceto ensure that water is available when needed (fig. 28).

Provisions need to be made so that birds, smallgame, and nongame species can gain entry to troughsand tanks (Hervet and Krausman 1986; Menasco1986). Escape ramps should be installed to allowescape if they fall into the trough or tank.

Fences ________________________Fences can be both harmful and beneficial to wild-

life. Properly placed fences can be used to controlintensity, duration, and time of livestock and humanactivities on wildlife ranges.

Calving, lambing, fawning, and grouse nesting ar-eas need to have livestock and humans excluded andaccess restricted during these periods. All rehabili-tated sites require restricted grazing for various peri-ods of time. Big game and sage-grouse winter andspring ranges need to have human activities limited.This is especially important during periods whenanimals are under stress due to weather conditions, oflimited food supply, and reproductive activity. Bothdepleted and rehabilitated riparian areas generallyrequire considerable protection from livestock, hu-mans, and in some cases, wildlife, to become healed

Figure 28—Water sources requireconstant maintenance and checkingto ensure that water is available whenneeded by wildlife.

and stabilized. Fencing can be used to protect ripariansites, springs, seeps, and other water areas.

Improperly placed and constructed fences can beharmful to big game by excluding or limiting wildlifeuse of critical watering, foraging, and cover sites.Fence height can restrict movement of big game.Barbed, smooth wire, netting, or their combinationsunder 42 inches (1.1 m) tall generally do not restrictmovement of healthy mule deer and elk. A few animalsmay “hang up” on 42 inch (1.1 m) or shorter fences, butthe majority of animals that are killed in fences are onthose taller than 42 inches (1.1 m). Antelope andbighorn sheep require fences they can go through.Helvie (1971) has given guidelines for fences built inareas occupied by bighorn sheep. He recommends thatfences should not be constructed with woven wire, butwith smooth or barbed wire strands spaced 20, 35,and 39 inches (0.5, 0.9, and 1.0 m) above the ground,or be a lay-down type that can be let down whenneeded. Improperly constructed fences can restrictmovement and cause mortality, especially for ramsthat get their horns tangled in the wire (Welch 1971).

Fences can be modified to allow antelope passage(Anderson and Denton 1980). Autenrieth (1983),Kindschy and others (1982), Neff (1986), and Yoakum(1980) describe antelope fencing construction. Smoothwire is the most favorable type with the lowest wirebeing at least 16 inches (0.4 m) off the ground. Thissize opening will allow the antelope to pass under.Barbed wire can be used on the upper strands but isnot recommended. Net wire fences will not allow ante-lope and bighorn sheep to pass. When net wire fencesare built they should have sufficient strategicallylocated and specifically built openings and pass throughspaces so that normal movement to feeding and water-ing areas, and to seasonal ranges is not disrupted orstopped (Mapston and ZoBell 1972).

Electric fences, when properly constructed, are aneffective means of controlling livestock, humans, andbig game. Electric fences have been used to preventuse by livestock and big game of hay stacks, and feedyards, and to alter the use of agriculture areas, camp-grounds, riparian sites, and small, treated distur-bances.

Roads _________________________All rehabilitation projects require access for people

and their machines. This may involve construction ofsome type of road and, in some isolated areas, an airstrip. Roads can be beneficial to wildlife by providing:(1) a means whereby rehabilitation projects can be com-pleted, (2) access for habitat management, (3) access forharvest and observation of wildlife, (4) increased andimproved law enforcement activities, (5) an increase



in edge area and diversity of plant development andgrowth along the road, where extra water is collected,(6) road bars, when properly constructed, act as watercollection and storage areas, and (7) access for firecontrol. On the other hand roads can be detrimental towildlife by: (1) increasing human and livestock activ-ity (especially during critical periods), (2) increasingharvest of game animals, (3) increasing poaching,(4) reducing wildlife use, (5) increasing the chance ofhuman-caused fire, (6) encouraging off-road vehicletravel that can reduce the production and effective-ness of a rehabilitation project, and (7) increasing soilerosion.

All roads associated with a rehabilitation projectneed to be evaluated prior to construction and follow-ing completion of the project. Road location can becritical. Calving, fawning, nesting, brood rearing,

riparian areas, travel and migration lanes, leks, andmeadow edges should be avoided when locating roads.Nonessential roads and disturbed areas should beclosed and revegetated. Properly closed and reveg-etated roads in forested areas can be used extensivelyby big game.

In selecting species for the rehabilitation of cuts,fills, and disturbed areas associated with roads andhighways, big game feeding habits and preferencesshould be considered. Establishing evergreen or semi-evergreen species, species that green early or staygreen into the summer, and shrubs and trees thatprovide cover can actually encourage big game useand increase chances of big game-automobile colli-sions. In an effort to reduce such accidents, low-grow-ing, unpalatable species of grasses, forbs, and shrubsshould be used along highways.


14Bruce L. Welch

Nutritive Principlesin Restoration andManagement

Chapter

Most range management or revegetation programs are aimedat providing forage to support the needs of range animals. Amongthese needs are supplying the nutrients required to drive thephysiological processes of the animal body. One major principlein this report is that there is no “perfect forage species” that willsupply all the nutrients needed by any range animal for allseasons. The best approach to range management or revegeta-tion is to supply a diversity of palatable shrubs, forbs, andgrasses. Major topics to be discussed are (1) nutrient require-ments of range animals, (2) judging the nutritive value of rangeplants, (3) factors affecting the nutritive value of range plants,and (4) seasonal nutritive value of range plants.


Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Nutrient Requirements of RangeAnimals _______________________

It is a fundamental principle that effective rangemanagement or revegetation programs rest on know-ing the nutritive requirement of the target animal.The nutrient needs of range animals can be dividedinto five classes: dry matter intake, energy-producingcompounds, protein, minerals, and vitamins.

Dry Matter

Intake of dry matter by range animals varies accord-ing to the weight and activity of the animal. Greatestconsumption of dry matter, with weight held constant,occurs with lactation, followed by growth, as a percentof live range animals. This is of considerable impor-tance to the range manager when it comes to calculat-ing carrying capacity. Dry matter intake of selectedrange animals is tabulated in table 1.

Energy-Producing Compounds

From a quantitative point, energy-producing com-pounds make up the single largest class of nutrientsneeded by range animals. A lack of sufficient energy isprobably the most common manifestation of nutri-tional deficiency in range animals (Dietz 1972). Rangeanimals can derive energy from a variety of com-pounds including sugars, fats, pectins, starch, andprotein. In ruminants and other range animals thatcan support fermentation digestion, energy can bederived indirectly from cellulose and hemicellulose.

To understand the energy requirements of rangeanimals, the range manager or revegetation specialistneeds first to understand the various terms that areused to express the energy requirement.

Energy requirements of range animals are expressedin several forms such as total digestible nutrients,digestible energy, metabolizable energy, and net en-ergy. Total digestible nutrients, a noncaloric measure-ment, is the sum of all the digestible organic matter(crude protein, crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract, andcrude fat) in a forage. Because fat supplies 2.25 timesmore energy than protein or carbohydrates, the fatcontent is multiplied by this 2.25 energy factor tocalculate this principal measurement (table 2). Thetotal digestible nutrients requirement of an animal isexpressed as kg per animal per day or as percent of thediet. For range managers or revegetation specialiststhe latter expression is the most useful.

Digestible energy, a caloric measurement, is calcu-lated by subtracting the caloric content in the fecesfrom the caloric content of the range forage. The caloriccontent of a range forage is often called gross energy.In turn, metabolizable energy is calculated by sub-tracting the caloric content in the urine and gases lost

Table 1—Daily dry matter consumption by selected rangeanimals. Data expressed as pounds of dry matterconsumed on a daily basis and as a percentage oflive weight (Halls 1970; National Academy of Sci-ences 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Dry matterAnimal Activity Weight Per day Live weight

- - - - - Lbs - - - - - - PercentSheep Maintenance 110 2.2 2.0(ewes) 132 2.4 1.8

154 2.6 1.7176 2.9 1.6

Last 6 weeks 110 3.7 3.3of gestation 132 4.2 3.2

154 4.6 3.0176 4.8 2.8

Lactation 110 5.3 4.8132 5.7 4.3154 6.2 4.0176 6.6 3.7

Growth 66 2.9 4.388 3.1 3.5

110 3.3 3.0132 3.3 2.5

Cattle Maintenance 881 13.4 1.51,102 15.9 1.41,323 18.3 1.4

Gestation 881 16.5 1.91,102 19.0 1.71,323 21.4 1.6

Lactation 881 23.8 2.71,102 26.0 2.41,323 28.4 2.1

Growth 661 19.4 2.9881 24.3 2.8

1,323 26.5 2.0

Horses Maintenance 16.4Gestation 16.4Lactation 21.5Growth 13.2

Deer Maintenance 2.2Gestation 2.5Lactation 3.0

Elk Maintenance 9.6(mature)

from the body from the digestible energy of the rangeforage. Net energy then is calculated by subtractingthe calories used to produce body heat from metaboliz-able energy. Net energy thus represents the amount ofenergy an animal has for maintenance and production.The relationship of these three caloric energy mea-surements was demonstrated (fig. 1). Range animalrequirements for any one of these measurements isexpressed as megacalories per animal per day or as



Table 2—How the amount of digestible nutrients are calculated for ahypothetical range forage.

Total nutrients Digestion DigestibleNutrient in 100 kg coefficients nutrients

kg - - - - - - Percent - - - - - -Crude protein 9.0 50.0 4.5Crude fiber 30.0 40.0 12.0Nitrogen-free extract 50.0 50.0 25.0Crude fat 11.0 50.0 (2.25) 12.4

Total digestible nutrients 53.9

Gross EnergyEnergy lossin feces

Digestible Energy

Energy loss Energy lostin gases in urine

Metabolizable Energy

Energy lost asbody heat

Net Energy

Energy for Energy forproduction maintenance

Figure 1—Relationship of gross, digestible,metabolizable, and net energy.

megacalories per kg of dry matter. The latter expres-sion is the most useful for range managers or revegeta-tion specialists.

Energy needs of range animals vary according toweight and activity (lactating, fattening, growing,gestation). Larger animals require more kilograms oftotal digestible nutrients per day for a given activitythan smaller animals, yet when total digestible nutri-ents is expressed as a percent of the diet the percent-age is the same. This is due to differences in dry matterintake. Thus a large animal extracts more kilogramsper day of total digestible nutrients than a smalleranimal eating the same forages. Similarly, a lactatingfemale requires more energy than a nonlactating fe-male of similar weight. On a constant weight basis,lactation requires the greatest amount of energyfollowed by fattening, growing, gestation, and mainte-nance. Table 3 lists the energy requirements of se-lected range animals. Unfortunately, the total digest-ible nutrients content or amount of metabolizableenergy is unknown for many range forages. Moreinformation is expressed as in vitro digestibility. I have

attempted to express the energy requirements of rangeanimals in terms of in vitro digestibility (table 4).Maintenance was set at 50 percent in vitro digestibil-ity with all other activities adjusted accordingly(Ammann and others 1973).

Protein

Protein in animal bodies makes up a large chemi-cally related, but physiologically diverse, group ofcompounds. Protein is the major organic compound ofthe organs and soft tissues of the animal body. Allproteins are made from a common set of buildingblocks known as amino acids. It is the sequence ofthese amino acids along the protein molecule thatgives a particular protein its character which, in turn,determines its function. Proteins are the chief compo-nent in nearly all body parts including skeletal musclefor external movement; smooth and cardiac muscle forinternal movement; tendons and ligaments for tyingtogether body parts; organs and glands such as thestomach, eyes, pituitary, and skin with its covering ofhair; and other structures including hemoglobin, cyto-chromes, and membranes. Enzymes are also an im-portant group of proteinaceous compounds that pro-vide the framework in which the chemical reactions ofthe body take place.

Because of the involvement of protein in so manybodily functions, the animal body needs a liberal andcontinuous supply of protein. Like energy, the proteinrequirement of range animals varies according to theweight and activity of the animal. From a qualitativepoint, the protein requirement varies according to thetype of digestive system operating in the range ani-mal. For ruminants and other range animals that cansupport fermentation digestion, including horses,rabbits, burros, and sage-grouse, the quality of theprotein—that is the actual amino acid makeup—is notimportant, only the quantity. The microorganismsresponsible for the fermentation also manufactureneeded amino acids from plant protein and organicnitrogen compounds.

Protein requirement of range animals is expressedeither in terms of digestible protein, or as crude (some-times called total) protein. The requirement values inthe diet are expressed as grams per day or as apercentage. For range managers or revegetation spe-cialists, the term crude protein as a percent in the dietis the most useful. As with energy, the greater theweight of the animal, the higher the protein require-ment, assuming similar body activity. Because largerrange animals consume more dry matter, their higherprotein requirement can be met by consuming dietswith the same percentage of protein as smaller ani-mals. The difference is in the amount of dry mattereaten. Protein requirement varies also according toanimal’s activities. Lactation has the highest demand



Table 3—The energy requirements of selected range animals. Dataexpressed on a dry matter basis as a percent of totaldigestible nutrients in the diet, as a percent of in vitrodigestibilitya, or as megacalories of metabolizable energy/kgof dry matter (Halls 1970, National Academy of Sciences1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Animal Activity Total digestible In vitro Metabolizable Weight (lbs) nutrients (dry) digestibilitya energy

- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - mcal/kgSheep

Maintenance 55 50 2.0 110-176Last 6 weeks ofgestation 65 60 2.4 110-176Lactation 62 56 2.4 110-176Growth 66 62 56 2.2 88 60 56 2.1

CattleMaintenanceand gestation 52 50 1.9 882-1,323Lactation 55 53 2.0 882-1,323Growth 661-882 64 57 2.3 1,323 61 56 2.2

HorsesMaintenance 47 50 1.8Gestation 58 53 2.1Lactation 62 56 2.2Growth 66 58 2.5

Work Light 58 53 2.1 Moderate 65 57 2.4 Intense 66 58 2.5

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes)Maintenance —b — 3.6Gestation — — 3.9Lactation — — 4.5Growth — — 3.9

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey)Maintenance — — 2.9Breeding — — 2.9Growth — — 3.1

aUnfortunately, the total digestible nutrients content or amount of metaboliz-able energy is unknown for many range forages. More information is expressedas in vitro digestibility. In this table, energy requirements are expressed in termsof in vitro digestibility. Maintenance was set at 50 percent in vitro digestibility withother activities adjusted accordingly (Ammann and others 1973).

bA dash (“—”) means no information available.

Table 4—The protein requirement of selected range animals. Dataexpressed on a dry matter basis as a percent of crude ordigestible protein needed in the diet (Halls 1970, NationalAcademy of Sciences 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Crude DigestibleAnimal Activity Weight protein protein

Lbs - - - - - - Percent - - - - - -Sheep Maintenance 110-176 8.9 4.8

Last 6 weeks of gestation 110-176 9.3 5.2Lactation 110-176 11.0 7.2Growth 66 10.0 5.8

88 9.5 5.3

Cattle Maintenance and gestation 882-1,323 5.9 —a

Lactation 882-1,323 9.2 —Growth 661-882 10.2 —

1,323 8.8 —

Horses Maintenance 8.5 —Gestation 11.0 —Lactation 14.0 —Growth 16.0 —WorkLight 8.5 —Moderate 8.5 —Intense 8.5 —

Mule deer Maintenance 7.0 —Growth 16.0 —

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes)Maintenance 22 —Gestation 38 —Lactation 46 —Growth 35 —

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey)Maintenance 12 —Breeding 14 —Growth 20 —

aA dash (“—”) means no information available.

followed by fattening, growth, gestation, and mainte-nance. The protein requirements of selected rangeanimals demonstrates this hierarchy (table 4).

Minerals

There are 15 mineral elements essential for thehealth of animals. Of these, seven are considered majorelements: sodium, chlorine, calcium, phosphorus,magnesium, potassium, and sulfur. The remaining

eight are classified as being trace elements: iodine,iron, copper, molybdenum, cobalt, manganese, zinc,and selenium. These essential mineral elements per-form many vital functions in the body. They constitutethe major components of bones and teeth, maintainosmotic relations and acid-base equilibrium, play animportant role in regulating enzymatic systems andmuscular contraction, and are constituents of mostorganic compounds. They are also important in energytransfer.

Under most conditions, calcium and phosphorus arethe mineral elements of major concern, although othermineral elements (copper, cobalt, magnesium, sulfur,zinc, and molybdenum) may be locally in short supply.These can be supplemented easily by adding them tosalt. For calcium and phosphorus, range animal re-quirements are expressed as grams per day or as apercent of the diet. For the range manager or revege-tation specialist the expression as a percent of thediet is the most useful. Under similar activity, largerrange animals need greater amounts of calcium and



visual purple. A range animal with a vitamin A defi-ciency may develop an abnormal condition called nightblindness. Vitamin A also plays an important role innormal development of bones, disease resistance,and maintenance of healthy epithelium tissues.Vitamin A is manufactured from the plant precursorcarotene. Sometimes plant carotene is referred to asprovitamin A. As a result the vitamin A requirementof range animals is expressed in a variety of terms,such as, milligrams per day per animal, or milligramsper kilogram of dry matter of carotene, or provitaminA, and as international unit per day, or internationalunits per kilogram of dry matter of vitamin A. Forrange managers or revegetation specialists, the ex-pression on a per kilogram of dry matter is the mostuseful. Larger animals with similar activities requiremore vitamin A than smaller animals. With size heldconstant, a lactating animal requires the most vita-min A, followed by growth, fattening, gestation, andmaintenance (table 6).

Knowing the nutritive needs of range animals isthe first step for sound effective range managementor revegetation projects. The next task for range

phosphorus than smaller animals. With size heldconstant, lactating animals require the most calciumand phosphorus followed by growth, fattening, gesta-tion, and maintenance as an analysis of the calciumand phosphorus requirements of selected range ani-mals confirms (table 5).

Vitamins

Vitamins are organic compounds needed by thebody in relatively small amounts. They are unrelatedchemically, but function as metabolic regulators. Forrange animals capable of supporting fermentationdigestion, only vitamin A is of concern. Vitamin Acombines with a specific protein of the eye to produce

Table 5—The calcium and phosphorus requirement of selected rangeanimals. Data expressed on a dry matter basis as a percentneeded in the diet (Halls 1970, National Academy of Science1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Animal Activity Weight Calcium Phosphorus

Lbs - - - - - -Percent- - - - - -Sheep Maintenance 110 0.30 0.28

132 0.28 0.26154 0.27 0.25176 0.25 0.24

Last 6 weeks of 110 0.24 0.23 gestation 132 0.23 0.22

154 0.21 0.20176 0.21 0.20

Lactation 110 0.52 0.37132 0.50 0.36154 0.48 0.34176 0.48 0.34

Growth 66 0.45 0.2588 0.44 0.24

110 0.42 0.23132 0.43 0.24

Cattle Maintenance 881-1,323 0.18 0.18Gestation 881-1,323 0.18 0.18Lactation 881 0.42 0.38

1,102 0.39 0.361,323 0.36 0.34

Growth 661 0.31 0.26881 0.21 0.21

1,323 0.18 0.18

Horses Maintenance 0.30 0.20Gestation 0.50 0.35Lactation 0.50 0.35Growth 0.70 0.50Work 0.30 0.20

Deer Maintenance 0.30 0.25Growth 0.38 0.27

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes)Maintenance 0.30 0.30Gestation 0.40 0.40Lactation 0.60 0.60Growth 0.40 0.40

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey)Maintenance 0.50 0.25Breeding 2.25 0.35Growth 0.75 0.38

Table 6—The vitamin A requirement of selected range animals. Dataexpressed on a dry matter basis as milligrams or interna-tional units needed per kilogram of dry matter (Halls 1970,National Academy of Sciences 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978,1982, 1984).

Animal Activity Weight Carotene Vitamin A

Lbs mg/ka IU/kgSheep Maintenance 110 1.9 1,275

132 2.0 1,391154 2.2 1,488176 2.3 1,569

Last 6 weeks of 110 3.6 2,500 gestation 132 3.9 2,684

154 4.2 2,833176 4.5 3,091

Lactation 110 2.6 1,771132 2.9 1,962154 3.1 2,125176 3.3 2,267

Growth 66 1.5 98188 1.8 1,214

110 2.1 1,417132 2.5 1,700

Cattle Maintenance and gestation 4.1 2,800Lactation 5.7 3,900Growth 3.2 2,200

Horses Maintenance 2.4 1,600Gestation 5.0 3,400Lactation 4.1 2,800Growth 2.9 2,000Work 2.4 1,600

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes) 8.7 5,930

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey) 5.9 4,000



managers or revegetation specialists is to gain skillsat judging the nutritive values of range plants.

Judging the Nutritive Values ofRange Plants ___________________

Nutrient value of a range plant is judged in terms ofthe plant’s ability to meet the various nutrient re-quirements of the consuming range animal. Estimatesof the value of range forage can be classified into threegroups: (1) proximal or other chemical analysis; (2) invitro digestibility (outside-the-living-body digestibil-ity); and (3) in vivo digestibility, (in-the-living-bodydigestibility). From the point of view of range manag-ers or revegetation specialists, nutrient measurementsobtained from in vivo digestibility are the most usefulfollowed by in vitro digestibility and chemical analy-sis. Unfortunately, information obtained from in vivodigestibility is time consuming, expensive, and thereis simply not enough information to cover most range-land situations that confront range managers or reveg-etation specialists.

Recognizing that all plant substances are notequally digestible, nutritionists have attempted, withvarying degree of success, to devise series of chemicalmeasurements that would partition the digestibleplant substances from the hard or nondigestiblesubstances.

Proximal and Other Chemical Analyses

One such measurement is called proximal analysis.This analysis is based on dividing plant substancesinto five classes: crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber,ash, and nitrogen-free extract. The first four classesare determined by chemical means, the fifth is deter-mined by subtracting the sum of the percentages of thefirst four classes from 100. All classes are expressed ona dry matter basis.

Crude protein is measured by determining the nitro-gen content of the forage and multiplying the nitrogencontent, expressed as a percent, by the factor 6.25 (some-times a worker chooses to give just the nitrogen con-tent of range plants, the range manager or revegeta-tion specialist can calculate the crude protein contentby multiplying the nitrogen content by 6.25). Chemi-cal determination of crude protein does not take intoaccount the digestibility of the protein. Fortunately,crude protein content is significantly related to digest-ible protein. As crude protein increases, so does thedigestibility of the protein. In general terms, the higherthe crude protein content of a range forage, the morelikelihood it will meet or exceed the animal needs.

Crude fat is measured by determining the compoundssoluble in ether. Crude fat then is a mixture of com-pounds including waxes, monoterpenoids, chlorophyll,

carotene, triglycerides, and phospholipids. Not all ofthese compounds are digestible but those that are,such as triglycerides, phospholipids, and fatty acids,yield 2.25 times more energy than do sugars, starch,and protein. Range plants with high and digestiblecrude fat levels are excellent sources of energy. Ingeneral, crude fat is about 45 percent digestible.

Crude fiber is the residue left after plant sampleshave been alternately boiled in weak acid and in weakalkali. This residue consists chiefly of cellulose, hemi-cellulose, and lignin. Hemicellulose is more readilybroken down into simple sugars by microbial fermen-tation than is cellulose. Lignin is not digested bymicrobial fermentation or by the range animal, andmay even form a coating around cellulose renderingportions of it undigestible. The digestibility of crudefiber varies greatly among range forages. Crude fiberregulates the bulk in a diet. Bulk, up to a certainpoint—30 to 35 percent—has a beneficial effect on thedigestive tract of a range animal by preventing theformation of a doughlike mass in the stomach. Also, itpromotes the elimination of undigested food from thedigestive tract. In general, range forages that arehigher in crude fiber are less digestible.

Ash is the mineral matter of a range forage. It isdetermined by burning off all the organic matter andweighing the residue. This chemical analysis givesthe total mineral content of a range forage but tellsnothing about the individual mineral elements. Ingeneral, the values are needed to calculate nitrogen-free extract.

Nitrogen-free extract is determined by calculationbut not by chemical means. After the contents of crudeprotein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash have beendetermined, these values are added together and sub-tracted from 100. The result is nitrogen-free extract.This portion is composed mainly of sugars and starch.In general, range forages that are highest in nitrogen-free extract are among the most digestible.

There are problems with the proximal analysismethod. Because nitrogen-free extract is determinedby the difference, it accumulates all the errors of theother analyses. Crude fiber fraction does not alwaysdivide carbohydrates into digestible fractions. Recog-nizing these problems, a series of chemical analyseshas been devised. This series partitions the plantsubstance into three classes: (1) cell contents pluspectin, (2) neutral detergent fiber, and (3) acid deter-gent fiber. Cell contents are very highly digestible andcontain sugars, starch, organic acids, protein, andpectin. Neutral detergent fiber is much less digestibleand contain hemicellulose, cellulose, and undigestiblelignin. Acid detergent fibers is less digestible than theother two fractions because it contains just the cellu-lose and undigestible lignin. This procedure may, intime, replace the old proximal analysis method. At



present, very few range forages have been analyzed bythe detergent or Van Soest method. When the informa-tion is available, the range manager or revegetationspecialist needs to recognize that the higher the cellcontent and lower the acid detergent fiber the moredigestible the range forage.

Other chemical analyses that are useful in judgingthe nutritive value of range plants are the percentagesof lignin, calcium, phosphorus, and carotene. In gen-eral, with the exception of lignin, the higher the better.Although the chemical makeup of range forages givesan indication of their probable nutritive value, theirdigestibility is important in evaluating the ability of aforage to meet the nutrient needs of a range animal.The most useful information then, to a range manageror revegetation specialist, is digestibility.

Digestibility

Digestibility can be determined by either in vitro(outside) or in vivo (inside) means.

In vitro digestibility is a laboratory technique thatsimulates natural ruminant digestion. This techniqueincludes the fermentation of a forage substrate withrumen microorganisms in a buffered digestion solutionat body temperature, and a neutral to slightly acidicpH. After fermentation, the digestive solution is acidi-fied with hydrochloric acid to pH of 1 to 2, and pepsin,an enzyme that digests protein, is added to the diges-tive solution. Upon completion of acidified-pepsin treat-ment, the residue from the test forage is filtered, dried,weighed, and percent of dry matter calculated.

Range animal requirements as expressed in termsof in vitro digested dry matter is about 50 percent formaintenance, 53 percent for gestation, 56 percent forgrowth, and 60 percent for lactation. In general, thehigher the in vitro digestibility of a range forage thehigher the nutritive value.

The main advantages of the in vitro technique aresimplicity, speed, precision, and costs. Disadvantage isthat the digestibility of individual nutrients is unknown.

In vivo digestibility technique consists of feedingthe range forage of interest, usually alone, to ananimal or set of animals and collecting the feces. Usingchemical analysis, the amount of nutrients (1) con-sumed by the test animal(s), and (2) excreted in thefeces is determined. The difference between the twowould represent the portion of the nutrients in the foragedigested by the animal(s). Results of in vivo digestibil-ity trials are expressed as digestion coefficients of thevarious proximate analysis classes, and as total di-gestible nutrients. The calculating of total digestiblenutrients had been described earlier (table 2).

Another way the results of in vivo digestion can beexpressed is in terms of digestible energy (fig. 1). Ingeneral, the higher the digestive coefficients, total

digestible nutrients, and digestible energy, the higherthe nutritive value of the range forage. Complicatingthe judging of nutritive value of range plants is the factthat the nutrient content of a given species varies overtime and space.

Factors Affecting the Nutritive Valueof Range Plants _________________

Factors that affect the morphology and metabolismof range plants also affect the nutritive value of theplants, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Thesefactors include climate, soil, and genetic factors, andexpress themselves in influencing the speed of thephenological development of the range plants. In gen-eral, the qualitative nutritive value of range plantspeak in the spring and then decrease, reaching a lowlevel during the dormant or winter season as demon-strated by the range plants big sagebrush, bitter-brush, and unknown grass (table 7). Fall green up onthe part of certain grass species during wet fallschanges this pattern considerably. Influences on thenutritive content of range forage and on the nutritiverequirement of range animals, actual listing of nutritivevalues of range plants is done according to season—spring, summer, fall, and winter.

Seasonal Nutritive Value of Range Plants

For the range manager or revegetation specialist thetask becomes one of balancing range animals’ nutri-tive needs with the nutritive content of range plants.The range manager or revegetation specialist shouldthink in terms of range plants providing so manypounds per acre of total digestible nutrients, digestibleor crude protein, carotene, and phosphorus. The othernutrients, with the exception of water, are probably inadequate amounts. Sometimes deficiencies occur butonly in local areas. This section is an attempt to listwhat is known about the nutritive values of rangeplants. The section is divided seasonally, and the particu-lar needs of the range animals are also discussed.

Table 7—Seasonal variation of crude protein for Artemisia tridentata(big sagebrush), Purshia tridentata (antelope bitterbrush),and an unknown Nevada grass.

Month/year Big sagebrush Bitterbrush Grass

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - -June 1968 11.8 13.4 13.4July 1968 12.7 12.8 7.8September 1968 11.8 9.7 9.6December 1968 10.5 7.5 2.7March 1969 14.0 9.9 3.4May 1969 15.0 11.3 21.3

Source: Data from Tueller (1979).



Spring Range

Spring range is a time when the energy, protein,phosphorus, and carotene requirements of range ani-mals are highest. This is due to the growing of youngand the lactating of females. From a qualitative view,this is the time when nutritive value of plants is also

highest; however, dry matter production is low at thistime, but increases in late spring. There are some whobelieve that early spring range plants do not providegood forage for range animals. Their belief is based onthe idea that high water content of the forage is a con-trolling agent in forage intake. Dry matter, not watercontent, controls daily forage intake. Grasses and forbs

Table 8—Spring nutritive valuea of selected range plants. Data expressed on a percent of dry matter,except carotene, which is expressed as mg/kg of dry matter.

Plant nameCommon In vitro Crude

Scientificb digestibility protein Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kgGrassesBluebunch wheatgrass 60.6 17.0 0.30 414

Agropyron spicatumBottlebrush squirreltail 72.3 18.5 0.24 3

Sitanion hystrixCrested wheatgrass 72.6 11.3 —c —

Agropyron cristatumDesert wheatgrass 73.6 23.7 0.36 452

Agropyron desertorumIdaho fescue — 14.0 0.30 92

Festuca idahoensisIndian ricegrass 67.1 15.9 — —

Oryzopsis hymenoidesIntermediate wheatgrass 74.3 8.2 — —

Agropyron intermediumNeedle-and-thread grass — 16.2 0.40 —

Stipa comataReed canary grass — 16.2 0.40 —

Phalaris arundinaceaSand dropseed grass — 15.1 0.25 —

Sporobolus cryptandrusSandberg bluegrass 62.2 17.3 0.33 —

Poa secundaSmooth brome

Bromus inermis — 23.5 0.47 493Western wheatgrass 77.2 17.6 0.45 185

Agropyron smithii

ShrubsAntelope bitterbrush 49.2 12.4 0.19 —

Purshia tridentataBig sagebrush 58.1 12.6 0.25 —

Artemisia tridentataCurlleaf mountain mahogany — 9.9 — —

Cercocarpus ledifoliusFourwing saltbush — 14.1 — —

Atriplex canescensLow rabbitbrush — 22.6 0.46 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorusRubber rabbitbrush — 20.7 0.45 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosusUtah juniper 49.0 6.2 0.15 —

Juniperus osteospermaWinterfat — 21.0 — —

Ceratoides lanata

ForbsAlfalfa 86.8 28.5 0.37 372

Medicago sativaAmerican vetch 71.3 21.2 — —

Vicia americanaArrowleaf balsamroot — 28.8 0.43 —

Balsamorhiza sagittataGooseberryleaf globemallow 69.7 19.7 — —

Sphaeralcea grossulariifoliaOneflower helianthella — 20.0 0.40 —

Helianthella unifloraSmall burnet — 17.4 — —

Sanguisorba minor

aValues represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References are on file at theRocky Mountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in thereferences section.

bCommon and scientific names after Plummer and others (1977).cA dash (“—”) means information not available.



in the spring exceed the nutritive content of shrubs.This is illustrated in tables 8 and 11, both listing thespring nutritive values of selected range plants. Onspring ranges, range managers or revegetation spe-cialists should emphasize the production of grassesand forbs with shrubs as backup during drought.

Shrubs are more productive during drought thangrasses or forbs.

Summer Range

During the summer, range animals’ demands for en-ergy, protein, phosphorus, and carotene is a little lower

Table 9—Summer nutritive valuea of selected range plants. Data expressed as a percent of drymatter, except carotene which is expressed as mg/kg of dry matter.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kgGrassesBluebunch wheatgrass 3 14.5 0.23 77

Agropyron spicatumBottlebrush squirreltail 59.7 8.0 0.17 1.1

Sitanion hystrixCrested wheatgrass — — 0.13 —

Agropyron cristatumDesert wheatgrass 51.0 12.1 0.23 153

Agropyron desertorumGalleta — 7.7 0.09 0.4

Hilaria jamesiiIdaho fescue 54.0 9.5 0.18 34

Festuca idahoensisNeedle-and-thread grass — 6.5 0.10 0.4

Stipa comataReed canary grass — 12.4 0.20 —

Phalaris arundinaceaSand dropseed grass — 5.7 0.10 0.4

Sporobolus cryptandrusSandberg bluegrass — 9.4 0.17 43

Poa secundaSmooth brome

Bromus inermis 60.6 11.0 0.28 103Western wheatgrass —c 11.8 — 117

Agropyron smithii

ShrubsAntelope bitterbrush — 13.1 0.22 —

Purshia tridentataBig sagebrush — 13.2 0.40 —

Artemisia tridentataCurlleaf mountain mahogany — 12.2 0.23 —

Cercocarpus ledifoliusFourwing saltbush 47.1 12.0 — —

Atriplex canescensGambel oak — 15.8 — —

Quercus gambelii (leaves)Low rabbitbrush — 12.1 0.35 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorusRubber rabbitbrush — 12.8 0.38 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosusUtah juniper — 8.1 0.21 —

Juniperus osteospermaWinterfat — 13.6 — —

Ceratoides lanata

ForbsAlfalfa — 17.8 0.28 109

Medicago sativaAmerican vetch — 17.6 0.20 —

Vicia americanaArrowleaf balsamroot — 17.0 0.26 —

Balsamorhiza sagittataOneflower helianthella — 12.4 0.31 —


Sanguisorba minor

aValues represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References on file at the RockyMountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the referencessection.




Table 10—Seasonal variation in the nutritive valuea of desert wheatgrass. Data expressed on a dry matter basisexcept carotene which is expressed as mg/kg of dry matter.

In vitro Crude Season digestibility protein Calcium Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kgEarly spring 73 23.6 0.47 0.36 452.0Spring 61 18.0 0.41 0.32 239.0Early summer 51 12.5 0.39 0.23 153.0Late summer 49 12.1 0.29 0.18 75.4Winter 44 3.5 0.27 0.07 0.2

aValues represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References are on file at the Rocky MountainResearch Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the references section.

Table 11—Winter nutritive valuea of selected range plants. Data expressed as a percent of dry matter,except carotene which is expressed as mg/kg of dry matter.



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kgGrassesBluebunch wheatgrass 45.5 3.2 0.05 0.22

Agropyron spicatumWestern wheatgrass 50.2 3.8 0.07 0.20

Agropyron smithiiBottlebrush squirreltail 42.0 4.3 0.07 1.10

Sitanion hystrixDesert wheatgrass 43.7 3.5 0.07 0.20

Agropyron desertorumCrested wheatgrass (fall regrowth) 50.6 15.0 0.39 432

Agropyron cristatumGalleta 48.2 4.6 0.08 0.40

Hilaria jamesiiIdaho fescue 46.1 3.8 0.08 3.00

Festuca idahoensisIndian ricegrass 50.5 3.1 0.06 0.44

Oryzopsis hymenoidesReed canary grass —c 7.8 0.14 —

Phalaris arundinoceaNeedle-and-thread grass 46.6 3.7 0.07 0.40

Stipa comata

(con.)

than during the spring but the nutritive value of rangeforage starts to decline with grasses declining morerapidly than forbs and shrubs (tables 9, 10). By thistime the protein, phosphorus, and carotene levels ingrasses are at or just below the needs of most rangeanimals. Energy level of grasses remain above that inforbs and shrubs. This supports the importance ofhaving a mixture of palatable grasses, forbs, andshrubs available for range animal consumption.

Fall and Winter Range

During the fall and winter season, the nutritiveneeds of range animals, especially wild range animals,drop to maintenance levels. Also, the nutritive contentof range plants drops, in many cases, below the main-tenance levels. Grasses lead this decline in everycategory except in energy, followed by forbs, with

shrubs showing the least amount of decline. In gen-eral, shrubs supply higher fall and winter levels ofcrude protein, phosphorus, and carotene than grassesor forbs (table 11). Grasses, in general, supply higherfall and winter levels of energy than shrubs or forbs.However, some evergreen shrubs, such as big andblack sagebrush and curlleaf mountain mahogany,contain as much energy as grasses. From a nutritionalpoint of view, it is a good range management practiceto manage fall and winter ranges for a balance amonggrasses, forbs, and shrubs.

There are two additional points regarding winternutritional values that need to be discussed (table 11).First: fall regrowth of grasses (crested wheatgrass)provides excellent winter forage to wintering rangeanimals. But crested wheatgrass cannot constitutethe mainstay of a fall and winter range program. Thisis due to two factors; first, fall regrowth does not occur



GrassesSandberg bluegrass — 4.2 — —

Poa secundaSand dropseed grass 53.2 4.1 0.07 0.50

Sporobolus cryptandrusSmooth brome

Bromus inermis 47.0 4.1 0.12 —

ShrubsAntelope bitterbrush 23.5 7.6 0.14 —

Purshia tridentataBig sagebrush 57.8 11.7 0.22 17.6

Artemisia tridentataBlack sagebrush 53.7 9.9 0.18 8.0

Artemisia novaWinterfat 43.5 10.0 0.11 16.8

Ceratoides lanataCurlleaf mountain mahogany 49.1 10.1 — —

Cercocarpus ledifoliusFourwing saltbush 38.3 8.9 — 3.1

Atriplex canescensGambel oak 26.6 5.3 — —

Quercus gambeliiLow rabbitbrush 36.0 5.9 0.15 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorusTrue mountain mahogany 26.5 7.8 0.13 —

Cercocarpus montanusRubber rabbitbrush 44.4 7.8 0.14 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosusStansbury cliffrose 37.6 8.6 — —

Cowania mexicanaUtah juniper 44.1 6.6 0.18 —

Juniperus osteosperma

ForbsArrowleaf balsamroot — 3.6 0.06 —

Balsamorhiza sagittataOneflower helianthella — 2.8 0.17 —


Sanguisorba minor

aValues represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References on file at the RockyMountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the referencessection.


Table 11—(Con.)



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

every fall, and secondly, snow can render the green fallregrowth unavailable for the range animal.

The second point of interest is the high nutritivelevel of big sagebrush (table 11). This range plantspecies has been, and continues to be, much malignedby range managers due to its general characteristic ofbeing unpalatable to cattle grazing spring and sum-mer ranges. If any single range species could be themainstay of a winter range program certainly bigsagebrush would come the closest. Big sagebrushvaries greatly in nutritive value, productivity, siteadaption, and preference. Where highly preferred

stands of big sagebrush are found they should receivemaximum protection from sagebrush control projects.Range managers must make their evaluation of bigsagebrush stands before bud break in the spring.Heavily grazed big sagebrush plants can mask theevidence of being grazed within days of bud break.Recent research has shown that these stands of pre-ferred big sagebrush do not affect grass cell walldigestion (Hobbs and others 1985). Also, big sage-brush provides a dependable source of forage duringdrought for wintering domestic sheep, pronghorn an-telope, and mule deer (McArthur and Welch 1982;Medin and Anderson 1979).


David L. Nelson

15Chapter

Obtaining specific, reliable knowledge on plant diseases isessential in wildland shrub resource management. However,plant disease is one of the most neglected areas of wildlandresources experimental research. This section is a discussion ofplant pathology and how to use it in managing plant diseasesystems.

General principles of agricultural plant pathology apply towildland plant disease. However, unique features limit a generalextension of plant disease control management or methods. Forexample, some fundamental elements of agricultural plant dis-ease management are not applicable, such as annual crop rota-tion and soil fumigation; and other elements are not feasible,such as protective chemical treatment of low value (per unitarea) wildland plants. We have insufficient knowledge of prin-ciples of disease epidemics involving uniform homogenic agricul-tural plants, as opposed to species diversity, such as heterogenic,wildland plant populations. In the latter case, information ismore pertinent from wildland forest tree disease epidemiology.

Plant Pathology andManaging WildlandPlant Disease Systems


Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems

Although diseases of the more treelike shrubs havereceived some study, most wild-shrubland plant dis-ease systems remain unidentified. Wildland plantdisease research suffers from lack of attention, prob-ably because plant diseases are generally less dra-matic than other forms of injury such as fire or insectepidemics. Unless there is a disease epidemic of devas-tating proportions, little action is taken. If revegeta-tion effort is less than successful, plant disease isusually the last explanation given. The effects of plantdisease are usually inconspicuous and subtle. Theimportance of wildland plant pathogens, in a non-ecological sense, can only be judged in terms of compe-tition with humans for the plant harvest or other use.The human-use factor constantly changes, and itsdominant feature will be to constantly increase onWestern United States wildlands. Restoring and man-aging wildland range resources is a comparativelyrecent venture, and the intensiveness of the activitypromises only to increase. Why not take advantage ofexisting knowledge of plant pathology as much aspossible to avoid experiencing the pitfalls and disas-ters, especially in the early phases of agronomy andforestry?

What is Plant Disease? ___________One cannot see a plant disease. Only the symptoma-

tic results of a disease are visible. Plant disease is aphysiological process injurious to the host plant. It isa process that interferes with host plant functions andis extended in time. Disease inducers may be biologi-cal, physical, or an interaction of these environmentalelements.

The more familiar organisms that induce diseaseare fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes. Less fa-miliar are insects, microplasmas, rickettsias, algae,and lichens. Parasitic flowering plants also inducedisease. These are the mistletoes, dodders, and broom-rapes. Physical elements of the plant environmentthat induce disease include certain soil factors, min-eral deficiencies or excesses, air temperature extremes,toxic chemicals, and air pollutants. Damage fromlightning strikes or freezing is not considered to resultin disease because the resulting injurious process isnot pathogen induced.

How to Recognize a PlantDisease________________________

Before plant disease management can be planned,the disease must be diagnosed and the causal agentidentified. To do this, presence of a pathogen or symp-toms of the dysfunction must be determined and char-acterized. Diagnosis is still primarily an art, andtherefore, experience is an important advantage.

If the disease is new or not readily identifiable, thedisease symptoms must be reproduced by experimen-tation. This is usually a time-consuming project ofestablishing proof following the procedure of Koch’spostulates as follows:

1. The inducing agent should be consistently associ-ated with disease.

2. If an organism, it should be isolated, pure cul-tured, characterized, and identified.

3. The isolated organism, when applied in inocu-lation tests under the favorable environment fordisease development, should reproduce the diseasesymptoms.

4. The organism should be reisolated, pure cultured,and found to be the same organism.

Koch’s postulates cannot be followed precisely in allinstances. Cause of diseases that are induced by insecttoxins or abiotic factors can be established by charac-teristic symptoms and by reproducing the disease bywithholding and applying the suspected agent in se-quence to reproduce the symptoms. Nematodes, vi-ruses, and obligately parasitic fungi require modifica-tion of the rules because they are not readily cultured.A further complication exists because more than oneagent can be involved in what is then a disease com-plex. An associated nematode may act only as a vector.An abiotic factor may predispose the potential host toone or more fungal pathogens that may invade in aspecific sequence.

The induced dysfunction or disease, once a pathogenis established, results in visible symptoms for whichthe disease is named and identified. A term describingthe symptom, either alone or along with the name ofthe inducing agent, forms the disease name—aspenleaf blight, stem necrosis, fusarium wilt, canker, bac-terial crown gall, witches’ broom, chlorosis, tobaccomosaic, root rot, decay, and so forth. Structures of theinducing organism are also used in identifying andnaming the disease; for example, spore masses, fruit-ing structures, and vegetative body—and thus, thesigns of the disease such as black stem rust, smuts,blisters, powdery mildews, tar spots, and potato scab.

Identification of wild-shrubland plant diseases suf-fers immensely from a lack of specific literature, par-ticularly in host-pathogen indices, descriptive keys,monographic treatments, and color illustrations forrecognition and verification of diseases.

Disease Occurrence andDevelopment ___________________

The occurrence and development of a disease de-pends on a triad of events: a pathogenic agent, asusceptible host, and a favorable environment inter-acting to result in a disease. The host and pathogenic



organisms are reciprocal environmental elements. Bothexist in a soil and air environment and are influencedby moisture, temperature, light, air movement, soilaeration, chemical and physical soil factors, organicsoil constituents, microorganisms of the leaf, stem,root zone, and an interaction of combinations of thesefactors. The pathogenic organism, in addition to theexternal environment prior to penetration and estab-lishment, is influenced by resistance mechanisms ofthe host that may be directed either actively or pas-sively or both. The host contends with the externalenvironment and the pathogenic mechanisms of theinvading parasite. Both organisms have characteristicenvironmental limits and optimal zones of function.During periods within the required environmentallimits, a pathogen penetrates the host and becomesestablished. When the established pathogen with-stands host defenses, disease development proceedsand the successful pathogen completes its cycle toreproduction.

The occurrence of plant pathogenic organisms andplant disease is a natural, normal phenomenon andpart of the evolutionary and ecological systems of allflora. In natural systems, disease incidence fluctuatesendemically. During periods of change, either naturalor because of human activity, a pathogen may becomeepidemic. Plant diseases caused by pathogenic organ-isms are thought of as contagious. Various types ofpropagules spread or are dispersed in numerous ways:airborne, waterborne, or entirely on their own power(for example, dwarf mistletoe seed). With an unlimitingfood source and absence of inhibitors, reproduction islogarithmic, and the amount of propagule or inoculumincrease is exponential. Circumstances are ideal for anepidemic or explosive spread of a disease when thereis a large host population that is homogenic, nonspe-cific, in a uniformly susceptible stage of development,and where environmental conditions are optimal forpathogen spread, infection, and rapid regeneration.

Some common wildland management practices thatcould create ideal circumstances for epidemics are asfollows:

1. Introduction of a plant that is susceptible to anendemic pathogen or the reciprocal.

2. Genetic selection of a plant population withoutregard to disease resistance.

3. Vegetative modification through managementpractices that tend to reduce heterogeneity bothinter- and intraspecifically.

4. Modifications that influence populations of in-sects that are vectors of plant pathogens.

5. Large scale off-site plantings.

Principles of Plant DiseaseManagement __________________

Managing plant disease deals largely with preven-tion of infection in plant populations rather thanwith cure or therapy of diseased individuals. There-fore, it is imperative that action be taken in advanceof infection. Essentials for sound management plan-ning include a basic knowledge of the host plant,pathogen life cycle, and environmental factors such astemperature, moisture, and light intensity that influ-ence pathogen disease dynamics. The rationale orjustification for disease management and experimen-tal research is found in past disease experience ratherthan immediate crises.

Methods for preventing, curing, or reducing theseverity of disease are directed at the inducing agentfollowing one or more basic principles as follows:

1. Avoiding the pathogenic agent.2. Exclusion of the pathogen from an area.3. Eradication of an established pathogen.4. Protection of the plant by placing a barrier.5. Curing infected plants.6. Improving host resistance.

Avoiding the Plant Disease

Site Selection—In vegetative restoration, selec-tion of the site is not usually a basis of avoiding a plantdisease organism on the site. However, potential dis-ease problems can be evaluated, based on an analysisof plant pathogens on the site. Species selection crite-ria should exclude known potential hosts of endemicpathogens and native or exotic species of unknownsusceptibility. Another potential danger could be thepresence of insect vectors of an endemic pathogen thatcould spread a virus, for example, to revegetationplants. Selection of seed increase planting sites orspecies evaluation sites could avoid pathogen infestedagricultural land. Evaluation of soil and climatic fac-tors could avoid abiotic diseases.

Pathogen-Free Planting Stock—Use of pathogen-free planting stock should be a routine revegetationrequirement. This applies to seed, bare root nurserystock, containerized stock, or in fact, any propagativematerial. An inspection and certification program isessential to ensure that planting material is pathogenfree. Procedures for sanitary packaging, shipment,and protection from contamination during plantingneed to be developed. Use of native plants for reveg-etation projects is in its infancy as is the production,sale, and purchase of seed and planting stock byprivate firms or government agencies. A major portion



of native plant seed is collected from wildlands wheredisease status is unknown. Only recently have privateand government concerns begun producing plantingstock. Presently there is little or no factual basis forevaluating the disease status of propagative material.Revegetative work in the Western United States isproceeding at great risk in view of this well establishedprinciple.

Excluding the Plant Pathogen

Plant pathogens may be excluded from a revegeta-tion site by inspection, pretreatment of propagativematerial, soil treatment, and eradicating insect vectors.

Treatment of Propagative Material—Propaguletreatment to assure pathogen-free planting materialis more applicable at the propagule increase certifica-tion level than for large rangeland revegetation ef-forts. Aerated steam, hot water, gases, and radiationare used to eliminate pathogens from planting mate-rial. The thermal death point of most pathogens islower than for most plants and thus pathogens can beeliminated from the host plant by various heat treat-ment methods. Ultraviolet light, x-ray, gamma-ray,and other electromagnetic radiations are used to killpathogens in plant material. Meristem culture is usedto eliminate fungi, viruses, and bacteria and producepathogen-free plants.

Quarantine of Diseased Plants—Quarantinesare difficult to implement and control. In most in-stances they are justified even if they only result indelaying entrance of pathogens into a new area. Ex-cluding a virulent pathogen from an area to which itwould not likely spread by natural means is the mostjustifiable basis for quarantine. If there is little or noknowledge of specific pathogens, as is the case withmost wildland plants, there is full justification for acomplete quarantine. Present interstate or interre-gional shipment of seed and other planting materialshould be discontinued until there is a basis for estab-lishing the risks involved.

Eradication of the Plant Pathogen

Eradication, like other control methods, is not usu-ally thought of in absolute terms. The objective is toreduce the pathogen population to a level that permitsa suitable return or product. The objective of biologicalcontrol is to eradicate the pathogen enough from anarea to allow an acceptable return.

Sanitation—This is an extremely important me-thod of preventing disease problems although not asdirectly applicable to wildland revegetation projectssuch as production of planting material in nurseries,greenhouses, and seed increase plantings. In theproduction of certified pathogen-free seed and other

planting material, roguing of diseased plants, elimi-nation of weeds that may harbor pathogens, or alter-nate hosts of heteroecious fungi are essential. Alter-nate hosts and weeds can also serve as spheres forsexual recombination and evolution of new virulentraces. Such hosts and weeds should not be permittednear experimental areas where genetic improvementactivities are in progress.

Crop Rotation and Soil Treatment—While notapplicable eradication methods in solving diseaseproblems in wildland management, crop rotation andsoil treatments are of high value in seed garden,nursery, and greenhouse operations.

Benefits from crop rotation depend on a thoroughknowledge of the hosts and pathogens involved. Thetheory is to plant a nonhost or immune crop followinga crop that may have increased a specific pathogenpopulation. Soil fumigation should be a routine prac-tice in nurseries and seed increase plantings. To fumi-gate only when disease problems begin to threaten isan unwise practice. Aerated steam treatment or soilfumigation should be followed rigidly in all green-house operations intended to produce healthy contain-erized planting stock.

Protecting Plants from Pathogens

Application of protective chemicals is a familiarmethod of plant disease prevention but is of question-able feasibility on wildlands. The principle is to pre-vent infection by coating seeds or plants with a sub-stance toxic to the pathogen. With cultural methods,for example, plants in greenhouses may also be pro-tected from pathogens by preventing long periods offree moisture that may be required for infection bycertain fungi. Seed is dried and then stored at tem-peratures unfavorable to seed pathogens.

Curing a Diseased Plant

Some diseases can be cured by use of systemicchemicals that are directly toxic to the pathogen. Heattreatment is also used to cure plants infected withsystemic viruses or vascular fungi. Localized diseasedportions of plants, like mistletoe, witches’ brooms, fireblighted branches, or stem galls, for example, can beremoved by pruning to rid the plant of the disease.Curing or therapy as a means of control is limited tohigh value individual plants and the production ofpathogen-free propagative material.

Improving Host Resistance

All plants are susceptible to some pathogens, but allplants are also resistant to most pathogens. Evolutionof this equilibrium provides the basis for mutualsurvival of both organisms (pathogen-susceptible and



pathogen-resistant plants), and is exploited in patho-gen resistance selection and breeding programs. Theseprograms are, however, long-term, expensive, andunwise ventures without a dedicated commitment. Inthe final analysis, when disease resistance can beimproved, it is usually one of the most economicalmeans of managing disease problems.

The host-pathogen-environment interaction mustbe thoroughly understood before a breeding programcan be credible. There are many examples with agri-cultural crop plants of successfully improving diseaseresistance, however, improvement is usually a slowprocess. The success of using improved resistance inagronomy depends on a corresponding cultural con-trol, and both are justifiable because of the high valueof the crop. The infeasibility of practices such asfertilization, weed control, insect control, and irriga-tion in wildland management limits the usefulness ofdisease management to improving resistance. Never-theless, improving disease resistance has an impor-tant potential for managing wildland plant disease.

Biological Management of PlantPathogens _____________________

The dynamic fluctuation of organism populations innatural systems has evolved from an interaction ofassociated organisms and their physical environmentto the system said to be in biological balance. Humansare disrupters of this balance, and this is the origin oftheir problems. The stability of biological systems isproportional to their complexity. Management sys-tems in agronomy and forestry tend to create instabil-ity by simplifying biological systems. Parasitic organ-isms react abnormally in human-disrupted systems inagronomy and forestry, and tend to create instabilityby simplifying biological systems. The premise ofbiological management is to use the diverse phenom-ena of natural systems to restore the balance. But tolive with this system, humans must agree to share theharvest with microorganisms. In other words, theobjective of biological management is to reduce, noteliminate, human loss to plant pathogens. With thissystem, people are not direct participants (such as isan application of a fungicide), rather they manage therestoration of natural systems through joining a knowl-edge of biological plant systems. Recent theory andprinciples of biological management now being di-rected toward agronomic plant disease, have evolvedby following natural systems.

In restoring and managing wildland plant resources,managing plant disease is an important part of theproblem. From a scientific basis there is no benefit toproceed without giving attention to plant pathogens.We can successfully use both low cost plant disease

management and also natural biological methods. Wehave before us, in the Western United Statesshrublands, biological systems more “truthful” andeffective in their natural state than exist in agricul-ture and intensive forestry. Natural microbiologicalsystems are now being modified and threatened byresource management practices that hardly considertheir existence. It is an endangered system. An imme-diate prime effort of wildland resource managementand scientific research should be directed to under-standing these systems.

Outline for Managing PlantDisease in Wild-Shrubland PlantImprovement and RevegetationPractice _______________________

I. Define management needsII. Review and select potential plant species with

themIII. Establish genetic control

1. Review plant characteristics desirable forhuman-centered objectives.

2. Review plant characteristics required forplant survival and evolution.

3. Define geographic limits of a plant popula-tion possessing these characteristics.

4. Define the variability of all required charac-teristics within the population.

5. Based on variability, develop a statisticallyvalid random sampling method for selectionof plant propagule collection points.

IV. Preserve gene pool variability1. Evaluate seed collection, cleaning, storage,

scarification, stratification, germination,planting, establishment techniques for thepotential of reducing genetic variability.

2. Evaluate loss of individual plants because ofbiological and physical factors during re-search experimentation for potential of re-ducing genetic variability.

3. Base experimental design on population vari-ability. For example, sample size or replica-tion number should be based on preservingplant variability, not on experimental dollarlimitations.

V. Attending dangers of narrowing plant gene pools1. Planting site location limitations.2. Potential for insect and disease epidemics.3. Short-term plant survival.4. High cost management.5. Modifying the nature and direction of plant

evolution.6. Decertification.


Richard Stevens

16Chapter

Management of restored and rehabilitated ranges can be di-vided into (1) post-treatment, which we are most concerned withherein, and (2) management of the subsequent mature commu-nity. Immediate post-treatment management can positively ornegatively affect the ultimate success and longevity of a project,and the actual returns and benefits received. It is essential tofollow good post-treatment management practices to obtain themaximum return on investments made. The post-treatmentmanagement period may last as long as 10 years followingtreatment.

Management of restored and rehabilitated ranges will varydepending on the goals or objectives of the project. The mostcommon overall objective of a project is to enhance soil stability.Some companion objectives could be to provide for maximumestablishment and maintenance of seeded and desirable indig-enous species, increase livestock production, improve wildlifehabitat, and improve the appearance of the landscape.

Management ofRestored andRevegetated Sites


Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

The principal immediate post-treatment manage-ment objective should be to provide for maximumestablishment and development of seeded and desir-able indigenous species. Once this has been accom-plished, other objectives will likely follow.

An important step in any revegetation project is theselection of species to be seeded. Many species used inrangeland improvement projects are adapted to a widearray of range types. Individual plant species do notrespond to various management practices in the sameway and to the same degree on all sites.

Amount and distribution of precipitation in theIntermountain West is perhaps one of the most im-portant factors in determining to what degree a rangeimprovement project succeeds or fails during the es-tablishment period. Above-average precipitation canresult in some outstanding successful projects. Projectsshould be planned on the basis of average yearlyprecipitation. Below-average precipitation during yearsof establishment will change post-treatment manage-ment. Managers have little or no control over climaticfactors, outbreaks of rabbits, insects, rodents, or dis-ease, which can affect the success and complicate thepost-treatment management of a project (fig. 1). Oneor all of these factors has the potential of destroying orreducing the success of a project.

Managers must control the influence that humanactivities and grazing animals have on a project.These factors can positively or negatively affect thesuccess of a project. During the establishment period,livestock grazing and any damaging activities of manmust be controlled. Human activities and grazinganimals can trample seedlings, pull seedlings up,remove foliage, reduce plant vigor and rate of estab-lishment, reduce growth, retard seed production,

Figure 1—Effect of heavy blacktailed jackrabbituse on seedling establishment and forage pro-duction. Mule deer and jackrabbit use on the left,mule deer use only on the right.

decrease or slow down soil stabilization, and spreadand increase the abundance of undesirable plantspecies.

The manager makes the decisions concerning when,where, how much, and what type of grazing and humanactivity is to occur following treatment. Project objec-tives and management plans should be based on sitepotential, expected rate of establishment, plant com-munity makeup, and climatic factors. The presence orabsence of rodents, rabbits, insects, and disease mustbe considered. Plans have to be flexible enough tocompensate for any changes from the expected whenthe decision is made to graze, or not to graze, and howmuch. Development and condition of the project andnot plans should determine post-treatment grazing.

If the project objective is only soil stabilization, estab-lishment and maintenance of seeded species would besimpler than when other objectives are considered. Bypreventing grazing or other disturbing influences, oneshould be able to accomplish the desired objective ofsoil stabilization with less effort and in less time.

As a general rule, treated and seeded sites shouldnot be grazed until at least the end of the secondgrowing season following seeding (tables 1 and 2;Plummer and others 1968; Reynolds and Martin 1968;Vallentine 1980; Vallentine and others 1963; fig. 2).Minimum period of rest following treatment will varywith vegetative type treated; grass, forb, and shrubspecies seeded; climatic conditions immediately pre-ceding, during, and following treatment; soils; seed-bed preparation and seeding techniques employed;presence and severity of competing weedy species;plant disease; and number and kinds of insects, ro-dents, or rabbits on the site (table 2).

When grazing is allowed, it should be lighter thanwould normally be allowed with a fully mature com-munity, even if forage production figures suggestthat heavier use might be permitted. Grazing shouldonly occur when it is least damaging to the newlyestablished species. Spring and early summer use canbe very damaging on newly seeded ranges (fig. 3).Special considerations should be given to seeded andindigenous shrubs, because shrubs establish and de-velop much slower than grasses and forbs. There areslow growing and fast growing shrubs (table 3; fig. 4).The level of grazing should be controlled to allowseeded and released shrubs to establish, and growenough that they will not be harmed by grazing. Asgrasses and forbs mature, cattle and sheep use will beless detrimental. During the establishment period,the intensity of grazing has to be adjusted on a seasonto season basis, and allowance made for phenologicalstage of development, as well as for climatic and bioticinfluences.

The drier the treated site, the slower that plantedspecies will establish and develop. Species seeded on ajuniper-pinyon site that receives 11 inches (27.9 cm) ofannual precipitation will establish and develop slower



Table 1—Recommended minimum years of nongrazing following revegetation of different vegetative types, andaccording to special treatments and site conditions.

Recommended growingSpecial treatment or seasons with no livestock

Vegetative type site conditions grazing following seeding

Subalpine 3Aspen-conifer 2Aspen, Gambel oak, maple Broadcast seed prior to leaf fall 3Ponderosa pine 2Mountain brush 2Juniper-pinyon Above 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 2Juniper-pinyon Below 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 3Mountain big sagebrush 2Basin big sagebrush Above 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 2Basin big sagebrush Below 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 3Wyoming big sagebrush Above 12 inches (30 cm) annual precipitation 3Wyoming big sagebrush Below 12 inches (30 cm) annual precipitation 4Black sagebrush 3Shadscale 3 to 4Black greasewood 2Inland saltgrass 1Blackbrush 3

than the same species on an adjacent juniper-pinyonsite that receives 14 inches (35.6 cm) annual precipita-tion. The drier sites will require at least an additionalyear or more of nonuse (table 2). If a sagebrush areathat receives an average of 15 inches (38.1 cm) annualprecipitation is treated and seeded and then receivesonly 10 to 11 inches (25.4 to 27.9 cm), the first one ortwo seasons following seeding, grazing may have to

Table 2—Additional growing seasons of nonuse (beyond rec-ommended growing seasons indicated in table 1)required due to special conditions.

Site conditions Years

Burned and broadcast seeded +1Slower growing shrubs seeded +2 to +4

or released (table 3)Seedings in cheatgrass, red brome, +l to +3

medusahead, or halogetoncommunities

Poor seedbed conditions +1Erosive soils +l to +3Soils with exposed and +2

disturbed subsoilPrecipitation 2 or more inches +1 to +3

(5 cm) less than averageduring first growing season

Precipitation 2 or more inches +1(5 cm) less than average duringsecond and third growing season

Outbreak of insects or disease +1 to +3Excessive number of rodents and rabbits +1 to +3

be delayed by as much as 2 years beyond what wasplanned to obtain adequate establishment and growth.

Seeded species need to be given the opportunity toput down substantial root systems, to accumulatecarbohydrate reserves, and, in the case of some grassesand forbs, to produce a seed crop. To ensure a healthyvigorous plant community it is essential that grassesand forbs be given the opportunity to produce seed thefirst few years following seeding and every few yearsthereafter. Improper grazing and sub-optimal climaticconditions are the two major factors that negativelyaffect seed production.

Figure 2—A highly productive 4-year-old reha-bilitation project in a juniper-pinyon-Gambel oaktype. The site was grazed lightly at the end of thesecond growing season following seeding. Lightgrazing occurred the third year following seeding.



The degree of seedling vigor and rate of establish-ment and growth will influence the timing and inten-sity of subsequent grazing. Species with exceptionalseedling vigor and a fast rate of root and abovegroundgrowth can be grazed sooner than those with lessseedling vigor or a slower establishment and growthrate (table 3; fig. 5). A good indication of well estab-lished, vigorous plants is excellent seed production.When a mixture of species is seeded, management hasto be tailored to accommodate the characteristics andrequirements of all the species. Post-treatment man-agement should be directed toward the slower devel-oping species (table 3). Many forbs develop slower

Figure 3—Results of poor post-treatmentmanagement. The area was grazed tooearly and too heavy the second and thirdyear following seeding. The seeded specieswere weakened and killed by grazing, allow-ing cheatgrass to once again dominate.

Figure 4—Fast growing white rubber rabbit-brush, fourwing saltbush, and big sagebrushare fully established in this 6-year-old rangeimprovement project in a juniper-pinyon type.Antelope bitterbrush growth is considerablyslower. The area was spring grazed by cattleduring the 2 preceding years.

Table 3—Years normally required for certain plant species to establish, mature, and flower.

Fast Intermediate Slow Very slow2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 6 years

Bluegrass, Kentucky Alfalfa Crownvetch BalsamrootBrome, mountain Aster spp. Lupine spp. Bitterbrush, antelopeBurnet, small Brome, Regar Milkvetch, cicer Ceanothus, MartinKochia, forage Brome, smooth Rabbitbrush, low Ceanothus, snowbushOrchardgrass Canarygrass, reed Rabbitbrush, rubber Chokecherry, blackRye, mountain Dropseed, sand Ricegrass, Indian CliffroseSquirreltail, bottlebrush Eriogonum, Wyeth Sacaton, alkali Currant, goldenSweetclover, yellow Fescue, hard sheep Sagebrush, big Elderberry, blueTimothy Flax, Lewis Sagebrush, black Ephedra, greenWheatgrass, crested Globemallow Saltbush, fourwing Mountain mahogany, curlleafWheatgrass, desert Goldeneye, showy Shadscale Mountain mahogany, trueWheatgrass, intermediate Penstemon, Palmer Sweetvetch, Utah Serviceberry, SaskatoonWheatgrass, pubescent Sainfoin Wildrye, Great BasinWheatgrass, slender Sweetanise Wildrye, Russian

Wheatgrass, bluebunch WinterfatWheatgrass, SiberianWheatgrass, tall

than most grasses. Most shrubs develop slower thangrasses or forbs. When shrubs are included in the seedmix, more than 2 years, and possibly 5 to 6 years, ofnonuse following seeding may be required. A fewshrubs such as fourwing saltbush, winterfat, rabbit-brush, forage kochia, and big sagebrush, possess afaster rate of growth and maturation. These specieswill often produce a seed crop and be within 80 percentof their maximum forage production potential within3 years following establishment (fig. 4).

Many range improvement projects are conducted ondepleted sites having some degree of erosion problem.Because of soil loss, site potential may not be as great



Figure 5—Shrubs establish and developmuch slower than grasses and forbs. Grazingmust be closely controlled until all seededspecies become completely established andindigenous species recover.

Figure 6—This disturbed riparian site wasbroadcast seeded. Shrubs were transplantedalong the water’s edge. Grazing should beexcluded until the disturbance is completelystabilized and the shrubs are fully establishedand reproducing vegetatively.

as it once was. The rate of species establishmentand growth is influenced by the soil’s productivitypotential.

Seedling establishment and growth often vary withsite preparation techniques. In soils that have beenlightly tilled (plowed or disked), seedlings can developfaster, and may be more numerous the first and secondyear than on less tilled sites. However, seedlings intilled soils may be more susceptible to transplantingand pulling damage, due to the loose nature of the soil.Young plants growing in sandy soils are more suscep-tible to grazing and transplanting damage than areseedlings on areas with heavier soils.

Depleted aspen and Gambel oak areas can be seededprior to leaf fall, with no other treatment being re-quired. Seedling growth and plant maturity is inhib-ited under these conditions. Grazing is not recom-mended on these areas for at least three or fourgrowing seasons following seeding.

Sites with aggressive annuals (cheatgrass, red brome,medusahead, and halogeton) on them prior to treat-ment, need to be given special management consid-eration (fig. 3). Care must be taken with grazing.Seeded and indigenous species generally develop slowerin the presence of aggressive annuals than on siteswithout annuals. Livestock grazing in these situa-tions may have to be delayed longer than would nor-mally be needed to allow for proper seedling establish-ment and community development.

Once a seeded community has become established,grazing must be closely regulated. Most annuals arenever totally eliminated from a site. Annuals in acommunity are waiting for the opportunity to increase,and will do so when the seeded community is weakenedthrough misuse. Annuals can once again become thedominate species with improper management (fig. 3).

It is not fully understood how most seeded (nativeand introduced) and indigenous species will respondto each other and to grazing. Because of the manyphysical and biological factors associated with animprovement project, the manager must expect theunexpected, and be flexible enough to adapt manage-ment plans accordingly. To do otherwise may harmsome species in the community, encourage others, anddiminish the potential values and habitats associatedwith the project.

Some projects may include transplanting. Trans-plants establish at various rates. Site characteristics,range condition, age and condition of transplants, soilcondition and type, soil moisture, and occurrence ofpost-planting precipitation can all affect rate of trans-plant establishment. Transplants need to be firmlyrooted and producing good top growth before anygrazing occurs.

Seeded and transplanted species in riparian situa-tions may require a considerable amount of time tobecome established and to stabilize the site. Becauseriparian areas are generally heavily used by livestockand humans, all grazing and human activities shouldbe removed at the time of treatment. Use cannotresume until all seeded and planted species, as well asindigenous species, are completely established or haverecovered, and the disturbed areas has stabilized(fig. 6). When grazing is resumed, animal densities,distribution, and duration of use on the area must beclosely monitored. Proper distribution of livestockbecomes very critical. Human activities must be con-trolled and monitored, and proper action taken whennecessary.



Figure 7—A mourning dove nest in an ungrazedjuniper-pinyon chaining-seeding rehabilitationproject.

Excessive use by big game can result in harm toimprovement projects. The chances of this happeningare small. If this occurs, a reduction in numbers, theexclusion of game animals, and period of nonuse pro-grams can be initiated. This could include the erectionof temporary electric fences, implementation of spe-cial hunting seasons, or herding of livestock and game.If needed, big game reduction programs should becarried out prior to the project. Animal numbers anddegree of use fluctuate seasonally and yearly, depend-ing on weather, conditions of adjacent ranges that biggame use, animals’ health, reproduction rate, preda-tors, disturbances, and type and timing of hunts andhunter success.

Most project areas require access roads. Unneededor undesirable roads should be closed and seeded uponcompletion of each project. When improperly con-structed, roads can become erosion channels. Newroads can increase human activities on a site, result-ing in (a) disturbance of livestock and wildlife activi-ties, (b) reduction in livestock and wildlife use, (c) de-struction of seeded and planted species, especially onriparian sites, (d) additional human use of waterdevelopment, (e) increased on- and off-road vehicletravel, (f) increased fire potential, (g) additional soilerosion, and (h) increased use by horses. New accessroads can likewise concentrate livestock use, resultingin depleted areas.

Destructive and harmful human activities thatshould be controlled on a new rehabilitation projectinclude camping and associated activities, off-road

and on-road vehicle travel, horseback riding, fires,gate closure problems (cattle guards can alleviate thisproblem), wood gathering, livestock trailing and hu-man activity during critical wildlife periods such asbreeding, nesting (fig. 7), fawning, calving, periods ofdeep and crusted snow, low forage availability, andother stressful periods.

Permanent or temporary fences can be used to helpcontrol grazing and human activities. Solar-poweredelectric fences are ideal for temporary protection ofrehabilitation sites. Monitoring and repair of fencingis essential to the success of any project.


Richard StevensStephen B. Monsen

17Chapter

Introduction _____________________________________

Range and wildland improvement projects conducted through-out the Intermountain region normally occur within specificplant communities. Each plant community has unique featuresthat require different equipment, planting techniques, and plantmaterials to conduct improvement projects. Plant communitiesor associations discussed in this chapter are: (1) subalpineherblands and upper elevation aspen openings, (2) wet andsemiwet meadows, (3) inland saltgrass, (4) riparian, (5) aspen-conifer, (6) mountain brush-ponderosa pine, (7) juniper-pinyon,(8) sagebrush, (9) salt desert shrub, (10) blackbrush, (11) annualweedy grasses—cheatgrass brome, red brome, and medusahead,and (12) lowland annual weeds.

Guidelines for Restorationand Rehabilitation ofPrincipal PlantCommunities


Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Following is a description of each community, equip-ment and techniques recommended to control compe-tition, a description of methods to prepare sites forplanting, and a list of adapted species suggested forseeding. Additional information related to competi-tion removal and site preparation is found in chap-ters 8, 9, 10, and 11; seeding procedures in chapter12; and species descriptions, ecological relationshipsand distribution, plant culture, uses and manage-ment, and improved varieties and ecotypes in chapters18 through 23.

Species selected for seeding depend on the objectivesof the project. In general, planting projects fall intotwo categories: (1) If the principal objective is torestore plant communities, then treatments would beconducted to reestablish native species; this practice isreferred to as “Restoration.” (2) If the objective is toestablish plants on a disturbance or change the speciescomposition, then a combination of introduced andnative species could be used and the practice would beconsidered “Rehabilitation” or “Revegetation.” Few, ifany, introduced species would be planted in restora-tion projects because the primary objective is to en-hance the ultimate development of native communi-ties. To date, restoration of some native communitiesmay be somewhat limited by the availability of nativeseeds and planting stock. In addition, techniques andprocedures to restore entire native communities arenot fully understood. However, considerable informa-tion has been developed to restore certain communi-ties and native species. In addition, studies have beendirected to investigate ecotypic variability and ecologyof selected native species. The studies have beendesigned to define the range of occurrence of specificecotypes and the ecological and biotic factors regulat-ing the presence of individual ecotypes. This informa-tion has been used to develop specific guidelines forrestoration.

Successful restoration plantings are based on theselection of adapted ecotypes and seeding compatiblespecies at appropriate rates with appropriate tech-niques. Establishment of species that may have ex-isted in a natural community is often difficult toachieve, especially if all species are planted at onetime. In most situations, planting should be designedto initiate or promote plant successional changes thatwould ultimately develop the desired community.

Restoration of depleted plant communities isbecoming an increasingly important objective. Re-establishment of resource values is often achievedthrough recovery of native communities. In manyinstances, revegetation programs have failed to pro-vide the desired objectives that would be achievedthrough restoration.

To date, many seeding or planting projects would beclassified as revegetation programs. Sites that havebeen disturbed and support an undesirable array ofplants, including some weeds, are frequently plantedwith a number of introduced and native species. Nu-merous introduced grasses and broadleaf herbs haveproven adapted to western plant communities. Manyadvanced cultivars have been developed to revegetatedisturbed and depleted areas, and these are widelyseeded in revegetation projects. Various introducedspecies are commonly used as substitutes for nativespecies. Many introduced species are widely usedbecause they possess excellent establishment traitsand furnish high quality forage. Although these areimportant characteristics, a few introduced specieshave, unfortunately, dominated many seeding pro-grams. Too often, areas seeded to a few introducedspecies are assumed to restore or provide all of theoriginal resources of a native community. Carefulevaluation of such plantings does not confirm theseassumptions.

Many introductions possess desirable features andcan be seeded for specific purposes. As mentioned,various species provide productive, high quality herb-age. Others are extremely valuable in the control ofnoxious weeds, and many have the ability to stabilizeand colonize harsh disturbances. If planted for thesespecific purposes, the plants are quite valuable. Un-fortunately, introduced species have often been sownin an attempt to restore disturbed sites and improvenatural conditions. In many situations, the seededplants have adversely affected subsequent develop-ment of entire communities. Misuse of a few widelyadapted grasses including smooth brome, intermedi-ate and pubesent wheatgrass, hard sheep fescue, Ken-tucky bluegrass, and crested and desert wheatgrasshas occurred. In general, these species attain domi-nance and prevent recovery of native species and theultimate recovery of desired communities. Smoothbrome has commonly been seeded throughout moun-tain brush, aspen, and subalpine communities. Thisgrass has suppressed and replaced many herbaceousspecies on these sites. Similarly, intermediate,pubesent, crested, and desert wheatgrass have gaineddominance when seeded in the pinyon-juniper, bigsagebrush, and mountain brush types. Desert wheat-grass has gained control in low elevation regionsoccupied by big sagebrush and, to a lesser extent, saltdesert shrubs. These species prevent the establish-ment of understory herbs and the natural regenera-tion of important native shrubs. Consequently, the useof such widely adapted introductions to restore nativecommunities should be avoided. The use of manyintroductions will likely continue until native plantmaterials become more widely available. In addition,



introductions will continue to be used for specificpurposes. Of particular importance is their usefulnessto control the spread of some undesirable weeds and tostabilize severely disturbed watersheds.

Native species can also be misused, resulting indisruption of community development or weak stands.In various situations, certain natives have been usedin an effort to replace less desirable species withoutadequate consideration of the adaptability of theplanted species. For example, bluebunch wheatgrasshas been planted with limited success as a replace-ment for Sandberg bluegrass. Fourwing saltbush,winterfat, and antelope bitterbrush have been unsuc-cessfully planted as replacements for big sagebrush.Palmer penstemon and Lewis flax have been widelyseeded, often in areas where they are marginallyadapted. These practices should be avoided.

Sites that have been altered and are no longercapable of supporting some native species are usuallyrevegetated with the most adapted and available spe-cies that would provide needed ground cover or habi-tat. In these situations, combinations of native orintroduced species are commonly used and should beencouraged.

Plantings are often designed to allow for changes inspecies compositions. For example, many shrublandswithin the Intermountain region have been convertedto grass for livestock benefits. In addition, certainwildlands have been disrupted by municipal or agri-cultural development. Mitigation programs have beenemployed to convert the remaining wildlands to amore productive status. Interseeding of additionalspecies accompanied by fertilization, irrigation, orother site improvement techniques are used to sup-port changes in the vegetation. These specific prac-tices would be considered revegetation measures.

In some situations, weed presence has altered manysites, preventing natural recovery. Introductions areoften used to control and eliminate weeds, restore siteproductivity, and provide seedbed conditions that fa-vor the establishment of more diverse species. Reveg-etation plantings are widely employed to stabilizewatersheds, roadways, mining, and other serious dis-turbances. Some introduced species have proven welladapted to these harsh sites, and are capable of per-sisting on infertile soils. In addition, they may be ableto provide excellent ground cover and soil protection.

Various species are listed in this section that areadapted to major vegetative communities and can beused for different planting purposes (tables 1 to 28; alltables are grouped at the end of the chapter). Appro-priate seed mixtures should be used to restore nativecommunities or revegetative sites for specific pur-poses. Misuse of species can adversely affect commu-nity development.

Seeding normally involves the use of more than onespecies. When combinations of plants with differentgermination and establishment traits are seeded to-gether, competition among species can regulate seed-ling survival. Many grass species that are commonlysown have excellent seedling vigor and establishmenttraits. These plants have been selected for their easeof establishment, uniform stand development, andseedling survival. Many perennial native herbs alsopossess good establishment features, and generallydevelop acceptable stands when seeded under mostconditions. Many species that normally invade dis-turbances are able to colonize harsh, open sites.When possible, these pioneering species are com-monly used as part of a seed mixture to better assureplant establishment.

When species with different establishment charac-teristics are seeded together, considerable seedlingmortality can be expected unless special provisionsare made to separate seeds in the furrow or seedbed.Seeds with different establishment traits can be seededin separate rows, and the amount of seed sown can beadjusted to reduce competition or compensate forsome natural thinning. Broadcast seeding can lessenseedling competition as seeds of different species aremore widely distributed and less concentrated com-pared with row seedings.

The ability of individual species to become estab-lished is, of course, dependent on: (1) whether a spe-cies is sown alone, (2) the establishment features ofthe companion species, (3) the amount of seedplanted, (4) the composition and density of onsitespecies, (5) climatic conditions, and (6) seedbedconditions.

It is essential that the compatibility of individualspecies and seeding requirements are understood be-fore complex seed mixtures are developed. The estab-lishment features of species recommended for seedingspecific sites are summarized in tables 1 through 28.The present abundance and composition of remnantplants that exist on a proposed planting site alsostrongly influence the success of a seeding. Normally,weed control measures are used to eliminate undesir-able competition. However, many improvementprojects are designed to retain existing native plants.These plants can and do compete with new seedlings.Seeding techniques can be used to interseed or selec-tively plant areas without significantly eliminatingremnant plants.

Subalpine Herblands and UpperElevation Aspen Openings ________

Subalpine herblands and aspen openings are usu-ally very productive and important sites. They provide



forage and cover, serve as important watersheds, andprovide recreation opportunities (fig. 1). However,many subalpine herblands, with their parklike open-ings, have been so degraded (fig. 2) that they onlysupport weeds or low-value plants. Natural openingsscattered among aspen and conifer forests have beendegraded by heavy grazing (Ellison and others 1951;Meeuwig 1960). These areas often support undesir-able plants including starwort, goosefoot violet, clus-ter tarweed, flixweed tansymustard, and Douglasknotweed. Sites within some conifer forests often lackan acceptable understory, and when timber is har-vested, the areas are extremely barren and frequently

Figure 1—Subalpine herblands provide summerforage, furnish watershed protection, and providerecreational opportunities.

Figure 2—A subalpine area that has been seriouslydepleted by grazing lacks essential cover and is asource of erosion.

invaded by undesirable weeds (Ellison 1954; Ellisonand others 1951). Successful rehabilitation can mark-edly increase the value of these ranges for wildlife,livestock, and watershed protection (Brown andJohnston 1978b; Brown and others 1978; Heede 1981;Meeuwig 1960; Plummer 1976; Turner and Paulsen1976).

Some subalpine areas are relatively small, butthey can be very productive (fig. 1). These areas areimportant summer ranges for sheep and cattle, muledeer, elk, moose, bear, and several species of grouse(fig. 3a, b). Elevation of subalpine herblands variesbetween 7,000 and 12,000 ft (2,150 and 3,600 m). Mostsites occur above 7,800 ft (2,400 m). Because thesehigh elevation areas receive 20 to 60 inches (500 to1,500 mm) of precipitation annually, they are impor-tant watersheds. Sites requiring restoration oftenoccur on steep, inaccessible terrain. Within the subal-pine communities of the Intermountain West, com-mon grasses include Letterman needlegrass, slenderwheatgrass, mountain brome, and spike trisetum.Some important forbs are Louisiana sage, westernyarrow, penstemons, geraniums, ligusticum, asters,lupine, and bluebell. Principal shrubs include currants,snowberry, low rabbitbrush, and subalpine big sage-brush. Widespread tree species are Engelmann spruce,subalpine fir, and aspen. Soils can be shallow androcky; however, deep fertile soils are most common.

Removal of Competition

On level to moderate slopes supporting low-valueperennials, plowing or disking is an effective proce-dure for reducing competition. Plowing eliminatesmost existing plants, including some highly desirableand sparse species. This procedure should not be usedif desirable natives exist; such aggressive treatmentshould be confined to sites supporting a dominance ofweeds. Destruction of the soil structure can alsoresult from plowing. Soil compaction and loss ofprotective litter may also occur. Plowing should berestricted to only the most disrupted sites. Plowingcan be done from late spring through summer, butshould not be completed when soils are wet, as thismay produce compacted soil and surface crusts. Theuse of brushland plows, offset disks, moldboard plows,or disk-chains that dig to depths of 4 to 6 inches (10 to15 cm) are recommended. Plow furrows made at rightangles to the slope can help control erosion and retainwater. Plowing compacted soils can improve seedbedconditions.

Interseeding can be used where it is desirable toreestablish additional species within the existingcommunity. Scalping and seeding can be accomplishedwith the browse seeder-scalper or related imple-ments. This type of machine can be equipped with 12- to



16-inches (30- to 40-cm) wide scalpers that removeexisting competition and plant seed simultaneously.The browse seeder treatment has been especiallyuseful on slopes of up to 30 percent. Scalps shouldalways be aligned at right angles to the slope and maybe constructed to control erosion from seriously gulliedslopes. Scalping or removing soil to create small ter-races can be destructive and leave scars for manyyears. Clearings to accommodate interseeding shouldbe carefully designed. Interseeding can also be accom-plished by using herbicides to remove or reduce com-petition. Spraying strips with herbicides, and trans-planting or seeding following the treatment, is apractical approach. This system is most useful onsteep slopes where soil protection is critical and soildisturbance should be avoided.

Surface cultivators can be used to reduce annualssuch as cluster tarweed, Douglas knotweed, or flix-weed tansymustard. The soil should be cultivated toa depth of 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm) in early spring andsummer with duckfoot-weeders, spring-tooth harrows,or similar equipment. Cluster tarweed, the most com-petitive mountain annual, can be eliminated only if allplants are removed. Most seeds of this plant germi-nate each year so there is slight year-to-year carryoverof seed in the soil. By taking advantage of this charac-teristic, tarweed can often be eliminated with onethorough treatment, although followup treatmentsare generally required. Annual species that retainconsiderable seed dormancy usually cannot be elimi-nated in one operation. Sufficient seed may accumu-late as a seedbank, producing many competitive seed-lings following spraying or mechanical tillage.

Cluster tarweed produces a toxic chemical that ac-cumulates in the soil and reduces seed germination ofother species or causes abnormal seedlings to develop(Carnahan and Hull 1962). Leachate from cluster

tarweed field sites has reduced germination and es-tablishment of introduced grasses and some nativeherbs. The chemical diminishes within a few months,particularly if sites are disked or plowed. Sites treatedby tillage or with a herbicide in late spring or earlysummer can be fall seeded without adverse effects tonew seedlings.

Cluster tarweed should be treated after all plantshave emerged, but before flowers appear. To preventseeds from developing, it is essential that treatmentsnot be delayed. Once flowers appear, seeds ripenquickly and a host of new seedlings is inevitable. Iflarger areas are treated, it is essential that equipmentbe available to conduct the work on schedule. Fallow-ing for two growing seasons may be required to treatsome areas to assure complete control. Normally, sitessupporting large patches of cluster tarweed have verycompact and crusted soils. Disking or tillage may berequired before sites can be seeded with most conven-tional drills. Disking can effectively loosen the seed-bed. Drill seeding should be done when surfaces aremoist but not wet. Surface-type drills or broadcastseeding lessens the chance of soil compaction that canprevent seedling emergence. Competitive stands ofcluster tarweed, goosefoot violet, and various annualscan be eliminated with an application of low-volatile2,4-D at 1.1 to 1.6 lb per acre (1.25 to 1.85 k per ha)(0.5 to 0.75 lb active ingredient per acre; 0.56 to 0.85 kgper ha). The herbicide glyphosphate (Roundup) is alsoeffective in controlling annual and perennial weeds onhigh elevation rangelands. Ground spray equipmentis best for applying herbicides on most high mountainareas because the herbicide can be more directlyapplied to a precise area. Spraying should be doneearly in the spring. Annuals are generally mostsensitive to herbicides in the two-leaf stage, and cer-tainly should be sprayed before the four-leaf stage.

Figure 3—Subalpine herblands, including aspen and conifer openings, are important summer ranges for livestockand wildlife.



Herbicides also eliminate the necessity for soil tillagethat tends to dry the seedbed. Surface soils that aredisked or tilled in spring dry quickly. Sufficient rain-fall must be received following tillage to initiate seedgermination and sustain small seedlings.

Clumps or patches of skunk cabbage can occur inopen parks intermixed with subalpine herblands andaspen openings. Grazing has eliminated many of theunderstory broadleaf herbs and grasses, allowingskunk cabbage plants to dominate their area of occu-pation. Recovery of desirable native understory spe-cies occurs slowly once sites are protected from graz-ing. Some reduction of this weed is required to ensureestablishment of seeded species. Effective measureshave not been adequately developed to control thisplant, but recent studies conducted on the Manti-LaSal National Forest reveal that density of skunkcabbage can be reduced with application of variousherbicides, tillage, or mowing. Applying Roundup justprior to flowering killed most plants and preventedany regrowth for 3 years after treatment. Mowing ortilling in early July when plants were less than 15inches (38 cm) tall removed all current vegetativegrowth and prevented any resprouting during theremaining growing season. Plants regained abouttwo-thirds of their pretreatment density and growthstature the following summer. Treated patches wereable to completely recover in 3 to 5 years. Seeding intomowed, tilled or sprayed plots was equally successful.One-year control, attained by any of these treatments,allowed seeded grasses and broadleaf herbs to becomefully established.

Skunk cabbage plants develop robust, erect stemswith large, fleshy leaves that form a dense canopy.Plants are usually much taller than other associatedherbs. Consequently, Roundup herbicide can be ap-plied with ground spray equipment or roller typeapplicators with little damage to understory herbs.Rollers are used to simply rub or swab the herbicide onthe foliage. The roller bar is suspended on a wheeltractor and the height of the applicator is regulated asthe unit is passed over the plant. Commercial applica-tors used in farming operations work effectively onrange sites, and are available through most equip-ment companies. This practice can be used in mostsituations, even where retention of understory herbsis a primary objective.

Tall larkspur is a troublesome, poisonous plantthroughout this vegetative zone. Although certainherbicides are somewhat effective, Vallentine (1989)stated that repeated treatments are required. This isoften costly and difficult to accomplish. Sites infestedwith this weed are often not suitable for cattle grazing,and are best managed for other uses. Many sites insubalpine and aspen park communities were seriously

impacted by heavy grazing that occurred near theturn of the last century. Native species were eliminatedand serious erosion resulted. Many sites have not fullyrecovered, even when protected from grazing for manyyears. Less desirable species, including Lettermanneedlegrass, western yarrow, Louisiana sagebrush,dandelion, and Rydberg penstemon have persistedand spread to dominate some areas. These sites areoften considered for seeding. Direct seeding may berequired to reintroduce desirable plants that can even-tually produce seed and increase in importance. How-ever, to accomplish seeding, the existing species mustbe significantly reduced to lessen competition to newseedlings. Unless the plants are controlled, seedingcannot be recommended. However, disturbance to thesite is not always advisable. Natural improvementmay occur if a sufficient seed source is available.Although the process may be slow, protection andcareful management may be the best alternative toimprove inaccessible, steep, or harsh sites. Interseedingof desirable species can be successful, and is an effec-tive technique to stimulate and speed up successionalchanges. This can be accomplished by seeding strips,spots, or selected patches where natural spread isexpected to occur. Many areas that were earlier dis-turbed have now recovered, and soil loss has dimin-ished. Treatment of these sites should be carefullyconsidered to assure that the best procedures areused—seeding or management. Introducing foreignspecies to a site that is improving naturally is notadvisable.

Planting Season

The planting season for mountainous sites extendsfrom early spring until mid-July. Late fall planting isalso acceptable, and can be done from September untilsnow and frost make planting impossible. In subal-pine regions the fall planting season may close in earlyOctober or even late September. Planting in areas thathave been disturbed by logging or road constructionshould also be confined to these dates. Seeding is oftendone throughout the summer as logging progresses.This is not advisable because seedlings are vulnerableand can succumb to climatic extremes. Seeds plantedin early summer often germinate precociously, andmany of the seedlings die as the soil dries. Seedlingsthat emerge from mid or late summer plantings areoften too small and poorly rooted to overwinter. Unlessplanting can be conducted in the early spring, workshould be delayed until late fall to ensure germinationthe following spring. Because of lingering snow fieldsand wet areas in the spring, late fall planting is themost practical.



Planting Procedures

Aerial and ground broadcast seeding in the fall aresatisfactory methods of planting large tracts of pre-pared ground. Soil sloughing resulting from freezingand thawing usually covers the seed adequately onplowed or disked land. Pulling a light anchor chain,chain link fence, or harrow across the treated areaassures good coverage. If light chaining is used, scarceand expensive seeds can be dropped into tractor cleatmarks from seed dribblers that are mounted on thecrawler tractors used to pull the chain.

Drilling is recommended for spring planting andmay also be used in the fall. Some risk is involved withdrilling in the fall if the seeding is done too early. Mostdrilled seeds are placed directly in the soil and cangerminate if soil temperatures warm up even for shortintervals, an undesirable situation. Since this hazardis often present on high mountain ranges, it is impor-tant to delay drilling until late fall. Broadcast plantingcan also be used to seed small isolated tracts. Plantingin the late spring and summer should be avoided, assoil moisture may not be available for a long enoughperiod to assure seedling establishment.

Seeds of certain species require a cold stratificationperiod to germinate, and if planted in the late springand summer, will not be adequately stratified to ger-minate. Although some seeds will likely remain in thesoil to germinate at a later date, many seeds will belost, and emergence will not occur uniformly with allspecies planted. Weeds and less desirable plants maylikely appear if the seeded species do not develop asplanned.

Mixed seedings, including many costly, native, broad-leaf herbs, are used to improve these rangelands andwatersheds. Seeds vary in size and shape. Mixing allseeds together and planting at a similar depth fre-quently results in poor or erratic success. A number ofcommercial drills are now available that facilitateplanting seeds of different sizes in separate rows orfurrows. Also, seeds of different sizes can be planted atdifferent depths. Improper seeding should be avoidedon these important rangelands.

Rodents can quickly and effectively gather certainseeds that are either drilled or broadcast planted. Ifseeding is delayed until late in the season, smallrodents are less active and seed losses can be signifi-cantly reduced.

The browse seeder-scalper equipped with 12- to 16-inch (30- to 40-cm) scalpers is an excellent unit forplanting weedy sites. Browse seeders and some drillscan be used to plant seed of shrubs in alternate rowswith herbs. Seeding individual species separately inalternate rows is a practical procedure to reduce com-petition among seeded species.

Shrubs and herbs can be spring transplanted intomountainous sites. Several adapted herbs, especiallyrhizomatous species, have been transplanted withgood success. Treated areas usually receive sufficientmoisture to sustain young transplant stock. Sitesshould be planted before existing native species ini-tiate growth.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

The features of grasses and broadleaf herbs that areseeded on these sites should be considered beforedisturbances are planted (chapters 18 and 19). Withinthis broad community type are various plant associa-tions. Selecting and seeding the most adapted speciesrequires careful inspection of the particular sites un-der consideration. A combination of species is nor-mally required to restore diverse plant associations. Anumber of introduced grasses have been selected andwidely used to stabilize watershed disturbances andprovide forage for livestock and wildlife (Forsling andDayton 1931; Frischknecht 1983; Hull 1974; Keck1972; Laycock 1982; Plummer 1976; Plummer andothers 1955, 1968). The primary species previouslyplanted through most high-elevation revegetationprojects include smooth brome, both southern andnorthern strains; meadow foxtail; orchardgrass, talloatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, hard sheep fescue, timo-thy, and intermediate wheatgrass. Creeping foxtailwas commonly seeded at one time, but currently isonly planted in restricted situations. Regar brome is arecent development that is gaining increased use.These plants have been used to protect soils andstabilize disturbances including deteriorated range-lands. However, smooth brome, intermediate wheat-grass, Kentucky bluegrass, and hard sheep fescue areserious competitors with native herbs, and preventthe recovery and persistence of many native species(Monsen and Anderson 1993). Although these intro-duced species are adapted to subalpine and aspencommunities, they should not be used where restora-tion of native communities is a primary objective.

Smooth brome is well adapted to the subalpine andaspen openings. Planting about equal amounts ofnorthern and southern strains, along with other spe-cies, has been recommended and widely used. Al-though smooth brome has demonstrated adaptation tohigh-elevation sites, its presence has created seriousproblems. Plants are moderately slow to establish, butincrease in density and ground cover by root prolifera-tion and seed production. This species slowly sup-presses the presence of most other species. Mixedseedings established throughout the Intermountainregion have developed to nearly pure stands of smoothbrome, although the time required to attain complete



dominance has varied between 10 and 30 years. Theloss of forbs and shrubs due to competition fromsmooth brome is a serious consideration. Few, if any,native grasses, broadleaf herbs, or shrubs have dem-onstrated the competitive ability to control the spreador persistence of this grass. In addition, few practicalmethods are available to remove smooth brome andreestablish other species. Consequently, smooth bromeis not recommended for planting many mountainoussites. Unfortunately, this has been a primary grassrecommended for seeding high-elevation ranges, ashighly erodible sites and harsh disturbances can bequickly and effectively stabilized with this grass. Fur-ther use should be carefully regulated.

Meadow foxtail is an excellent companion species tomost seedings. Creeping foxtail is also well adapted tomixed seedings, and both plants furnish excellentground cover. Big bluegrass is moderately productive,particularly on moist areas. Orchardgrass is equallyproductive, but better adapted to well-drained soils.Slender wheatgrass, mountain brome, timothy, andtall oatgrass are also well adapted to these areas.These latter four species develop rapidly, but diminishwithin 15 to 25 years. Subalpine and Regar brome arealso well adapted to mountainous conditions. Sulcatasheep fescue, intermediate wheatgrass, and beardedwheatgrass are adapted to more arid situations. Thesethree species can gain dominance and exclude nativeherbs in some situations. Their use should be re-stricted to sites where the recovery of less competitivenatives is not desirable. Tufted hairgrass and Canadabluegrass are well suited to the less fertile sites andexposed outcrops.

Not all introduced species have become serious com-petitors with native species. Tall oatgrass and timothyare relatively short-lived species, persisting for lessthan 20 years. Orchardgrass and alfalfa persist muchlonger, but generally are not highly competitive. Bothmountain brome and slender wheatgrass are nativeperennials that can be used with excellent results.Although seed of both species is less available, sup-plies are generally adequate to meet most demands.

It is important that site-adapted native species areplanted. Considerable variability exists among popu-lations or ecotypes of many natives including moun-tain brome and slender wheatgrass. Planting nontestedsources should be avoided.

Many useful broadleaf forbs occur throughout thesesites, and are recommended for seeding (table 1).However, not all species common to undisturbed com-munities have been able to reestablish from directseeding on seriously altered sites. Ellison (1951)reported that certain species were capable of invad-ing exposed disturbances as pioneer plants, butothers appeared in much later stages. Selecting

species based on their ecological status is important inrestoring these communities. Many broadleaf herbsestablish quite well and are able to compete withother species if seeded at appropriate rates. Mostimportant are showy goldeneye, Porter ligusticum,silky lupine, Rydberg penstemon, low goldenrod, andedible valerian. Seeds of other native broadleaf herbsare becoming available and should be included inseedings. As seeds become more available and lesscostly, seeding rates can be further adjusted. Usuallyit is desirable to reestablish a complex of native herbsin most disturbances in high mountain ranges. Suc-cessful seedings can be better attained in this climaticzone than in most other areas of the Intermountainregion.

Mountain snowberry, mountain big sagebrush,subalpine big sagebrush, low rabbitbrush, and adaptedforms of rubber rabbitbrush are useful for directseeding. Transplanting of any or all of these shrubsis recommended where it is desirable to create imme-diate browse or cover. Certain rhizomatous and fleshyrooted species are selectively grazed by pocket go-phers, and new seedings can be seriously impacted bygophers (Ellison and Aldous 1952). Native fescues andmeadow foxtail have been shown to discourage theseanimals and could be seeded where rodents are nu-merous.

Adapted species are presented in table 1. Seedingrates are somewhat determined by the number andtype of species planted.

Wet and Semiwet MeadowCommunities ___________________

Wet (fig. 4) and semiwet (fig. 5) freshwater meadowscan be found in lowland valleys, but are more frequently

Figure 4—Wet meadows interspaced with willowsalign a stream in southern Idaho.



encountered on mountain rangelands where waterconcentrates and spreads. While the total area occu-pied by wet and semiwet meadows is relatively small,these meadows are important to grazing animals andupland game birds (Eckert 1983; Oakleaf 1971; Pattonand Judd 1970; Ratliff 1985). They produce succulentherbage throughout the growing season for all classesof game and livestock. Many meadows have beenseriously depleted of valuable sedges, rushes, grasses,forbs, and shrubs that once were abundant (Eckert1983). However, disturbed meadows can be mademore productive (Eckert 1975; Eckert and others1973a). Planting native sedges, broadleaf herbs, andshrubs may be desirable, yet is not always practicalbecause of the lack of sufficient seed or planting stock.Exotic grasses have been used to restore cover andherbage production. In some cases, introduced plantshave exceeded the herbage production of some nativegrasses. Commercial seed production of native herbsis necessary to facilitate planting of desirable species.Consequently, species diversity and structure ofseedings are sometimes limited.

Availability of moisture in meadows ameliorates theextremes of climate and tends to create a compara-tively uniform environment through all vegetal zones.Some species can often be planted throughout bothlowland and mountain ranges. The important factorsthat favor high production on meadow lands are themoisture availability and high soil fertility.


Essential to successful seeding is the control ofweedy species (Eckert 1975, 1983). Summer fallowtreatments have been used to control weeds in wet andsemiwet meadows (Cornelius and Talbot 1955; Eckert

1983; Eckert and others 1973b; Plummer and others1955). Usually, moldboard plowing is required to elimi-nate tough, sod-forming, weedy species that may in-vade disturbed wetlands. Heavy offset disks or brush-land plows can be used to control competition and aidin seedbed preparation. Plowing can eliminate mostspecies, including desirable plants. However, existingspecies must be reduced in order to establish desirableplants. Some species such as Baltic rush provideexcellent cover and stability, yet are highly competi-tive and must be controlled if sites are to be success-fully seeded. Where the soil may be too wet for plowingor disking, shallow ripping using a crawler tractor canbe employed to break up the existing sod.

Herbicides can be used to control broadleaf weedsand grasses, although streams and waterways mustbe protected. Noxious weeds, including Canada thistle,have invaded many semiwet areas and must be con-trolled to assure establishment of seeded species.Repeated treatments are required to reduce competi-tion from this plant. In some situations, Canadathistle may be reduced by spraying, but not com-pletely eliminated.

Removal of competitive perennial grasses, includ-ing Kentucky bluegrass, is also necessary to estab-lish more desirable species. Extensive treatments,including mechanical tillage or application of herbi-cides, are required. These treatments usually eliminateother species, restricting their use to the most criticaldisturbances.

Planting Season

Early spring to early summer is the most effectiveplanting period. If water does not accumulate andremain on the soil surface, fall or late winter plantingscan be successful. However, spring flooding can de-stroy seedbeds prepared in the fall. Seeds planted inthe fall will rot if inundated by water for extendedperiods. Consequently, areas that are subjected toflooding cannot be planted until the water level re-cedes. This may delay planting until late spring orsummer. Shrubs should be transplanted early in thespring after water recedes but before the soil dries out.Young transplants can usually withstand wet soil con-ditions for a limited period, yet planting into floodedsites is not practical or desirable.

Planting Procedures

Broadcast seeding on prepared seedbeds is usuallyrecommended on wet sites, especially for fall or earlywinter seeding. Plowed or disked sites usually leave arough surface that can be broadcast planted. Drills canbe used for spring and fall planting, yet particular caremust be taken to avoid planting seeds too deep. Seed-ing can also be accomplished using the Brillion seeder

Figure 5—Big sagebrush communities often sur-round small but important meadows.



or surface-type seeders. These units distribute theseed on the soil surface. Seeds are then punched intosmall depressions within the soil. The depressions arecreated by these machines, and the planting depth isdetermined by the rollers or imprinters. Surface seed-ers do not plant seeds too deep even when seeding ona loose seedbed.


The most often used introductions for seeding wetand semiwet meadows to increase herbage productionhave been Reed canarygrass and meadow foxtail. Bothgrow well in wet and semiwet conditions, although“Garrison” creeping foxtail is better adapted to wetareas. These plants persist even on sites where watermay stand for short periods. Alsike clover and straw-berry clover are good supporting legumes, althoughthey can survive only short periods of submergence.Black medick grows well except at high elevations.Redtop, smooth brome, timothy, and alpine timothyare also well adapted to semiwet soils and are usefulforage plants, although redtop is less palatable thanthe latter three species. Reed canarygrass and smoothbrome are extremely competitive and suppress otherplants. These grasses are not recommended if nativesor other species are desired on the site.

Species recommended for wet and semiwet condi-tions differ (table 2). Many native sedges are ex-tremely desirable species, but seed supplies are cur-rently very limited. Attempts to restore these sites willrequire development of the native seed industry. Suf-ficient seed cannot be harvested from wildland stands,and field rearing will be required.

A list of shrubs useful for transplanting is presentedin table 3. Willows are well suited to a variety ofconditions found in meadows. Willows can be estab-lished from fresh cuttings placed in the ground in earlyspring; however, rooted cuttings are preferred. Sur-vival of rooted cuttings is much better, particularly onsites that may dry early in the season.

Planted meadows tend to attract grazing animals.Sites that are seeded to productive and palatablegrasses and herbs should be managed to preventexcessive use. Animals will concentrate in treatedareas throughout the entire growing season; conse-quently, sites must be protected or grazed properly tomaintain site productivity.

Inland SaltgrassCommunities ___________________

Inland saltgrass has gained control on many dry tosemiwet meadows in upland and lowland areas (fig. 6)where alkalinity is appreciable and where the early-growing grasses, sedges, forbs, and shrubs have been

depleted by grazing. Soils are generally heavy withhigh water tables at least during some period of theyear. Some areas may have standing or running waterfor short periods. While these meadows are relativelysmall, they usually have a much higher potential forlivestock forage production and as wildlife habitatthan when dominated by saltgrass (Lesperance andothers 1978; Roundy and others 1983). This is particu-larly evident on sites that remain fairly moist through-out the growing season. Saltgrass produces a densesod, so vigorous methods must be used to eliminatecompetition and allow establishment of other species.Not all saltgrass sites should be converted to otherspecies. Some sites have been converted to more desir-able and productive forage plants for livestock graz-ing, but this can be a costly effort. Improvements maybenefit wildlife and allow for grazing at different andlonger seasons, but revegetation projects should becarefully evaluated before treatments begin.


Saltgrass can be difficult to eradicate by plowing ormechanical tillage. McGinnies (1974) reported thatsaltgrass can be successfully removed by sprayingwith Roundup. Sites that are treated with this herbi-cide can be plowed or tilled to aid in seedbed prepara-tion. Saltgrass meadows are commonly located onsoils with a high concentration of salt in the C horizonand possess an impermeable B horizon. These soilsmay be susceptible to soil crusting and exhibit lowfertility, but benefit from plowing (Ludwick 1976).Plowing may improve water infiltration and increasethe availability of nutrients (McGinnies and Ludwig1977). However, care should be taken to avoid plowing

Figure 6—Inland saltgrass communities usually re-main green and productive throughout the summer.



the C horizon to prevent mixing of the surface horizonswith the zone of high salt concentration.

Sodic soils are often impermeable to water and maydevelop a surface crust when dry. Tillage or deepripping when soils are dry can improve permeability.If soils are wet at the time of treatment, crusting andsurface packing can occur. Disking litter and vegeta-tion into the surface soil can reduce soil crusting.Drilling with heavy equipment can compact the soiland prevent the emergence of small seedlings. Broad-cast planting and drilling with light equipment canreduce surface compaction.

Treatment of saltgrass sites usually requires a fal-low period. Sites can be plowed in late summer, winterfallowed, and seeded in the spring. Plowed areasusually require disking to kill the roots or sod andprepare the seedbed. Some sites may require two tothree diskings to reduce the sod. Sites may also besprayed with Roundup in the summer, fall plowed,and spring planted. Where complete control is desired,planting an interim annual crop such as yellowsweetclover is suggested. After the annual crop isharvested, the site can again be plowed and disked tocontrol any regrowth of the saltgrass. The area canthen be planted to perennials. If satisfactory control ofsaltgrass is evident, final plowing and seeding ofperennials is recommended 1 to 3 years after theinitial treatment. By this time most of the saltgrassshould have been eliminated.

Planting Season

Best results are obtained with late fall, winter, andearly spring plantings. Where land frequently re-mains wet, spring planting is advised because fallplanted seeds can be adversely affected by prolongedflooding.

Planting Procedures

Deep-furrow drills with drops spaced 12 inches(30 cm) apart have performed satisfactorily on tilledsoils. No-till drills have been used to drill “Garrison”creeping foxtail directly into saltgrass. The browseseeder, equipped with 16-inch (40-cm) wide scalpers,can be used to interseed species into thin stands ofsaltgrass. Broadcasting on plowed land in late fall orearly winter has been successful for some sites. Plowedsoil will slough during the winter and usually coversthe seed. These soils sometimes crust, restrictingseedling emergence. To avoid crusting caused by sur-face packing from drills and tractors, broadcast seed-ing is often advised. The Brillion seeder is also usefulin planting into the prepared seedbed and in reducingsoil crusting.


Species adapted to the inland saltgrass type (table 4)must be salt tolerant. Growth of some species occursprimarily in the spring when the salt is diluted by soilmoisture. Introduced species that have been seededsuccessfully in areas with high water tables or run-ning or standing water are: meadow and creepingfoxtail, tall fescue, tall wheatgrass, and strawberryclover. Areas that dry out during periods of the yearhave been seeded successfully to alkali sacaton,crested wheatgrass, streambank wheatgrass, Rus-sian wildrye, black medick, yellow sweetclover,fourwing saltbush, Gardner saltbush, and winterfat.Species’ establishment and stand development canbe somewhat slow. Planting native species is recom-mended, but is currently limited to only a few speciesbecause seeds are not available.

Riparian Communities ___________Riparian sites often occur as narrow corridors tra-

versing many different plant zones. Streams and drain-ages often occupy very small but important siteswithin major land types. The vegetation and habitatprovided by the riparian zone is extremely importantto the management of associated lands (Thomas andothers 1979b). Different riparian communities havebeen identified throughout the Intermountain area(Youngblood and others 1985). Riparian sites usuallyattract and sustain livestock and wildlife. These sitesare particularly important during the midsummermonths. Riparian communities often provide diver-sity to otherwise rather barren and exposed wildlands.Aquatic wildlife are dependent upon a continued supplyof high quality water. The vegetation along a streamprovides shade that greatly influences water tempera-ture, protects soils and streambanks, and furnishesfood for aquatic organisms. Vegetative debris fallinginto the stream is a highly important food supply foraquatic life. Insects harbored by the vegetation alsoserve as an important part of the food chain.

Timber harvesting, road construction, agriculturalcropping, mining, and recreational uses have all de-stroyed riparian areas (Council of Agriculture Sci-ences and Technology 1974). Riparian zones have alsobeen degraded extensively by livestock grazing andtrampling (fig. 7). Woody or herbaceous vegetation orboth have been eliminated or seriously stunted inmany areas. On many sites the understory specieshave also been replaced by weedy annuals and peren-nials, including noxious weeds. Frequently, densestands of sod-forming grasses or forbs gain domi-nance. Unpalatable and undesirable species are easilyspread along waterways.



The woody plants that occur along streambankshave often been destroyed by repeated browsing andtrampling. It is critical that woody species are reestab-lished. Some species can recover and grow if protectedfrom grazing. Willows, aspen, alder, and dogwoodnormally recover if some live plants remain. If grazinghas completely destroyed the woody species, trans-planting or seeding will be required. Destruction ofstream habitats and associated watersheds has oftenresulted in serious erosion and damage to thestreambank and floodplain. Erosion and flooding of-ten remove topsoil and alter the site, hindering natu-ral or artificial revegetation (Monsen 1983). Struc-tures are often required before vegetation can bereintroduced (fig. 8). Reintroduction of beaver, when

managed to fit the food supply, can significantly aid instabilization of many streams and waterways. Entirewatersheds may require treatment before streambankscan be improved. Controlling grazing on riparian sitesis not easy (Platts 1981a,b) because the use of adjacentlands is dependent upon access to the stream.

A distinct and abrupt ecotone may separate mesicfrom xeric plant communities that align a stream.Different plant communities must be planted withseparate, adapted, species. Seasonal changes in soilmoisture affect the occurrence of different plant com-munities. Since most riparian zones support a mixedarray of plant communities, mixed plantings are re-quired. A more extensive plan is required to restoreand stabilize riparian communities than for mostother sites. Monsen, in Platts and others (1987), dis-cusses the following considerations that influence re-habilitation practices:

1. Alteration of the riparian vegetation and soilmay result from onsite impacts, or as a result of poormanagement of other portions of the watershed(Megahan and Kidd 1972). Proper management ofthe entire watershed is essential prior to initiation ofrehabilitation measures in riparian communities.Restoration of riparian sites may be conducted simulta-neously with treatment of other portions of the water-shed. Unless adjoining areas are reasonably stable,repair of riparian disturbances will not be effective.

2. Riparian sites usually are extremely heteroge-neous, containing different plant communities, topo-graphic conditions, parent materials, and soils withina short distance (Odum 1971). Remedial treatmentsmust be applicable to the different conditions encoun-tered. For example, steep, unstable banks may occurimmediately adjacent to wet and boggy meadows,requiring different site preparation practices, plant-ing techniques, and plant materials.

3. Different treatments are often required to cor-rect separate problems, such as controlling surfaceerosion, eliminating bank slumping, shading thestream, controlling weeds, and providing concealmentfor wildlife.

4. Riparian sites are often narrow, irregularlyshaped corridors that are not accessible to conven-tional planting equipment. Although only small ar-eas may require treatment, extensive erosion, sedi-mentation, and plant community alteration mayhave occurred, thus requiring special equipment forrehabilitation.

5. The dense and frequently storied assembly ofmany plant species is required to maintain ripariansite stability. Grazing and other impacts have oftenreduced plant density or resulted in the removal ofspecific species. The loss of key species may seriouslyaffect the persistence of other plants. To be successful,

Figure 8—Channel reshaping and construction ofimpoundments may be required to stabilize streamchannels prior to seeding and planting.

Figure 7—Improper grazing has disrupted manyriparian sites in the Intermountain region.



rehabilitation may require reestablishment of a com-plex array of plants. Reestablishing woody plants isoften essential.

6. Many sites are so seriously altered that exten-sive rehabilitation measures will be required to re-strict further losses of soil and vegetation and reestab-lish a desirable plant cover (fig. 9).

7. Stabilization of the streambank with vegeta-tion is often the principal concern in rehabilitation.Vegetation is also required to provide shade for thestream and improve wildlife habitat.

8. Some riparian sites have often been so seriouslyaltered that the original vegetation can no longersurvive. Thus, attempts to restore the original com-plement of plants may not be practical. However,unless a grouping of plants similar to the originalcommunity can be established, aquatic and terrestrialresources may not be improved.

9. Noxious weeds and other less desirable specieshave often invaded riparian disturbances. Weeds mustbe removed to improve the site and allow for planting.These plants do not always provide adequate soilprotection or enhance aquatic habitat. Weeds may bespread by the stream to occupy downstream distur-bances and interfere with the establishment of moredesirable species.

10. Site preparation is usually required to accom-modate planting. Some reduction of the existing plantcover may be necessary to eliminate competition withnewly seeded or planted species. However, reductionof streambank stability by plowing or similar methodsof plant removal is hazardous. Thus, treatments nor-mally include interseeding or planting small strips orsections over a period of 2 to 3 years. By such proce-dures, small areas can be treated in sequential inter-vals to retain existing plant cover and encouragenatural recovery.

11. Seasonal runoff and flooding influence plantingdates as well as establishment and survival of newseedlings or transplants (Aldon 1970b). Sites may becovered with water in the spring for a few days or forweeks. Planting is frequently delayed by flooding untila time when air temperatures and precipitation pat-terns may no longer be conducive to seedling survival.Disturbances may be seeded in the late summer or fall.However, fall-germinated seedlings may not be able tosurvive spring runoff. Many riparian species surviveor are propagated by flooding (Kozlowski 1984). How-ever, small seedlings usually are not as tenacious aslarger plants. Seasonal runoff also disrupts and seri-ously damages prepared seedbeds. Transplanting largestock is often required to resist the effects of floodingand scouring.

12. Protection of young plants is essential for estab-lishment and survival. Protection from grazing maybe required for a number of years to allow plants to

attain a reasonable size and furnish soil protection.Transplanting large stock may be necessary to over-come the influences of grazing and flooding.

Artificial plantings are not the only means to restoreand improve riparian communities. Because of theinherent problems associated with revegetation ofthese areas, consideration should be given to naturalimprovement whenever possible. Protection from graz-ing (Meehan and Platts 1978; Vallentine 1980) can beused to improve many situations. If a satisfactorynumber of remnant plants exist, natural recovery canoften occur. Some native herbs, particularly species ofsedges and rushes, are extremely vital to streambankstability and herbage productivity. Most species ofsedges and rushes have not been investigated for usein artificial seeding programs, but their utility is wellknown. Where possible, management and revegeta-tion programs should be tailored to promote theirrecovery. The growth habits and utility of most of theprincipal sedge and rush species in the Intermountainarea are summarized by Monsen (in Platts and others1987) (table 5).


Sites requiring transplanting to reestablish woodyshrubs and trees may first require removal of herba-ceous species to allow shrubs to establish (Nieland andothers 1981). If shrubs or trees are to be transplantedalong the edge of a stream, plantings should be selec-tively located in open sites free of herbaceous compe-tition. Planting directly into dense stands of sod-forming grasses and herbs often requires removal ofunderstory competition. A clearing of approximately

Figure 9—Transplanting is frequently requiredto reestablish willows and other shrubs alongstreams.



30 inches square (75 cm square) should be created. Thevegetation can be removed by hand scalping or byspraying with a herbicide. Scalping is not very suc-cessful in controlling sod-forming grasses, sedges, orshrubs, but competition need not be controlled be-yond the first growing season in many situations.Scalps may also be created using various herbicides.If Roundup is applied, spots can be transplantedimmediately without damage to the transplant.Meadow vegetation is killed with this herbicide; how-ever, sprayed sites actually collapse as their rootmass deteriorates. Even small sprayed areas must becarefully located before sites are treated with a herbi-cide. Care must be taken to ensure that herbicide usecomplies with all State and Federal laws, and con-tamination of streams and waterways does not occur.

Noxious weeds commonly invade wet and semiwetmeadows occurring within the riparian zone. Canadathistle and whitetop are often encountered in suchareas. Noxious weeds must be eliminated or controlledbefore sites are planted. Plowing or repeated diskingis often necessary to remove established sod formingweeds. Plowing is usually not recommended along theedge of the streambank. This area should be protectedif possible.

Most meadows adjacent to streams are small irregu-lar tracts. Often they are not accessible to large equip-ment. Small tractors and implements can be used inthese situations. Usually, treatment is delayed untilafter seasonal water levels have receded. Sites wherestreambanks are reconstructed or where structuresincluding dams or impoundments are erected areplanted to prevent the establishment and spread ofundesirable weeds (fig. 8). Often, large acreages sur-rounding streams should also be treated to preventthe spread of weeds. In addition, these adjacent areasshould be planted with useful forage species to bettercontrol livestock distribution and use. Control of weedsand maintenance of seeded species is directly depen-dent on the management of grazing animals. Improp-erly grazed sites will not retain a suitable plant cover.

Planting Season

Seeding in late fall or early spring may be applicable.Some seeds should not be flooded or left covered withwater for extended periods, although some willowseeds benefit from flooding. Consequently, areas thatare subject to flooding should be spring planted afterthe water level recedes. Transplanting should be doneas early in the spring as possible. As areas become bareof snow or as the stream flow decreases (fig. 10), thesites should be transplanted immediately. Sites alonga stream dry out in irregular patterns. Transplantingand seeding should not be delayed until the soils aredry or existing plants have initiated growth.

Planting Procedures

Areas that are large enough to be plowed or diskedcan be drill seeded. Meadows can be planted in thesame manner as recommended for the inland saltgrassor mountain meadow sites. Small tracts may be broad-cast planted, followed by dragging a harrow, chainlink fencing, or other small implements over the site tocover the seed. Wet soils frequently crust, settle, orslump when tilled. These soils should not be “over-worked” because a poor seedbed may develop. Plant-ing using a culti-packer seeder often prevents or elimi-nates problems associated with crusting, compaction,and settling. Hand seeding and raking can be used inmany small inaccessible sites. Most transplantingshould be accomplished using hand-planting bars,shovels, or augers.

Interseeding and intertransplanting are useful tech-niques to improve portions of riparian areas without

Figure 10—Willow cuttings planted as rootedstock grow quickly, furnish cover and protectionon highly erosive sites.



extensively disturbing the soil. Transplanting rootedstock is a very effective technique for establishingshrubs and trees. Various drills, disks, scalpers, orspray units can be modified to treat small strips orareas while leaving adjacent sites intact. Transplant-ing and selected seeding can then occur with thetreated strip and areas where competition has beeneliminated. Once treated areas become stabilized, theremaining sites can be planted if necessary.

Transplanting both shrubs and herbs on disturbedsites is advised. Transplanting large stock, includingpoles and rooted stock, is recommended. Large woodytransplants can compete satisfactorily with under-story competition, and are better able to survive, asstems are placed deep in the soil where a more per-sistent water table exists. Transplants provide aneffective ground cover and can stabilize erosive sitesrather quickly. Once a site has been treated, seeded,and transplanted it must be protected from grazinguntil sufficient establishment has occurred.


Plants growing along the edge of a stream usuallyare able to exist throughout a wide elevational range.Consequently, individual species are found growingthroughout a number of major vegetative types. Plantsnot growing immediately adjacent to the stream arenot influenced as much by the moderating effect of thestream. Consequently, in selecting species for riparianplantings, separate groupings must be utilized.

Areas requiring treatment that are not directlyinfluenced by the stream can be planted with speciesadapted to the prevailing plant community. Plantingsshould include species that provide streambank sta-bility. Only a few herbs produce root or vegetativebiomass and structure equal to the amounts furnishedby native sedges or rushes. These dense, sod-formingspecies are vitally important. Transplanting wildingroot segments of the native herbaceous plants alongthe eroding sections of the streambank is an effectivemethod for stabilizing the site.

In addition to the herbs that exist within most nativeplant communities, Doran (1957), Horton (1949), andPlummer and others (1968) discussed the utility ofintroduced species for riparian sites. Ree (1976) dis-cussed the rooting features required to providestreambank stability, and identified species that canbe used for erosion control. Various introduced speciescan be used to treat riparian disturbances, but theseare generally not compatible with existing natives,and if planted may not allow natural improvement tooccur. The species listed in tables 5 through 11 desig-nate those plants that, to date, appear best adapted tovarious riparian situations.

Numerous species of willow are widely planted inriparian areas (fig. 10, table 11). Propagation

requirements and planting techniques differ amongthese species (Chemelar 1974). Carlson (1950) andHaissig (1970) reported that species with preformedroot primordials root freely. Those without preformedroot primordials root poorly or not at all.

Small transplants are often difficult to establish onadverse sites, including flooded areas. Consequently,small or poor quality stock is not recommended forriparian plantings. Rooted cuttings (Holloway andZasada 1979) and large healthy stock should be trans-planted, especially when using species that root poorly.

Aspen and Associated ConiferCommunities ___________________

Aspen is the most widely distributed native tree inNorth America. In the Intermountain area, there areover 20 million acres (8.1 million ha) of aspen scatteredfrom upper foothill ranges to mountaintops and highplateaus. In Utah, aspen occupies more forested landsthan does any other tree species. The majority of theaspen occurs at middle elevations and is associatedwith, and scattered within, conifer forests (fig. 11).Aspen forests span a broad range of environmentalconditions (Warner and Harper 1972). Annual precipi-tation within the Intermountain aspen zone rangesfrom 16 to 40 inches (400 to 1,000 mm). The speciesthrives at a variety of elevations and under a widerange of moisture and soil conditions. (Mueggler 1988;Mueggler and Campbell 1986).

Aspen is found in a number of mountain vegetativezones, ranging from the subalpine to the foothills.Mueggler (1988) lists 14 major, 12 minor, and 35 inci-dental aspen community types in the Intermountain

Figure 11—Conversion of aspen stands to conifershas been hastened by grazing of understory species.



region. Shepperd (1990) classified aspen communitiesbased on growth and stand characteristics. Aspen canbe found growing in association with tall forbs, ponde-rosa pine, lodgepole pine, spruce-fir, mountain brush,open parks of mountain big sagebrush, snowberry andchokecherry, and on the margin of grasslands. Aspentrees are found along moist streams as well as on dryridges and southerly exposures, on talus slopes, and indeep to shallow soils of various origins.

Aspen forests are dynamic and in a constant state ofchange. As change occurs, resource values change.Although some aspen stands are considered climaxcommunities, a majority of aspen forests are probablyseral to other vegetative types. Many aspen standswill eventually be replaced by conifers. Seral standsare generally regarded as fire-induced successionalcommunities able to dominate a site until replaced byless fire-enduring, but more shade-tolerant, conifers(DeByle and Winokur 1985; Mueggler 1988). Cryerand Murray (1992) found that stable aspen stands inColorado are found only on soils with a mollic horizon.

Succession of aspen to conifers can greatly increasethe likelihood that an area will experience a devastat-ing fire (Gifford and others 1983, 1984; Jaynes 1978;Kaufmann 1985). As aspen stands convert to spruce-fir, potential surface water runoff is reduced by 33 to65 percent. White fir uses about 4 inches (10 cm) morewater per year than does aspen, and blue and Engel-mann spruce may use 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm) morewater per year (Gifford and others 1983, 1984; Jaynes1978; Kaufmann 1985).

With the invasion of conifers into aspen stands,understory carrying capacity for livestock and biggame is reduced. In the early seral stages, an aspenforest may produce 1,400 lb (640 kg) of forage peracre. Forage production is reduced to about 500 lb(225 kg) per acre in the early stages of conifer inva-sion and to only 100 lb (45 kg) per acre in the laterconifer seral stages (Gifford and others 1983, 1984;Jaynes 1978; Kaufmann 1985). In the Intermountainregion, aspen stands mature in about 80 years; theydeteriorate rather rapidly, often in 120 years, andrarely attain ages over 200 years (Mueggler 1994).On the Manti-LaSal National Forest, it is estimatedthat 1,600 acres (650 ha) per year are being lost toconifer invasion.

Aspen-dominated forests have a wide range of val-ues and are truly multiple-use communities. Forageproduction and cover for livestock and a wide varietyof wildlife species are of high value and priority. Woodfiber is abundant; however, it is grossly underutilized.In the West, aspen is the only upland hardwood tree.High quality water yields develop from aspen forests.In some areas, the aspen type yields more qualitywater than any other forest type. Aspen is appealingaesthetically throughout all seasons of the year.

Recreation values are especially high. Aspen forestsalso act as a firebreak for the more flammable conifer-ous types (DeByle 1985c).

Most disturbances that have occurred in aspencommunities have resulted from grazing impacts.Past grazing abuses have removed many desirablespecies, causing a shift in understory species compo-sition. In some situations, conifers have invadedthese sites, shifting the aspen stands to conifer for-ests. Many aspen communities have been so seri-ously damaged by livestock grazing that soils havebeen eroded. Recovery of native species has been slowto occur, and many have been seeded with introducedgrasses to stabilize watershed conditions and restoreherbage productivity.

Aspen reproduction in the West is almost com-pletely dependent upon vegetative propagation byroot suckering. Most aspen communities require amajor disturbance such as burning or clearcutting toalter competitive relationships and to stimulate rootsuckering (Bartos and others 1991; Brown and DeByle1989; DeByle 1985c; Shepperd 1990; Shepperd andSmith 1993). In the past, fire played a prominent rolein perpetuation of aspen forests. Today, however, theexistence of seral aspen is threatened by suppressionof fire in western forests (Bartos and Mueggler 1981;Bradley and others 1992a,b; Cartwright and Burns1994; DeByle and Winokur 1985). Prescribed burn-ing is widely used to simulate the effect of wildfirethat rejuvenates aspen forests. Prescribed burning ofmid- to late-seral aspen/conifer stands can be aneconomical and environmentally acceptable way ofrejuvenating aspen, and has proven to be an effectivetool for increasing productivity of understory speciesthat provide quality forage for large herbivores, spe-cifically deer, elk, cattle, and sheep (Bartos andMueggler 1981; Brown and DeByle 1989; DeByle1985c; Walker 1993).

Extensive plantings have been conducted in theaspen type. Seedings are normally successful as suffi-cient moisture is available to sustain young seedlings.In addition, various native species are available fortreating these areas. With proper planning, both re-vegetation and restoration plantings can be success-fully conducted.


Aspen stands that are in an overmature and deca-dent condition (Schier 1975), or have been depleted ofunderstory herbaceous species, do not require under-story plant control measures. The understory plantdensity has usually been reduced by grazing or sup-pressed by shading of trees and overstory shrubs. Fewweedy species invade or gain dominance within theseforested communities. However, serious weed problems



can develop on extremely deteriorated sites, particu-larly areas subjected to prolonged grazing.

The procedure for removing competition in aspenopenings or associated conifer forests is similar tothose described for the mountain brush and subalpinesites. Where overstory conifers and aspen should beeliminated, prescribed burns, timber harvest, or fire-wood harvest are appropriate treatments.

Planting Season

Aerial and ground broadcasting are generally themost desirable methods of seeding. Planting innondisturbed aspen and associated conifer types ex-tends from early September to leaf drop. Seedingshould be completed before leaf fall and permanentsnow covers the ground. As fallen aspen leaves becomewet and stick together, they can form a satisfactorycover for planted seed. If seeds are fall planted withinaspen stands immediately prior to leaf drop, no otherseedbed preparation is required. Where aspen hasbeen burned, aerial broadcasting should occur fromfall to early winter. Seeding on top of early snow,following burns, has the potential to produce desirableresults.

Planting Procedures

Broadcasting from a fixed-wing aircraft can be eco-nomical and effective for planting large areas. Broad-cast seeding from helicopters is best suited for seedingscattered and small patches, especially in deep can-yons and on steep hillsides. Many sites are too roughor steep to allow the use of ground equipment. Seedscannot be distributed as uniformly by hand as fromaircraft, yet small areas can be seeded satisfactorilyfrom horseback or on foot. Livestock can often bebeneficial in covering broadcast seed if animals aretemporarily concentrated on the seeded areas.


Because the intensity of shade differs among aspenstands, species selected for seeding should be shadetolerant as well as adapted to the specific sites beingseeded within the aspen and conifer zone (table 12).Because some shrubs are usually present, it may notbe necessary to include these shrubs in the seedingmixture. Many plants that occur within the aspenand conifer forests are very productive and nutri-tious. Many will withstand heavy grazing and re-cover well under a rest rotation grazing system.These species are selectively used by both game andlivestock; consequently, treated areas usually at-tract grazing animals and upland game birds, andserve as highly useful pastures and wildlife habitat.

Smooth brome and intermediate wheatgrass havebeen widely seeded through the aspen type. Kentuckybluegrass has also been seeded and has spread tooccupy many adjoining sites. All have established welland provide good herbage. These three species, how-ever, exhibit very aggressive spreading traits, anddevelop a closed sod that eliminates many importanttall forb species. Smooth brome and intermediatewheatgrass have been shown to diminish aspen regen-eration (fig. 12). Open parks with interspersed aspenstands have also been seeded with smooth bromeand intermediate wheatgrass. This has resulted inthe elimination of many native forbs, grasses, andshrubs (fig. 13). Mountain big sagebrush and othershrubs that frequently grow in open areas have beeneliminated by competition from these two seededgrasses. Seedling recruitment of serviceberry, snow-berry, chokecherry, and curlleaf and mountain ma-hogany has also been prevented. Once these grassesare established, methods of control or conversion toother species are very limited. These grasses, there-fore, should not be seeded where a diverse compositionof species is desired because they do not promoterecovery of native plants or community restoration.

Regar brome is an introduced species that is nowbeing seeded more extensively. This species does notappear to be as aggressive and dominating as smoothbrome, but long-term ecological studies are not avail-able. Timothy and tall oatgrass are introduced speciesthat are well adapted to aspen and conifer areas. Theyare not as aggressive as smooth brome, yet they

Figure 12—Closed stands of smooth brome oftendevelop within 10 to 20 years following seeding ofaspen sites. The dense sod frequently eliminatesnative grasses and forbs, and diminishes aspenreproduction.



establish well, provide good forage and ground cover,and provide for development of the native communityin 5 to 20 years. Orchardgrass is also widely plantedand is well adapted. It can also suppress recovery ofnative species, but not to the extent of smooth bromeor intermediate wheatgrass.

The natives, slender wheatgrass and mountainbrome, can generally be planted in place of the com-monly seeded, introduced perennial grasses. Addi-tional native grasses with good potential that shouldbe considered are subalpine needlegrass, alpine

Figure 13—(A) This site was a heavily grazed aspenopening prior to seeding with intermediate wheat-grass and smooth brome in 1959; (B) Same area30 years later showing displacement of the nativeshrubs, grasses and broadleaf forbs by the seededperennials.

timothy, Canadian wildrye, and thurber fescue. Al-falfa has been seeded successfully, especially in openparks. This introduced forb establishes well, providesexcellent forage, enhances soil nitrogen, and is com-patible with native species. It can be planted to restoresevere disturbances, but use of native forbs is recom-mended. Native forbs that are being seeded success-fully include showy goldeneye, tall bluebell,cowparsnip, goldenrod, butterweed groundsel,oneflower helianthella, Porter ligusticum, lomatium,and sweetanise.

Broadcast seeding of most native herbs is not assuccessful as broadcast planting of grasses. Usually,native forb seeds are more costly and less available.Drilling or some means of placing these seeds in thesoil is advised. Small seeded species, including penste-mon, meadowrue, and cinquefoil, establish well bybroadcast seeding, but drill seeding of expensive seedsis advised.

It is important that species and mixtures plantedare site adapted. Attempting to seed extensive areaswith a general mixture is not advised. Sites should beinspected and planted with a diverse mixture to as-sure that different plant associations are able to de-velop. As native species become more available, morecomplete and site-specific mixtures can be planted.

Many native herbs are currently being collectedfrom wildland sites and can be used in restorationplantings. Within the Intermountain region, nativespecies are being harvested with greater frequencyfrom the aspen communities than from many othervegetative types. However, seed supplies are notcurrently adequate to facilitate all planting needs,and cultivated fields must be developed to supplydemands.

Many important native grasses and broadleafherbs that exist in these communities can be success-fully planted in mixtures. Natural recovery of de-pleted and disturbed sites depends upon the degree ofsoil loss that has occurred and the amount and sourceof native seeds. Some aspen areas will recover quicklyif livestock grazing is controlled, and seeding is notnecessary. Seeding to protect exposed soils may beachieved by planting a few species, principally nativegrasses. Through protection, additional species willlikely recover.

Mountain BrushCommunities ___________________

In the Intermountain West, the mountain brushtype occupies considerable acreage. The chief compo-nents are Gambel oak, bigtooth maple, Rocky Moun-tain maple, mountain big sagebrush, Saskatoon servi-ceberry (fig. 14), and Utah serviceberry. Associated

B

A



with the above species, in various geographic areas,are ninebark, chokecherry, bitter cherry, skunkbushsumac, antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose, true mountainmahogany, and curlleaf mountain mahogany. Thetype is rich in diversity of forbs and associated grasses.Gambel oak dominates from north-central Utah tonorthern Arizona, western Colorado, and on scatteredmountain ranges in Nevada. Big tooth maple is domi-nant in northern Utah, northern Nevada, and south-ern Idaho. Scattered stands of serviceberry and ante-lope bitterbrush occur over the full range of themountain brush type. Gambel oak, serviceberry, andmaple communities normally occur above the pinyon-juniper zone and below the aspen-fir zone. Gambel oakcommunities also integrade into ponderosa pine andlodgepole pine forests. Ponderosa pine, in many re-spects, is a counterpart to the mountain brush type.

Extensive stands of curlleaf mountain mahoganyoccur intermixed throughout the region with othermountain brush species. Curlleaf mountain mahoganynormally grows on shallow, more rocky soils thanother associated shrubs. Mature stands often supportless diversity of understory herbs than other moun-tain brush shrub associations. This plant associationprovides important habitat to big game animals, andstands have frequently been heavily grazed by gameand livestock. Mature and taller plants often grow outof the reach of grazing animals, yet smaller or youngerplants are often hedged and maintained in a stuntedform. Seedling recruitment of the shrub is seriouslyimpacted by grazing, limiting natural regeneration.Extensive areas now exist where reproduction is pre-vented by grazing and invasion of annual weeds.

Figure 14—Mountain brush communities sup-port Gambel oak, mountain big sagebrush, andserviceberry.

Figure 15—Mountain brush communities are impor-tant spring and summer ranges for elk and deer.

Mountain brush communities occur between 5,000and 9,000 ft (1,524 and 2,743 m). Annual precipitationvaries from a low of 15 inches (380 mm) to 26 inches(660 mm). A linear increase in precipitation of 4.94inches (126 mm) per 1,000 ft (350 m) rise in elevationhas been demonstrated for this type (Lull and Ellison1950). Seasonal moisture distribution shows a crestfrom February to April and a low from July to Septem-ber.

Mountain brush communities have been recognizedas important, highly productive spring-summer-fallranges for cattle and sheep (Harper and others 1985;Sampson 1925). Deer, elk (fig. 15), bear, grouse, andMerriams turkeys also make considerable use of thetype (Harper and others 1985; Julander and Robinette1950; Kufeld 1973; Kufeld and others 1973).

Gambel oak grows in clumps that vary in height anddensity. The foliage of many taller plants can be out ofreach of grazing animals. Some stands are thick andimpenetrable to livestock and wildlife. Density andsize of Gambel oak clumps have increased in manyareas due to grazing and fire control measures. Under-story forage production has generally decreased due tolivestock grazing and competition from the oak.

Serviceberry and maple-dominated communitiesgenerally occur in quite open stands. Serviceberry andmountain big sagebrush often occur intermixed, witha number of grasses and forbs filling the largeinterspaces. Tall, robust plants of serviceberry andmaple may become unavailable to livestock and gameanimals as the plants mature. The desirable under-story species that occupy the interspaces are oftensubjected to misuse by improper grazing. The primaryobjective in treating most mountain brush communi-ties is to reestablish the understory herbs. Most shrubspecies still occupy the sites, and shrub replanting isnot usually required.




Reduction of shrub competition is often required tocreate a suitable seedbed and allow seeded herbs toestablish (Engle and others 1983; Marquiss 1973;Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1983b; Stevensand Davis 1985; Tew 1969). Shrub competition can bereduced using fires, herbicides, and mechanical treat-ment. Treatment of brush fields should be designed toretain the shrubs, but allow reintroduction of under-story herbs. Sites supporting an adequate understorywould not necessitate seeding. Control of wildfires hasprevented natural burning of some brush fields, whichtends to allow formation of closed stands of shrubs andsuppression of understory plants. Some sites wouldbenefit from burning, but may or may not requireseeding.

Gambel oak is an important plant throughout manywatersheds. It exists on steep slopes where groundcover is essential. Following burning, oak recoverswell and provides needed ground cover. Gambel oakclumps that are burned and then chained or railed toimprove seedbed conditions can be aerial seeded withgood success.

An efficient means to suppress Gambel oak is twice-over anchor chaining, preferably with heavy links orwith a Dixie or Ely chain. Chaining will break downboth erect and short-growing shrubs. In addition, thedensity of shrubs can be reduced if desired. If singlechained, seeding should precede chaining. With doublechaining, seeding should occur between chainings toensure proper seed coverage. Interspaces can be seededand chained at the same time the brush is treated.

Offset disks, heavy pipe harrows, and brushlandplows can be used to reduce some brush thickets.These methods of mechanical control are expensive,however, and the equipment can only be operated onlevel to moderately sloping sites, in open stands, or inshort-statured oak. Excellent seedbeds are prepared,and small areas can usually be treated with thesetypes of equipment.

Reestablishment of understory herbs is essentialwithin Gambel oak stands. When competitive speciesare established, and grazing pressure is applied toGambel oak thickets, the growth of new sprouts maybe held in check (fig. 16) (Frischknecht and Plummer1955; Harper and others 1985; Plummer and others1970b; Stevens and Davis 1985). Treated oak standsthat are not seeded with herbaceous plants readilyresprout and regain dominance. In addition, the sproutsgrow rapidly and become unavailable, and the standmay become impenetrable within a short time.

Understory species that are seeded in oak thicketsmust be shade tolerant because oak can resprout andform a dense canopy. Establishment of adapted under-story species may reduce shrub regrowth, decrease thedensity of sprouting, and enable oak stands to remain

open, supporting a better quality herbaceous under-story. Forage production within oak clumps can be asmuch as three times greater than between clumps.Forage within clumps begins growth later in the springbut remains green longer into the fall than the samespecies growing between clumps (fig. 17). Soil mois-ture depletion has been found to be significantly re-duced by removing oak top growth and introducinggrasses (Tew 1966, 1967, 1969).

Clary and Tiedemann (1986) reported that morewoody material is produced underground by Gambel

Figure 16—A stand of Gambel oak that waschained and seeded to smooth brome, intermedi-ate wheatgrass, and tall oatgrass in 1954. Phototaken in 1993 demonstrating the ability of theseeded grasses to suppress or retard recovery ofoak shoots.

Figure 17—Grasses seeded with oak clumpsare more productive and retain greenness laterinto the season than similar plants establishedin openings.



oak than is produced above ground. Various types ofmechanical treatments, fire, and herbicides have beenused to kill or reduce oak. However, regardless oftreatment, resprouting occurs from the massive rootsystem.

Not all woody plants that dominate the mountainbrush communities recover after fires. In addition,certain ecotypes of shrub species differ significantly intheir response to fires. Gambel oak, serviceberry,maple, and sumac normally resprout after mechanicaltreatment and burning. However, duration and tim-ing of the fire affects plant regrowth, particularlymaple and sumac.

Antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose, and mountain snow-berry may or may not recover after burning. Theseshrubs may show sprouting the first and second yearafter a burn, after which most die. Layering forms ofantelope bitterbrush usually recover to some extent.Erect or upright growth forms are usually killed byburning. Some plants may resprout, but succumb bythe second growing season. Ecotypes of antelope bit-terbrush that naturally layer or grow with ponderosapine and lodgepole pine are most likely to resprout andlive after fires.

Mountain big sagebrush and curlleaf mountainmahogany are often killed by fire. New plants maydevelop from natural reproduction or from artificialseeding. Establishment of shrub seedlings is regu-lated by the presence and recovery of the understoryherbs. If these two shrubs and other nonsproutingspecies are to be reestablished through natural seeddispersal, sites should not be planted with a denseunderstory of competitive herbs. Cliffrose, curlleafmountain mahogany, chokecherry, and to a lesserextent, antelope bitterbrush, true mountain mahogany,and serviceberry respond well to chaining.

Planting Season

Seeding in the mountain brush zone should be con-ducted in late fall (October and November). Plantingcan be conducted even after snowfall and until snowbecomes too deep to effectively operate equipment. Insome seasons and on some sites, treatment can con-tinue into January; however, the season often closesby mid-November or December. Spring plantings withrapidly germinating species can be successful if doneimmediately after snowmelt, but this is usually a veryshort period. Consequently, spring seeding is not rec-ommended because of the unpredictability of moisturerequired to germinate and sustain new seedlings.

Planting Procedures

When treating large areas, aerial seeding hasproven to be the most successful method. Chainingor pipe harrowing should follow seeding in order to

cover the seed, scatter debris, and to create smallwater-collection and holding depressions. Seed drib-blers and thimble seeders attached to crawler trac-tors can be used to seed selected species into thecleat marks. Grasses and forbs can usually be estab-lished on favorable sites by broadcasting seed justbefore leaf fall. Hand seeding small disturbed areasis practical. Drill seeding is often impractical be-cause of heavy debris and steep terrain.

On bare, eroding hillsides, which frequently occuron southern exposures, furrowing and seeding withsidehill furrowers attached to a tractor is appropriatewhere slopes permit tractor operation. On slopes over30 percent, broadcasting onto furrows, made on thecontour by reversible moldboard plows or speciallydesigned plows, is effective. Slopes cut by large gulliesmay require deeper and wider contour trenches. Thesemust be spaced sufficiently close together to retainrunoff from high-intensity storms. Deep furrowing ortrenching is only recommended to control seriouserosion problems.


Mountain brush communities are located betweenaspen and juniper-pinyon communities, hence, manyspecies common to higher and lower elevations minglein this zone. Also, considerable variations occur in theamount of precipitation, slope, aspect, and soil tocreate a variety of sites for a large number of species.Mountain brush communities are potentially one ofthe most productive plant types. This type is a counter-part, in many respects, of ponderosa pine sites; conse-quently, similar treatment practices can often be used.

Species adapted to mountain brush communitiesare listed in table 13. Attempts to restore the diverseplant communities require use of a wide array ofspecies. A considerable number of shrubs that occur inthe mountain brush type are quite resilient and per-sist with intense grazing pressure. However, moun-tain big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bit-terbrush, cliffrose, mountain snowberry, Martinceanothus, birchleaf mountain mahogany, and curlleafmountain mahogany have been reduced and elimi-nated in some areas. These shrubs can normally beseeded with drills or single-row seeders. With theexception of big sagebrush and rabbitbrush, seeds ofmost shrubs must be placed into the soil. Broadcastseeding of big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush isrecommended on open or bare surfaces. Direct seedinginto herbaceous competition is not recommended forany shrub. Most sites receive sufficient moisture toassure shrub establishment if seed is properly planted.

Many native grasses and broadleaf herbs occur in thisplant type and can be used to restore depleted sites.Seed availability may somewhat limit large restora-tion plantings, but seeds of many native species are



becoming more available. Seeds of bluebunch wheat-grass, western wheatgrass, muttongrass, thickspikewheatgrass, streambank wheatgrass, big bluegrass,green needlegrass, needle-and-thread, Lewis flax,showy goldeneye, and Rocky Mountain penstemon arenow more available and can be used in place of com-monly used introductions. Intermediate wheatgrass,smooth brome, orchardgrass, hard sheep fescue, andcrested wheatgrass have been widely planted through-out this type. These species are well adapted to thisentire zone and have stabilized watershed distur-bances and provided excellent forage. Intermediatewheatgrass and smooth brome are extremely competi-tive and have been used to stunt regrowth of Gambeloak and provide more accessible forage to grazinganimals. Alfalfa, cicer milkvetch, and small burnethave been widely planted throughout this zone. Allprovide abundant high quality forage and have beenused to stabilize livestock grazing and provide sea-sonal grazing to big game. Seeding of some introducedgrasses, especially smooth brome, hard sheep fescue,and intermediate wheatgrass, has disrupted recoveryof many understory herbs and has suppressed recruit-ment of big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush(Monsen and others 1996).

Sites protected from livestock grazing normally re-cover if some residual species occur. Studies by Monsenand Harper (1988) demonstrate that native under-story shrubs and herbs can be competitive, and areeffective in suppressing invasion of juniper and pinyonand regulating density of Gambel oak.

Weedy species have not invaded the mountain brushtype to any great extent, although poverty weed,various species of thistle, and a few other weeds occur.To date, they have not caused serious problems requir-ing intensive control measures.

Ponderosa PineCommunities ___________________

Ponderosa pine is the most widely distributed pinein North America (Fowells 1965) (fig. 18). In theIntermountain West, ponderosa pine occurs at ap-proximately the same elevation and on sites with thesame annual precipitation as does the mountain brushtype. Mountain brush types are found on heavier soilsthan ponderosa pine, which prefers well-drained,coarser textured soils, with soil pH close to neutral,and more summer precipitation.

Twenty-two different plant associations occupied byponderosa pine have been described by Steele andothers (1981) for areas in central Idaho. These plantassociations represent the primary ponderosa pinecommunities throughout the Intermountain region.Grazing, logging, weed invasion, and fires have cre-ated problems requiring restoration or revegetation.

Logging activities have changed the composition ofthese plant communities. Road construction and log-ging disturbances have also created erosion, sedimen-tation, and runoff, causing degradation of downstreamresources. Roads and related disturbances have alsofacilitated the spread of weeds that alter plant com-munities and interfere with restoration measures.Grazing has impacted many ponderosa pine/bunch-grass and shrub communities. Desirable understoryspecies have been removed by grazing, which has alsoallowed invasion and expansion of weeds. Cheatgrasshas spread throughout many of the ponderosa pine/bunchgrass associations and gained control of manydisturbances. Yellow star thistle, rush skeletonweed,and medusahead also occupy sites once dominated byponderosa pine/bunchgrass.

Invasion and spread of cheatgrass has increased firefrequency and size of wildfires throughout variousponderosa pine communities. More frequent burninghas eliminated nonfire-tolerant trees, shrubs, andherbs, and further perpetuated the spread of cheatgrassand other undesirable annuals. Control measures arerequired to eliminate the annual grass, restore acompetitive cover, and reestablish species eliminatedby weed competition and burning.

Not all ponderosa pine disturbances have been in-vaded by weeds. In many situations understory shrubsand herbs have been eliminated or seriously weak-ened by grazing. Woody species important for wintergrazing have been lost and must be restored. Grassesand broadleaf herbs have also been removed andrequire restoration to stabilize soil erosion and main-tain a balance in species composition. Shrub and treerecruitment is dependent on seedbed conditions andcomposition of understory species.

Figure 18—A young stand of ponderosa pine witha mixture of understory species.



In many situations, disturbances within ponderosapine sites occur on steep inaccessible sites, limitingtreatment practices. Natural recovery is the mostpractical means of restoration. Natural recovery doesoccur throughout most areas where native herbsremain and have not been replaced by weeds. Protec-tion and limited seeding should be utilized to restorethese sites.


Many shrubs and herbs that occur with ponderosapine are able to recover following burning, logging, orgrazing unless the site seriously degraded. In thesesituations, seeding may be required. Cheatgrass,medusahead, and other weeds have invaded manylower elevation communities supporting ponderosapine. These weedy species present serious manage-ment problems. They increase the incidence of wild-fires and reduce establishment of natural and artificialseedlings. Annual weeds must be controlled to allowseedlings of other species to establish. On steep slopes,burning is the most practical method used to reduceweedy competition. Sites burned by wildfires or con-trolled burns should be seeded in the fall to controlreinvasion of annual weeds. Adequate moisture isusually received to support new seedings if plantingsare conducted the first year after burning whencheatgrass competition has been suppressed.

Recent invasion of rush skeletonweed in south-cen-tral Idaho in ponderosa pine/bunchgrass communitiesappears to be capable of upsetting natural successionalchanges. Its ecology is not well-understood, but controlof this weed has become a major problem.

Plowing, disking, or spraying can be used to controldominant stands of annual grasses on large acces-sible areas. Seeding directly into annual grasses isnot advisable. Cheatgrass sites can usually be suc-cessfully seeded following burns or during periods ofdrought that may diminish weeds. Burning does notreduce competition of medusahead, and additionalcontrol measures are required to assure plantingsuccess.

Broadcast seeding weed-infested sites followingburning can be successful if seeds are covered byharrowing or chaining methods. Failure to cover seedsoften results in spotty, irregular stands, althoughsuccessful stands may occur in some years. Mechani-cal coverage is not always possible in many areas, andseeding on or before snowfall is advised.

Cheatgrass and medusahead occupy many ponde-rosa pine and associated shrub/bunchgrass sites. Manyweedy areas once occupied by antelope bitterbrushhave been interseeded or intertransplanted with thisshrub. Plantings have been made into small scalps orclearings that are 30 x 30 inches (76 x 76 cm) in size.

Weeds and weed seeds are removed by scalping andsidecasting the surface soil. Bitterbrush has beentransplanted or planted into the small clearings. Manyantelope bitterbrush interseedings were establishedusing this technique amid weedy sites in central Idahoand Utah during the 1940s and 1950s. Mature standsof shrubs developed, but failed to persist. Individualshrubs reached maturity but slowly senesced. Al-though the antelope bitterbrush shrubs producedadequate seed crops during most years, natural re-cruitment failed to perpetuate shrub stands. Annualweeds were initially removed from portions of the areaat the time antelope bitterbrush was seeded, but theweeds regained dominance of the understory. Compe-tition from the understory prevented shrub seedlingrecruitment during the 40- to 50-year period since thesites were initially planted. Attempts to restore ante-lope bitterbrush in sites occupied by annual grassesmust include replacement of the weeds with nativeunderstory herbs. If cheatgrass and medusahead areleft as the understory, their presence will eliminatenatural shrub seedling recruitment that is required tomaintain the stand.

It is essential that native understory grasses andbroadleaf herbs are reestablished to facilitate thenatural recruitment of important shrubs. Large andextensive areas that once supported antelope bitter-brush and ponderosa pine are currently occupied withmixed stands of annual and perennial grasses. Thesesites should be managed or treated to restore the nativeunderstory species. As native plants are reestablished,interseeding with shrubs can be accomplished.Interseeding with shrubs into perennial native grasseswill be required in many areas as the principal shrubshave been eliminated and a satisfactory seed source isnot available. Once the understory is established,shrubs can be interseeded in narrow strips created bysurface tillage, scalping, or following herbicide treat-ment. Reducing understory competition is normallyrequired to establish uniform stands of antelopebitterbrush, snowberry, and most other shrubs. Al-though these species are able to establish by naturalseeding into native herbs, planting large areas with-out some attempt to reduce understory competition isnot advisable. It is essential to reestablish understoryspecies prior to or as shrubs are planted. Planting ormanaging sites to establish and maintain a completeassembly of herbaceous and woody species is neces-sary. Attempts to establish only the shrub componentof ponderosa pine associations have often beenunsuccessful.

Weedy sites have commonly been seeded with pe-rennial grasses including crested wheatgrass, inter-mediate wheatgrass, hard sheep fescue, and smoothbrome. These species compete well and replacecheatgrass, medusahead, and other weeds; but they



also prevent recovery of native herbs, and establish-ment and recruitment of most shrubs.

Reestablishment of antelope bitterbrush, big sage-brush, chokecherry, bitter cherry, and mountain ma-hogany is required on many disturbances. Sites occu-pied by these and other shrubs are important winteringareas and support concentrated wildlife populations.Animal browsing can and has prevented establish-ment and normal growth of small plantings. To besuccessful, shrub plantings must be large enough tolimit browsing and allow plants to attain normalstature. In some special situations, populations ofgame animals may have to be reduced to allow estab-lishment of seeded species.

Planting Season

Following burns or other treatments, seeds are usu-ally fall sown. If seeds can be covered by chaining orusing lightweight drags, planting should be conductedin late fall (October and November). Broadcast seed-ing on steep surfaces without any followup methodused to cover the seed should be delayed until a snowcover has developed. Spring plantings are not advisedbecause many sites, particularly south and west slopes,dry quickly. Early spring is the most preferred time totransplant.

Planting Procedures

Many tree-dominated sites occur on extremely steepslopes where machinery cannot be used. Typical areasusually requiring treatment are old-stock driveways,roads, logging disturbances, burns, or other areaswhere these practices have seriously impacted thevegetation. Most steep slopes can be aerially seededwith herbs, big sagebrush, and rubber rabbitbrush.Where possible, seed should be covered by harrowingor chaining.

In many situations, antelope bitterbrush and bigsagebrush have been eliminated from areas as a resultof natural fire and grazing. These and other shrubscan be interseeded into native bunchgrass stands ifherbaceous competition is controlled for 1 to 2 years.Various interseeders can be operated on sites acces-sible to tractor-drawn equipment. Steep slopes nor-mally require hand seeding.

Both big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush can bebroadcast seeded in midwinter on native bunchgrasssites with excellent success. Seeds planted on or beforesnowfall germinate and establish amid grass competi-tion. Many areas subjected to frequent burning lack ashrub cover, and these sites can be aerial seeded withbig sagebrush or rubber rabbitbrush (Monsen andPellant 1995).

Broadcast seeding beneath ponderosa pine is not assuccessful as planting amid aspen trees. Pine needles

provide poor cover for the seeds. Seed germination andseedling establishment are quite erratic in these ar-eas. However, most ponderosa pine and lodgepole pinetypes receive sufficient moisture each year to assureseedling establishment. Broadcast seedings on bare,well-drained, steep slopes normally result in poorstands. Many species simply cannot be established bybroadcast planting on barren surfaces.

Anchor chaining can be used to cover seed on steep,long slopes by experienced operators (Monsen andPellant 1995). Chains of various weights can be usedwith attached swivels to control the amount of soildisturbance. Contrary to some objections, chainingdoes not create small continuous depressions wherewater may collect and cause rilling or erosion. Chain-ing up and down long slopes is possible. Contourchaining is not necessary, even on bare or burned sitesto control runoff. If properly used, chaining does notuproot or impact recovery of existing species. Chain-ing can be effectively used to till soils where waterrepellent soils form following burning. This is a majorproblem contributing to erosion on forested communi-ties and open parks. The amount of soil tillage re-quired to prepare a seedbed and cover seeds is usuallyhelpful to “break up” water repellent soils and improveamount of infiltration.

In many situations, shrubs and trees must beestablished by transplanting. Seeding success withWoods rose, mountain snowberry, bitter cherry,maple, mountain ash, and chokecherry has beenerratic. Yet, good success can be attained by seedingantelope bitterbrush, snowbrush ceanothus, redstemceanothus, Martin ceanothus, mountain big sage-brush, and birchleaf mountain mahogany. Theseshrubs establish if good quality seed is fall sown, andthe new seedlings are not subjected to excessivegrazing and competition from herbaceous plants.


Steele and others (1981) have identified varioushabitat types where ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine,and Douglas-fir exist with different components ofunderstory shrubs and herbs. The distribution andoccurrence of each habitat type has also been delin-eated. Species occurring in each habitat type or plantassociation should be included in any revegetationproject. Since considerable differences in site condi-tions and plant composition occur among these types,it is not always advisable to plant species from onehabitat type into another. Some grasses and shrubsoccur in more than one habitat type and are morewidely adapted than others. Also, certain species re-cover as pioneer plants and establish initially after adisturbance. Plantings of ninebark, redstem ceanothus,Utah honeysuckle, mountain lover, and cascara buck-thorn do not survive well when planted on disturbed



soils. These species grow better on soils that have notbeen degraded by erosion. Plantings of russetbuffaloberry and most species of blueberry and man-zanita fail to develop when planted in openings devoidof any overstory cover. These species should not beplanted in open sites or areas that have lost the topsoil.

Although species of big sagebrush and rabbitbrushare well adapted throughout the mountain brushzone, they are restricted to specific sites. Mountain bigsagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush should only beplanted on sites where they naturally occur. Speciessuggested for planting are in table 13.

Juniper-Pinyon Communities _____

Distribution

Mitchell and Roberts (1999) stated that there areapproximately 55.6 million acres (22.2 million ha) ofpinyon and juniper in the Western United States.Substantial portions of the Intermountain region areoccupied by juniper-pinyon and associated species (fig.19). Acreage estimates vary considerably. West andothers (1975) listed 15.5 million acres (6.2 million ha)in Utah, 13.1 million acres (5.2 million ha) in Nevada,and 1.4 million acres (0.6 million ha) in Idaho. In theGreat Basin, data grid analysis from Lansat-1 satel-lite photography (Tueller and others 1979) indicatedthere are about 17.6 million acres (7.1 million ha) ofjuniper-pinyon. O’Brien and Woudenberg (1999)stated that there are more than 45.3 million acres(18.1 million ha) of forests composed mostly of pinyonand/or juniper in the Intermountain West.

Singleleaf pinyon occurs throughout Nevada to cen-tral Utah where pinyon takes over and extends into

Colorado. Utah juniper is found in association withboth singleleaf pinyon and pinyon. On drier siteswhere conditions are too arid for the pinyons, Utahjuniper occurs in pure stands covering vast areas.Rocky Mountain juniper occurs at the upper edge ofthe singleleaf pinyon occupying small scattered areas.Western juniper dominates the low foothills in easternOregon and Washington, existing on sites similar tothose occupied by Utah juniper in the Intermountainregion.

Juniper-pinyon ranges from 10,000 ft (3,280 m)elevation on the crest of the Sierras (West and others1975) to a low of 3,200 ft (1,050 m) along the Utah-Arizona border (Woodbury 1947). Pinyon tends to favorhigher elevations, and Utah juniper becomes moredominant at lower elevations. Annual precipitation inthe juniper-pinyon type ranges from 8 to 22 inches(200 to 560 mm), with the best stand developmentoccurring between 12 and 17 inches (300 and 430 mm).

Ecological Changes and Status

From the late 1800s to the present, distribution anddensity of many pinyon and juniper communities havebeen significantly altered. A majority of the juniper-pinyon stands in the Great Basin prior to settlementwere confined to specific areas, and supported a di-verse understory of perennial grasses, forbs, andshrubs. Fire, combined with perennial understorycompetition, controlled the spread and thickening ofexisting juniper-pinyon stands. The understory veg-etation controlled or regulated the incidence and spreadof fires, which, in turn, regulated the presence anddistribution of juniper and pinyon. Heavy grazing bylivestock over many years resulted in communitychanges and the eventual loss of the perennial under-story (fig. 20) and, in some locations, establishment ofexotic annuals that now dominate the understory(Gruell 1999). Grazing and a lack of fire have resultedin an extensive increase in tree density and expansioninto new areas. O’Brien and Woudenberg (1999) re-ported that 53 percent of the pinyon and juniper treesin Utah and 67 percent in Nevada are between 40 and120 years old, and only 20 percent in Utah and 9percent in Nevada are older than 200 years. This datadramatically demonstrates the great increase in treesfollowing the introduction of livestock and reduction offire incidence. Adjoining semiarid grass and shrublandsunderwent similar changes as desirable species wereeliminated or reduced in density and vigor by grazing.The absence of fire and the loss of dominant grassesand other understory species by livestock allowed foran increase in juniper and pinyon trees, and substan-tial tree invasion into many adjoining grass andshrublands (Aro 1971; West 1984b, 1999; Woodbury1947).

Figure 19—Numerous areas in central Utah supportsimilar age stands of pinyon and juniper, growing withonly scattered amounts of understory species.



Increase or invasion of trees combined with signifi-cant changes in the understory from perennial toannual communities resulted in unstable soil condi-tions and erosion (Farmer and others 1995; Roundyand Vernon 1999). Grass and shrub communities useand transpire considerably less moisture than juniperand pinyon, which are active all year (Roundy andVernon 1999). This unchecked water use has thepotential to dry up springs and reduce quantity andquality of water in streams. Archaeological sites havebeen lost or damaged by erosion in depleted juniper-pinyon sites (Chong 1993). In addition, critical fall,winter, and spring livestock and wildlife ranges havebeen seriously degraded. Deer and elk numbers havebeen shown to decline as tree density increases (Shortand others 1977). Suminski (1985) reported that de-clines in deer numbers were highly correlated to clos-ing canopy cover of juniper and pinyon expansion intoareas formerly devoid of trees, and the correspond-ing decline in understory production. Sage-grouse(Commons and others 1999) respond adversely toincreased density and invasions of pinyon and juniper.Loss or alteration of riparian areas through commu-nity changes, erosion, and lowering of water tables hasoccurred, affecting the productivity and stability ofthese sites.

Not all juniper-pinyon sites support similar compo-sitions of understory species (Rust 1999; Thompson1999). A variety of herbaceous and woody plants existin different amounts, depending on site and climaticconditions (Goodrich 1999). In addition, the composi-tion and age structure is regulated by changes inclimatic and biotic events including wildfires.

Over the past 45 years, some depleted juniper-pinyon stands have been artificially seeded to enhance

species composition, improve habitat, and correctwatershed conditions. However, not all juniper-pin-yon stands merit treatment and artificial seeding.Sites that are ecologically stable and have not been sodramatically altered that natural successional changesmay occur, should not be candidates for artificialtreatment. In some situations, stable tree communi-ties may be altered to satisfy high-value resourceneeds, but few situations would justify convertingstable communities to support other species. Somejuniper-pinyon woodlands have been converted to pas-ture lands for livestock foraging. In some situations,these practices have been used to stabilize livestockgrazing problems. Although conversion from wood-lands to herblands is attainable, careful managementis required to maintain the desirable herbs. Intro-duced grasses have been successfully establishedthroughout many juniper-pinyon woodlands andprovide substantial forage for grazing animals. In-troduced species generally provide considerablecompetition to limit tree reinvasion, but tree re-incroachment is not prevented on all sites seeded tointroduced herbs. Grazing practices, in conjunctionwith site conditions, will influence recovery of nativespecies, including woody plants.

Species composition of juniper-pinyon communitiesmay be altered to a different seral status with orwithout the introduction of a new complex of speciesattained by seeding. In some situations, juniper-pinyon woodlands can be converted by burning(Goodrich and Reid 1999; Greenwood and others1999) or chaining to reduce tree density. This ispossible if sufficient native understory exists, and iscapable of recovery following treatment (Stevens1999a).

To date, most juniper-pinyon conversion projectshave utilized artificial seeding to ensure the rapidreestablishment of understory shrubs and herbs. Iftreated sites lack the desired understory species, seed-ing is normally used to ensure their establishment. Todate, substitute species are commonly used to seedmany sites because seed of many native species is notconsistently available.

Juniper-pinyon sites that have been altered by ex-tensive grazing and exclusion of wildfires must beexamined to determine the restoration measures thatcan be used to reestablish desired vegetation, leadingto the creation of a more natural system. Most sitesthat have been heavily grazed for long periods nolonger support even minor amounts of understoryperennial species (Poulsen and others 1999). On thesesites, either juniper or pinyon trees, or both, haveincreased and dominate (Madany and West 1983).Trees provide extensive competition and preclude theinvasion or establishment of small seedlings of mostdesirable understory species (Naillon and others 1999).

Figure 20—Stands of pinyon and juniper frequentlyprovide cover for wildlife, but lack suitable seasonalherbage.



It is essential that some trees be removed to allow forthe establishment of other species. Trees offer so muchcompetition that seed germination and seedling emer-gence and establishment is prevented. Removal of alltrees is not essential, but tree competition must besufficiently diminished to allow many slower develop-ing species time to fully establish. Interseeding intoexisting vegetation has proven successful in somecommunity types, but not in juniper-pinyon.

Juniper-pinyon sites that have been void of under-story species for many years will most likely lack asufficient seedbank (Naillon and others 1999; Poulsenand others 1999). On these sites, natural seeding willnot occur even if trees are removed. Understoryshrub and herbaceous species that are weakened byheavy grazing and competition and from tree en-croachment normally do not bear seed, but maypersist for years before eventually succumbing. Un-der these conditions, undisturbed stands of juniper-pinyon may exist for many years with little seedbeing added to the natural seedbank. Removal ofcompetitive trees can, in very specific situations,result in a slow, erratic recovery of associated nativespecies. Unless sites are artificially seeded, naturalrecovery is often ineffective.

Many juniper-pinyon sites support scattered, butimportant, amounts of annual weeds includingcheatgrass, bur buttercup, red brome, and variousmustards. If trees are removed and sites are allowed torecover naturally, annual and perennial weeds willflourish and quickly assume dominance (Gruell 1999).Weeds can be highly competitive and restrict thereestablishment of desirable natives. Because conver-sion to annual weeds will occur rapidly, seeding mustnot be delayed beyond the year of tree removal.

Juniper-pinyon restoration programs should be de-signed to allow for restoring native vegetation andcreating stable communities. Converting juniper-pinyon communities to assemblages of introducedspecies is not advisable (Stevens 1999a; Walker 1999).The seeded community should be able to respond towildfires and sustain some grazing. In many situa-tions, juniper-pinyon sites must be managed to allowwildfires to occur and thereby regulate species compo-sition. In some situations, wildfires may not be accept-able or cannot be managed without extensive damageto shrubs and other adjacent resources. In these situ-ations, chaining or other artificial treatment may beused as a substitute to regulate plant composition.

Removal or controlled use of livestock from manydepleted juniper-pinyon-dominated areas will not fa-cilitate the recovery of native vegetation, stabilize thesoil, and return these areas to their presettlementconditions (Goodloe 1993, 1999). Severely depletedjuniper-pinyon sites recover very slowly with theremoval of grazing. In some other vegetative types,

improvements can be expected by removing livestockgrazing, but desired responses are slow to occur inmany juniper-pinyon stands. Principal reasons arethe absence of a seed source and the competitionexerted by pinyon and juniper. To return most juniper-pinyon areas to a more natural state, tree competitionshould be reduced, a suitable seedbed created, andsites properly seeded.

Chaining or other mechanical treatments used toreduce tree density are substitutes for natural treecontrol most frequently attained by wildfires. Theobjective of most improvement projects is not to re-move all trees, but to allow recovery of the understoryspecies and to facilitate artificial seeding (Stevens1999a). Creation of a diverse understory is normallyrequired to enhance resource values and help controlthe spread and growth of trees and annual weeds. Treeremoval, by whatever means, is simply a techniqueused to change the seral status of many sites (Stevens1999b).


There is a need to enhance watershed conditions andwater quality, increase spring flow, improve understo-ries, and improve big game, nongame, and livestockhabitat in the juniper-pinyon woodlands (Roundy andVernon 1999). A large number of acres of juniper-pinyon woodlands have been treated by chaining andrailing. When comparing results from early projectswith today’s plant materials, equipment, techniques,standards, and results, some mistakes were made inthe past. However, most older chainings and seedingsare now exhibiting desirable improvements in water-shed stability (Roundy and Vernon 1999) provided bymore natural plant associations. Results from poorlydesigned and managed projects should not preventfurther treatment projects. Decisions should be basedon recovery and stability of native plant communitiesand the use of today’s plant materials, equipment, andtechniques. Guidelines have been developed for chain-ing and seeding (Fairchild 1999; Nelson and others1999).

Removal of competing trees can be accomplished ina number of ways. Prescribed fire can be an effectivepractice in some areas. Twice-over anchor chaining,with 90-lb (41-kg) links, in opposite directions havebeen used extensively in juniper-pinyon control andthinning (Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1999b).Use of cable or a chain of lighter links is satisfactorywhere it is desired to leave more trees and shrubs.Once-over chaining may be adequate when sufficientunderstory remains, trees are sparse and mature,and seeding is not required. Cabling is less effectivethan chaining in removing trees and creating aseedbed.



Anchor chains are pulled behind two crawler trac-tors traveling parallel to each other. For maximumtree removal, chains cannot be dragged while stretchedtaut, but must be dragged in loose, J-shaped, U-shaped,or half-circle patterns. The half-circle configurationprovides the greatest swath width and lowest percent-age tree kill. It is primarily used in mature, even-agestands and when a low percent tree kill is desired. Treekill increases as the width of the J- or U-shapedpattern decreases. As the proportion of young treesincreases, chaining width should decrease to removethe greatest number of young trees, if this is theobjective (Stevens 1999b).

Success in removing trees varies with species com-position, tree age structure, and density. Trees in ma-ture, even-age stands can be uprooted more effectivelyand efficiently than in uneven-age stands (Van Pelt andothers 1990). Young trees less than 4 ft (1.2 m) tallgenerally are not killed with single or double chainingbecause the chain rides over the plants without causingdamage (fig. 21). Young pinyon are much more flexiblethan are young juniper, resulting in less kill of smallpinyon.

Chaining has commonly been confined to slopes ofless than 50 percent (Vallentine 1989). In Utah, suc-cessful chaining has been accomplished on slopes up to65 percent with both chainings being downhill. Firstand second chainings can be done in the fall, withseeding taking place between the two chainings. An-other technique is to chain once during the summermonths. Trees are then allowed to dry out beforeseeding, and the second chaining is done in the fall.Dry trees break up easily and are scattered over thearea when this technique is used.

It is advantageous to leave downed trees in placeand not pile or burn them. Some advantages include:(1) retention and detention of surface water, prevent-ing erosion and increasing infiltration; (2) increasedground cover; (3) improved wildlife habitat; (4) inceasedbig game and livestock movement onto the treatedareas; (5) decreased livestock trailing; (6) more evendistribution of livestock and big game which, in turn,provides for more even use; (7) improved seeded andnatural seedling establishment (fig. 22); and (8) nocost for piling and burning.

Planting Season

Late fall until midwinter (October through January)is the preferred planting period. Seedings should onlyoccur when seed can be properly covered. Delayingseeding until late fall or midwinter reduces seed dep-redation by rodents and birds. Fall and winter plantingsprovide adequate time for stratification of planted

Figure 21—Young pinyon and juniper trees nor-mally are not uprooted with chaining, and canrecover quickly as older trees are removed.

Figure 22—Tree limbs provide ideal micrositesfor seedling establishment of: (A) grasses and(B) shrubs.

A

B



seeds, and ensures that seeds are in the ground whentemperature and soil moisture conditions are mostfavorable (early spring) for germination and seedlingestablishment.

Planting Procedures

Seeders attached to fixed-wing aircraft and helicop-ters are designed to broadcast seed uniformly. Themajority of juniper-pinyon chainings and burns in theIntermountain West have been aerially seeded. Mostgrasses, forbs, and small seeded shrubs such as sage-brush and rabbitbrush can be seeded successfully withboth fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Helicoptersgenerally are better adapted to seed small or irregularareas. Downdraft from helicopters can somewhat sepa-rate seed by size and weight. There is a tendency forlighter seed to drift beyond the strip or zone whereheavier seeds concentrate. Chaining has proven to bethe most effective practice available to prepare aseedbed and cover seed following fire or chaining. Ifdouble cabling or chaining is employed, seeding shouldoccur before the final treatment. Seeding prior to thefirst chaining is not recommended. The final chainingnormally provides good seed coverage. Interseedingshould occur prior to chaining when one-way chainingis employed.

When downed trees do not interfere, seed can also becovered using drags or a pipe harrow. Single diskharrows, or similar light-weight machinery, can beused to cover seeds in open, debris-free areas. Caremust be taken to ensure that seeds are not covered toodeep and seedbeds are not too loose. Chaining, orequivalent treatments, are required to cover seedwhen burned sites are broadcast seeded. If mechanicalcoverage is not used, seeding is best done by placingseed on top of a blanket of snow.

Rangeland drills can be used to seed many species onlarge open areas. Again, care should be taken toensure that seeds are properly covered. As a generalrule, most seed should be covered no more than threetimes their own thickness, or to a depth of about 1⁄4 to3⁄8 inch (0.6 to 1 cm). Some species do, however, benefitfrom seeding on a disturbed soil surface.

Seeds that are in short supply or those that requirea firm seedbed can be seeded with a Hansen SeedDribbler or thimble seeder mounted on the deck of acrawler tractor. Seed is metered onto the crawlertracks, then embedded in the soil by the tractor’stracks.

Planting Adapted Species and Mixtures

Tremendous variation exists in soils and biotic con-dition within the juniper-pinyon type and in any givenarea. Consequently, a number of species adapted tospecific sites and conditions should be used (fig. 23).

The primary objective in any restoration project shouldbe to restore ecologically adapted communities. Thisobjective is currently more attainable as native seedsbecome increasingly more available. Planting prac-tices have been developed to seed diverse species.Table 14 lists species adapted to pinyon-juniper com-munities that receive less than 11 inches (280 mm)annual precipitation. Table 15 lists species adapted tosites that received 11 to 15 inches (280 to 380 mm) ofprecipitation, and table 16 lists species that are adaptedto sites that receive over 15 inches (380 mm) of annualprecipitation. Within the juniper and pinyon vegeta-tive type, small to rather large stands of fourwingsaltbush and other salt desert species can be found.These areas generally have soils that contain moreclay, may have a hardpan, and have a slightly higherpH. Species adapted to juniper-pinyon sites with con-siderable fourwing saltbush (salt desert shrublands)

Figure 23—(A) A depleted stand of pinyon andjuniper prior to chaining and seeding. (B) Similararea eight years after treatment.

A

B



are listed in table 17. Care must be taken to ensurethat aggressive species do not dominate the mixture,and once established, do not dominate the seeded andindigenous communities. Crested, desert, intermedi-ate, and pubescent wheatgrass, smooth brome, andhard sheep fescue will outcompete most seeded andnative species, thereby attaining dominance.

Numerous native species have and are being devel-oped for restoration of juniper-pinyon communities(McArthur and Young 1999). Sufficient amounts ofseed are available from wildland collections and culti-vated fields to provide adapted ecotypes of a number ofspecies. Sufficient seed can usually be obtained duringa 1- to 2-year period. Seed of bluebunch wheatgrass,western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass,streambank wheatgrass, basin wildrye, bottlebrushsquirreltail, Indian ricegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, bigbluegrass, green needlegrass, needle-and-thread,Lewis flax, various species of penstemon, westernyarrow, globemallow, and other herbs are normallyavailable. Seed lots of big sagebrush, black sagebrush,rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose,mountain mahogany, ephedra, fourwing saltbush,shadscale, and winterfat are commonly collected andmarketed in sufficient amounts to seed large tracts.Additional grasses and broadleaf herbs are beingreared under cultivation and will become more avail-able at cheaper prices in the future.

Benefits and Features of Chaining

Because of the controversy that has developed re-garding rehabilitation or restoration projects, the fol-lowing information about the proper use of chaining injuniper-pinyon communities is provided.

Juniper-pinyon communities are unique and impor-tant sites. These areas normally support big game andother wildlife during critical spring, fall, and wintermonths. Often the sites are important watersheds.Although they may not store and discharge largeamounts of water, unstable areas often contributesediment and affect downstream water quality. Resto-ration procedures, currently employed to treat un-stable sites, have been developed to restore wildlifehabitat, provide livestock forage, and stabilize water-shed conditions. Most restoration projects are de-signed to improve or stabilize a number of resourcevalues. For this reason, restoration measures must becarefully developed for each situation.

Restoration of most disturbances should be designedto regain the original composition of species and allowthe communities to function naturally. Treatmentsshould allow the recovery of suppressed understoryspecies, and reintroduction of species that have beendisplaced. Designing treatments to restore only aspecific resource, such as soil protection, livestock

forage, or wildlife habitat, may not be ecologicallysound or advisable. Following is a description of somefeatures of anchor chaining:

1. Chaining is an effective method for restoringjuniper-pinyon communities.

It is apparent that trees must be removed to reducecompetition and allow new understory seedlings toestablish. Various practices have been evaluated asmethods to reduce or control trees. Fires, hand cut-ting, herbicides, hula-dozing, and railing have all beenused, but chaining is most functional. It providesadequate tree control, creates desired seedbeds, andaccommodates seeding.

Chaining can be effectively used to regulate or ma-nipulate plant composition without destruction ofunderstory species. Chain link size, modifications tolinks, and operation of the crawler tractor will deter-mine the number and size of trees that are removedand the effects on understory species. Types and sizeof chains and chaining practices can be regulated toretain most existing understory species, yet suffi-ciently reduce tree competition to facilitate seedingand promote natural recovery of understory species.

Through extensive testing and development of alter-nate techniques and equipment, chaining has provento be the least destructive technique to existing veg-etation and soil. Compared with other methods ofmechanical treatment (plowing, disking) or use ofherbicides or fire, this practice can be selectively usedto reduce tree density in desired locations withoutdisruption of understory plants and nontarget areas.

Soil conditions, including watershed stability, canbe improved with chaining. Many treatment prac-tices, including burning, leave bare soil, and sites aresubjected to erosion for a number of years followingtreatment. Chaining leaves considerable litter on thesurface, which improves watershed protection by re-taining and detaining surface runoff and increasinginfiltration. Debris is also deposited in gullies, draws,and waterways, thereby reducing erosion and sedi-mentation within drainages.

Chaining improves watershed and vegetative condi-tions. Its primary advantage is that the practice can beused at almost any season of the year. Plowing, spray-ing, and burning must be conducted at specific times,depending on soil moisture, stage of plant growth, andaccess. Treatment by these methods is often com-pleted at a time when sites are subjected to erosion orwhen unfavorable seedbed conditions occur. In manysituations, burning or other methods of plant controlrequire followup treatments to reduce erosion or limitweed invasion. Chaining can be conducted at the mostappropriate season to benefit soil stability, create adesirable seedbed, plant seed, and reduce invasion ofweeds. Currently, no other treatment provides theflexibility afforded by chaining.



Chaining can be used to help control weeds thatnormally exist within depleted juniper-pinyon stands.Since chaining does not disrupt existing perennialunderstory species, desirable perennials recoverquickly following reduction in tree competition andprovide immediate competition to potential weeds.Adding species by seeding also increases competitionto weedy plants. Soil nutrients and site productivitycan be maintained by chaining. Surface litter andplant debris are maintained onsite, whereas burningremoves nutrients, litter, and debris. Soil profiles arenot disrupted with chaining as they would be withplowing or disking.

2. Chaining can selectively reduce desired densityand most age classes of trees.

Chaining is a technique that can be used to retainselected trees, if desired. The amount or number oftrees removed can be regulated by widening or nar-rowing the operating distance between the tractors, orchanging speed or direction of operation. The weightor size of the chain used and the number and positionof swivels located in the chain can also be used toregulate the extent of tree removal. However, opera-tional procedures can be simply modified by position-ing and regulating the speed of the crawler tractors.

Different types of equipment are not required totreat highly variable sites. Prior to chaining, the areacan be inventoried, and a chain of appropriate size andlength can be selected. Once a chain size is selected,operation of the tractors can be used to regulate thenumber of trees that are removed. Hula dozing orcutting of individual trees also provides considerableflexibility, but costs and treatment time are normallyprohibitive. The practice of chaining can be very sitespecific, and can be easily regulated to affect specificcommunity types, aspects, or acreage. Compared withburning, this practice can be specifically targeted tosmall, irregular tracts. The degree of tree removalusing chemical sprays or burning is difficult to control.Areas treated with either of these practices oftenresults in complete removal of all vegetation, althoughstands or patches may be left that are untreated.However, it is much more difficult to remove only acertain fraction of the trees by burning or chemicalspraying without also affecting the understory.

Since chaining can be conducted during almost anyseason, the extent of trees or understory removed canbe determined by treating on different dates based onplant growth and soil moisture conditions. Chaining,during early winter when trees are brittle and snowcovers the understory, generally results in removal ofmost trees and some shrubs, including big sagebrush,without damage to understory herbs. Chaining duringthe growing season, when woody species are moreflexible, normally leaves more shrubs undamaged. Chain-ing late in the growing season, when soil moisture has

been depleted, results in more complete uprooting oftrees and shrubs than if sites are chained in earlyspring.

Chains with attached swivels and couplings areavailable to most public agencies and private users.Transportation and setup costs are not prohibitive.Individual chains require little maintenance and re-pairs are infrequent. Compared with other machin-ery, repair costs are minimal and little investment isneeded for tools or repairs.

3. Chaining can provide suitable seedbeds for manyspecies and can be used to cover seed on diverse sites.Various practices used to control trees—spraying,burning, hula dozing, and hand-cutting—do not pre-pare a seedbed or aid in actual seeding. Chainingcan, however, provide satisfactory seedbeds on even,steep, and irregular, terrain, and on critical water-sheds. Under normal chaining conditions, suitableseedbeds are created to plant seeds of a number ofspecies with different seedbed requirements. Chain-ing scarifies the soil, creating numerous micrositeswhere seeds are planted at various depths. Seeds canbe broadcast before or after chaining to take advan-tage of the different planting depths, surface compac-tion, and soil mixing that occurs. Planting before orafter chaining determines which species may ini-tially establish and become prominent in the plantcommunity.

Natural seeding of native species can be enhancedby chaining, especially when chaining occurs afterseeds mature. Chaining can also promote sprouting ofsome species, and if done at the correct season, favorstheir recovery and spread. Chaining can also be usedto diminish or control weeds.

Chaining and seeding can be conducted at the mostappropriate season for enhancing establishment ofthe planted species. Within most of the Great Basin,fall seedings have proven to be the most ideal time toplant. Spring seedings should only occur prior to mid-March and only with species that germinate andestablish quickly. In southern Utah, southern Ne-vada, and northern Arizona, seeding just prior to themid-July summer storms has resulted in good successif the storms come.

Satisfactory seedbeds can be prepared with chain-ing on rough, steep, and irregular sites. Attaininguniform and competitive stands on irregular terrainand variable soil conditions is extremely difficult withmost conventional seeding practices. Chaining pro-duces the most uniform stands on poorly accessiblesites of any technique now available.

Although burning or spraying can be used to controltree competition, an additional technique is needed toprepare a seedbed and to plant seeds. Seeds may bebroadcast on fresh burns or sprayed sites; however,many species require some degree of seed coverage.



Chaining provides all degrees of soil coverage, result-ing in the establishment of a diversity of species.Chaining favors soil moisture accumulation, and canbe conducted when conditions are most favorable forseed germination and seedling establishment. Chain-ing and seeding can be accomplished when sites arebare or covered with snow, without accelerating runoffand loss of soil moisture. Although some land manag-ers fail to recognize the importance of seeding atspecified periods when soil moisture is most favorable,this is one of the most critical issues determiningplanting success. Chaining offers an option to quicklyand effectively treat small and large diverse sites.

4. Chaining does not destroy resource values. Anyplant conversion or regulation practice can impact anumber of wildland resources. Most revegetation orrestoration measures are designed to remove existingweedy, woody, and herb species, and to reestablishnatural plant succession. Removal of existing treescreates an abrupt and often dramatic change in plantdensity, structure, and age class. Recovery of thenative species can frequently take many years toprovide a visible, mature assembly of plants. Duringthe recovery period, the impacts can be quite appar-ent. When properly done, chaining will not degrade ordestroy soil or watershed resources. It is a practicedesigned to modify plant composition, stabilize ero-sion, provide suitable seedbeds, and cover seed. Selec-tion of appropriate treatment practices should bebased on restoration objectives.

Basic Guidelines for Juniper-PinyonChaining Projects ______________

Site Considerations

Selection of treatable areas: Treat only problem siteswhere the opportunity for success exist. Basedecisions on ecological status of the community.

Areas to be treated: No more than 50 percent of thetotal area should be treated at one time. Natu-ral travel lanes, resting and thermal coverareas, snags, older chronological record trees,archeological sites, corridors that connectnonchained areas, and areas with high visualvalues should not be treated.

Design of chained area: Chaining should be designedto provide maximum mosaic of treated andnontreated sites that fit within topographicconditions and provide maximum aesthetic andedge effect. Treatments should match naturalcommunity zones. Almost all nonchained ar-eas should interconnect with continuous, live,mature tree corridors at least 30 ft (9.2 m) wide.

Accessible slopes: Areas with slopes as steep as 60percent can be effectively and safely chained.First and second chaining can be in the samedirection, which may be downhill.

Maximum size of openings: Size of clearing should notexceed 100 yards (91 m) at its widest points.

Vegetative Considerations

Age class and stand structure: Highest tree removalsuccess will occur within even-age mature treestands. A large percent of trees will survivechaining in young and uneven-age communi-ties. Presence of large trees usually indicateshigh site potential.

Tree density: Tree density and size of trees will, inpart, determine link size, length of chain, andtractor requirement costs of treatment.

Treatment of downed trees: Uprooted trees should beleft in place. Debris should not be concentratedin windrows or pushed into piles. Dry treesshould not be burned.

Selection of seeded species: Species and accessionsthat are planted must be site adapted andprovide an ecologically compatible community.Species selection and seeding rates will dependon presence and composition of existing spe-cies and seedbank. Seed mixtures should con-sist of a diverse number of species, includinga majority of native species. Restraint shouldbe used in seeding competitive, exotic grasses.

Methodology

Timing: Reduction of tree competition, preparation ofa seedbed, and seeding generally requires twochainings. The first chaining may be conductedanytime during summer or fall. The secondchaining should occur at the most advanta-geous time for seeding, which, in most cases,will be late fall or early winter.

Chain type: Smooth chains provide good control ofmature trees, moderate soil and understoryspecies disturbance, and seed coverage. Treesthat are uprooted are normally left in place.Ely chains provide good control of mature andintermediate-aged trees and can be operated toremove some shrubs and other understory spe-cies. Uprooted trees often are accumulated inpiles. The Dixie chain is not recommended fortreatment of dense tree stands. This chainperforms best in open scattered stands and canbe used to uproot small trees and understoryshrubs. This modified chain eliminates more



plants and provides greater soil scarificationthan other types of chains.

Weight of chain: Chains with individual links thatweigh 40 to 60 lb (18 to 27 kg) should be usedwhere the objective is to minimize disturbanceof understory species. Heavier links of 60 to 90lb (27 to 41 kg) are used when trees are denseand larger, and where little understory existsand maximum soil tillage is desired.

Length of chain: Chains 300 to 350 ft (91 to 107 m) longare the most commonly used lengths. Chainscan be up to 450 ft (138 m) long. Size of crawlertractor, weight of chain, density and size oftrees, and topography will determine chainlength.

Swivels: Swivels are used to allow the chain to turnfreely and prevent chain twisting and balling.One swivel is required at either end of thechain and it is recommended that one or morebe placed within the chain, especially whenusing a Dixie or Ely chain. Swivels also regu-late the amount of digging or soil tillage.

Size of crawler tractor: Crawler tractors that are ratedD8 or larger should be used. Weight and lengthof chain, density and size of trees, percentslope, and amount and size of rocks will affecttractor power requirements. Properly poweredtractors are a must.

Field operations: Trees are most effectively uprootedwhen tractors are not directly parallel to eachother, but rather operated in a J shape, withone tractor ahead of the other. Tree removaland soil tillage increases as tractors are posi-tioned closer together. The further the tractorsare spread apart the lower the percent of treekill and the less understory vegetation and soilis disturbed.

Seeding techniques: Seed is most effectively distrib-uted by broadcasting from fixed-wing aircraftand helicopters between the first and secondchainings. Drills can only be used on more levelareas with few downed trees, shrubs, or rocks.Seed dribblers or thimble seeders can bemounted on each crawler tractor, and seedscan be planted during the first or both chainingoperations.

Summary

Where seeding is to occur, competition from existingtrees must be reduced to allow the new seedlings toestablish. Twice-over anchor chaining in opposite di-rections with 60 to 90 lb (27 to 41 kg) links is usually

the most satisfactory treatment (Plummer and others1968). Use of a cable or a chain with lighter links issatisfactory where it is desirous to leave more trees.Once-over chaining may be adequate when sufficientunderstory exists, tree competition removal is attain-able, and seeding is not planned. Cabling is lesseffective than chaining in removing trees and coveringseed. It also disturbs less understory.

Anchor chains are pulled behind two crawler trac-tors traveling parallel to each other. Chains cannot bedragged stretched taut, but must be dragged in a looseJ-shaped, U-shaped, or half-circle pattern. The half-circle configuration provides the greatest swath widthand lowest percentage of tree kill, and should only beused in mature, even-age stands. Tree kill increases asthe width of the J- or U-shaped pattern decreases. TheJ-shaped pattern is the most desirable. As the propor-tion of young trees increases, chaining width is usuallydecreased to achieve satisfactory thinning.

Success in removing trees varies with species com-position, age structure, and density of trees. Maturetrees can be killed more effectively and efficiently thantrees in uneven-age stands. Young trees, less than 4 ft(1.2 m) tall, generally are not killed with single or evendouble chaining, (fig. 21) because the chain rides overthem. Small junipers are uprooted and killed moreeffectively than are small pinyons that are more flex-ible. Chaining is commonly conducted on slopes of upto 50 to 60 percent (Vallentine 1989). In Utah, success-ful chaining has been accomplished on 65-percentslopes.

First and second chaining can follow each other inthe fall with seeding occurring between chainings.Another technique is to chain once during the sum-mer. Trees are allowed to dry before seeding, and thesecond chaining is done in the fall. The dry trees breakup easily and are scattered over the area in a uniformpattern. It is advantageous to leave downed trees inplace and not pile or burn them. Leaving trees in place:(1) reduces surface runoff, (2) increases ground cover,(3) provides cover for wildlife, (4) encourages big gamemovement onto the treated area, (5) provides shade forlivestock, (6) decreases livestock trailing, (7) improvesseedling establishment (fig. 22), and (8) eliminatescost of piling and burning.

Late fall or winter (October through February) is thepreferred planting period. Seeding should not be at-tempted in frozen soil. Seedings should occur when itis possible to plant and cover the seed properly. Latefall and winter seedings can result in reduced rodentdepredation, yet provide adequate stratification ofplanted seeds. Fall-planted seeds remain in the grounduntil conditions are the most ideal (early spring) forgermination and establishment.

With double cabling, seeding should occur betweenthe two chainings. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters



can broadcast seed uniformly. Helicopters generallydo a better job of distributing seed over small orirregular areas. Where downed trees do not interfere,seed can also be covered successfully using drags or apipe harrow. Single disk harrows or similar lightmachinery can also be used to cover the seed. Caremust be taken to ensure that seeds are not covered toodeep and seedbeds are not too loose. Chaining orequivalent treatment is required to cover seed afterburning.

On large, somewhat even, open areas that are rela-tively free of debris and large rocks, drills can be usedto plant many species. Care should be taken to ensurethat seeds of most species are properly covered. As ageneral rule, seed should be covered at least but notmuch more than three times their own thickness or toa depth of l⁄4 to 3⁄8 inch (0.6 to 1 cm). There are, however,species that require surface seeding on disturbed soilsand a few that require deep seeding.

Seeds of shrubs and forbs that are in short supply orthose that require a firm seedbed can be successfullyseeded with a Hansen seed dribbler or thimble seederthat is mounted on the deck of a crawler tractor. Seedis metered out on the crawler tracks, then pushed bythe weight of the crawler into the cleat marks. Excel-lent stands can be obtained with this procedure.

The tremendous variation in edaphic and climaticcondition in the pinyon-juniper type and within a siterequires that species and accessions adapted to spe-cific sites be seeded (fig. 23). Tables 14 through 17 listadapted species and suggested mixtures.

Sagebrush Communities _________Sagebrush is one of the most widespread shrub

genera in the Intermountain West. Extensive standsof sagebrush grow on low foothill ranges, adjacentvalley slopes, within stands of mountain brush andaspen, and in subalpine zones above 10,000 ft (3,048 m).Sagebrush is also an important component of thesouthern desert shrub type where it grows in associa-tion with blackbrush and spreading creosotebush.This wide range of occurrence in differing climates andsoils necessitates the use of varied treatments toimprove disturbances. Treatment depends on howmuch sagebrush is to be retained or reestablished. Bigsagebrush is a natural component in many communi-ties and is desirable on most big game and livestockranges within its area of distribution (fig. 24). Sage-grouse rely on sagebrush year around for food andshelter (fig. 25). However, where understory specieshave been removed by grazing and where big sage-brush has usurped the site and excluded understoryspecies, stands should be thinned to permit reestab-lishment of understory grasses and forbs.

Figure 24—Wyoming big sagebrush communitiesare essential to pronghorn antelope and otherwildlife.

Figure 25—Big sagebrush provides sage-grouse withcover, forage, and brood-rearing areas.

Eight major sagebrush communities are encoun-tered in the Intermountain region. The big sagebrushcomplex occupies one of the largest areas and producesperhaps the greatest amount of forage of any shrub.Three big sagebrush subspecies are generally recog-nized (Shultz 1986; Stevens 1987a): basin big sage-brush, mountain big sagebrush, and Wyoming bigsagebrush. Other major sagebrush types are blacksagebrush, low sagebrush, threetip sagebrush, silversagebrush, and alkali or early sagebrush. Of minorimportance are foothill big sagebrush, subalpine sage-brush, pygmy sagebrush, Bigelow sagebrush, stiffsagebrush, and bud sage (Shultz 1986; Stevens 1987a).



Other shrubs usually occur within most sagebrushcommunities.

Previously, most site improvement practices con-ducted in the sagebrush communities have been de-signed to reduce shrub density and reestablish herba-ceous understory. In many situations, extensivewildfires have eliminated species of sagebrush. Exten-sive and prolonged grazing has also reduced bothunderstory species and shrub cover, which has al-lowed weeds to establish. Sagebrush seedling recruit-ment has subsequently been halted, and stands haveslowly declined as individual plants succumb withage. In many situations, planting sagebrush is nowrequired.

Big sagebrush communities are easily disturbed,especially on drier sites. Few understory species occurin the drier regions, and disturbances recover slowly.Annual weeds have invaded and now dominate manybig sagebrush communities (Billings 1990; Young1994). The occurrence of cheatgrass has dramaticallyaltered species composition and restoration methods(Monsen 1994). Cheatgrass is so competitive that itprevents natural recovery of most native herbs andshrubs (Billings 1994). Cheatgrass competition mustbe reduced to allow other species to reestablish. Inaddition, cheatgrass produces a dry, highly flammablefuel that results in more frequent wildfires than aregenerated from native plant communities. Repeatedfires further degrade the sites, eliminating nonfire-tolerant species, such as sagebrush, and perpetuateannual grass. The fire cycle must be broken to stabilizeconditions and allow species to establish and recoverfrom seedings or natural improvement. Aggressivecontrol measures coupled with well-designed seedingsare required to improve weed infested sites.

Many sagebrush sites currently support some an-nual weeds including cheatgrass. Inappropriate graz-ing practices cause continued decline of native peren-nials, allowing expansion of weeds. Transition mayoccur slowly, depending on climatic conditions anddegree of grazing pressure. Natural recovery usuallycannot occur unless grazing is completely discontin-ued. Certain species may recover with some carefullymanaged grazing practices, but sites that contain onlyscattered remnant native plants are not able to re-cover even with minimal use. Where there is someperennial understory in place, removal of grazing maybe the most effective and economical means of restor-ing sites occupied by different species of sagebrush.Many sites may require an extended period of time forall species to fully recover. Consequently, it is oftenadvisable to protect many arid and semiarid shrublandsto prevent further degredation, control weed invasion,and effectively restore diverse communities. Allowingsites to deteriorate to the point that artificial seedingis required is not advisable.

Methods and techniques used to treat different spe-cies of sagebrush are quite similar, although somedifferences in control and seeding measures amongdifferent sagebrush communities are recommended.

Removal of Competition: Control ofSagebrush

Many stands of big sagebrush have been depleted ofalmost all understory herbs, which allows shrub den-sity to increase beyond desirable levels. Where thishas occurred, the shrub overstory must be reduced tofaciliatate seeding and allow establishment of reintro-duced herbs. Complete removal of shrub overstory isnot required or recommended, but competition mustbe diminished to facilitate seedling establishment. Insome situations, complete removal of shrubs has beenadvocated to accomplish conversion to stands of intro-duced or native grasses, with the objective of enhanc-ing seasonal grazing for livestock. This practice is notrecommended in most situations.

Anchor chaining is a useful practice where it isdesirable to release suppressed understory species.Anchor chaining is the least expensive mechanicaltreatment to reduce thick stands of sagebrush. Thistreatment ensures that enough sagebrush can be leftto satisfy most game requirements and maintain spe-cies diversity. Chaining can be used on a variety ofsites including rocky surfaces and terrain with 60-percent slopes. The Dixie chain was designed espe-cially for treating sagebrush stands. Eighteen-inchlengths of 40-lb (18 kg) rails welded across the chainlinks greatly increase elimination of sagebrush andcreate a better seedbed. The Dixie chain removessagebrush more effectively than a smooth or Ely chain.

Pipe harrowing accomplishes many of the sameobjectives as does chaining, but has the advantage ofoperating more economically on small areas. Disk plow-ing to a depth of 2 or 3 inches (5 or 7.5 cm) generallyremoves most shrubs, but disking is more costly andmore destructive to other vegetation. Disk plowingcan be used on comparatively level terrain and on lessrocky sites than is practicable for chaining. Brush“beaters” and root plows also may be used on such sites.

Controlled burning can be the least expensive andmost effective treatment for removing sagebrush plantson large tracts where there is enough fuel to carry fire.Burning often removes or kills all sagebrush plants.Consequently, throughout the Wyoming sagebrushcommunities, limiting burning, if possible, to smallerareas is often recommended. Natural recruitment andartificial seeding of sagebrush are not always success-ful following complete removal of all sagebrush plantsover large areas. If cheatgrass occurs in the under-story, burning should be done after cheatgrass seedsare ripe and the foliage has dried, but before cheatgrass



seeds fall from the plant. Most seeds left on the plantwill be consumed by fire. Some cheatgrass seeds usu-ally escape, but the resulting competition may not besevere enough to suppress establishment of seededspecies.

Stands of sagebrush can be eliminated by sprayingwith 2,4-D in ester formulations at 1 or 2 lb (0.4 or0.75 kg) (acid equivalent) per acre (Blaisdell andothers 1982). A practice that has gained considerablefavor is to spray early in the summer and then seedadapted species in fall or winter. This treatment,however, is not widely suited to use on some rangesbecause it often kills too much of the sagebrush standand eliminates associated forbs. The herbicide “Spike”can be used to reduce density or remove big sagebrushwithout harming the understory. Spike should only beused when there is an acceptable understory becauseareas treated with Spike cannot be seeded for at least3 years following treatment. Mechanical methods oferadication are usually preferred because they can beregulated to eliminate desired amounts of big sage-brush, create a good seedbed, and preserve valuableherbs that are present.

Shrub Enhancement

In many situations restoration measures are re-quired to enhance or restore sagebrush plants andassociated understory species. Many burns have elimi-nated all sagebrush plants. These will require seed-ing. If annual weeds dominate the understory, theherbaceous competition must be removed by burning,disking, or use of herbicides. Shrubs and herbs canthen be seeded into the burned areas or into clearingsor strips formed by mechanical tillage or chemicalfallow.

Big sagebrush plants are most often capable ofinvading weak stands of native grasses, and forbs.Broadcast seeding sagebrush without any site prepa-ration can be successful if weeds are not present.Broadcast seeding sagebrush directly onto sites sup-porting Idaho fescue, Sandberg bluegrass, andbluebunch wheatgrass following burning can be highlysuccessful. Broadcast seeding sagebrush onto existingstands of native grasses is less successful if competi-tion has not been reduced by burning. However, ad-equate stands of shrubs may establish, although tim-ing and amount of moisture is much more important.

Planting Season

If weather permits, planting in winter is best; how-ever, seedings may be conducted from late fall throughearly winter. Mid October or early November is suffi-ciently early to start. Planting may continue throughDecember, January, and February, or until the groundhas frozen or the weather prohibits further planting.

Aerial seeding sagebrush on snow has proven highlysuccessful. Snow cover can enhance sagebrush seedgermination and seedling establishment. Sites receiv-ing a snow cover that persists until early springnormally support sagebrush emergence. Conse-quently, delaying seeding until a uniform blanket ofsnow has accumulated is advisable.

Planting Procedures

On large areas, aerial broadcasting grasses, broad-leaf herbs, and big sagebrush (fig. 26) seeds by fixed-wing plane or helicopter is recommended. Handbroadcasting is efficient on small, isolated tracts.Anchor chaining is economical and effective forcovering broadcast seeded herbs and sagebrush onlarge disked or plowed areas, burns, or herbicide-treated range. The rangeland drill or other single-disk drills can satisfactorily plant sagebrush sites.Drilling requires one-third to one-half less seedthan broadcasting. Browse seed, including sage-brush, should be planted in alternate rows fromgrasses and forbs, with either the rangeland drill orbrowse seeder. Because sagebrush seed requiresvery shallow to surface planting, it is best to pull thedrop tubes from between the furrow openers andplace it so the seed falls behind the furrow openersonto the disturbed soil.

Most species of sagebrush can be successfullyseeded with good success, although special consid-eration must be given to control herbaceous compe-tition. The condition and quality of sagebrush seedis of particular concern in most seeding projects.Seeds of most sagebrush taxa mature in late fall orearly winter after many revegetation projects would

Figure 26—Five years after chaining treatment, amixture of native and introduced species occupy apinyon and juniper site.



be seeded. Consequently, fresh seed is not alwaysused. One- or 2-year-old seed is most commonly planted.Seed lots of most sagebrush taxa may remain viablefor 2 to 4 years depending upon storage conditions(Stevens and Jorgensen 1994). Older seed lots withlow viability may be seeded if sufficient amounts aresown. Seeds should be properly stored and tested toassure high quality seeds are used whenever possible.

Sagebrush plants produce numerous small seeds.When harvested, seed lots usually contain a consider-able amount of leaves and floral debris. During seedprocessing, most large sticks are removed, but smallleaf and floral tissue is left with the seed. Seed lotshaving a purity of 8 to 18 percent are commonly sold.The condition of the seed lot can influence the way seedis planted. If the seed lot is chopped before stems areremoved by cleaning, the material may not flow throughsome drills. If the collected material is first screened toremove sticks and then chopped or processed with adebearder, the seeds and debris can be planted mucheasier. The seed debris is very lightweight and, if notproperly cleaned to remove stems, may not flow uni-formly through most conventional drills. Consequently,a carrier or seed of other species may be added to causethe material to flow freely and uniformly. Seed lotsthat are cleaned to a purity exceeding 12 to 15 percentwill most often flow very well. Seed lots with highpurity (generally over 20 percent) consist of manysmall seeds. Most seeding equipment or machines arenot capable of precisely metering the seed; conse-quently, the seed must be diluted to be uniformlyplanted. It is not recommended to clean seed lots above15 to 20 percent purity for use with standard seedingequipment of if seeded alone.

Sagebrush seed is frequently mixed with seeds ofother species to aid in dispensing the sagebrush seedand diluting the seeding rate. This is a useful tech-nique, but sagebrush should not be directly sown withaggressive herbs. Sagebrush can be sown separatelyin alternate rows with herbs using most conventionaldrills if the seed is properly cleaned and seeded at theappropriate depth.

Seeds of sagebrush are almost exclusively collectedfrom wildland stands. In many cases, the identity ofthe taxon is not known. More than any other wildlandspecies, sagebrush seeds are collected and plantedover a broad range of sites. Failure to correctly iden-tify specific species, subspecies, and plant-adaptedecotypes can result in poor seeding success.

Seeds of sagebrush taxa are very small, often ex-ceeding 1 million per pound (2.2 million per kg) (Shawand Monsen 1990) and require light to germinate(McDonough and Harniss 1974a,b). However, the re-sponse to light varies among seed lots and with envi-ronmental conditions (Bewley and Black 1984; Meyerand others 1990b). Seeds must be planted on or near

the soil surface to promote germination and ensureestablishment. It is often difficult to plant sagebrushseed near the soil surface using conventional drills.Most seeding equipment is designed to place seeds atdeeper depths. When seeded with other species thatrequire deep placement in the soil, sagebrush shouldbe planted in a separate operation or seeded in sepa-rate rows. Sagebrush seeds can be dispensed throughconventional drills, but seed should not be planted atthe bottom of the furrow. Seed tubes attached to thefurrow opener can be removed and positioned so theend of the tubes extend behind the furrow openers,which allows the sagebrush seed to be dropped behindthe furrow opener on the disturbed soil surface. A“sagebrush seeder” employing a gang of truck tiresand a drill box has been developed (Boltz 1994) and isbeing used with good success. Seed is metered outahead of the gang of tires and then compressed into thesoil.

Sagebrush seeds require adequate moisture to ger-minate. Goodwin (1956) reported that the highest fieldgermination occurred when the soil was saturated.Weldon and others (1959) found that germination ofbig sagebrush declined by 60 percent when waterpotential of the soil medium was reduced to –0.80 MPa.The soil surface of most planting sites dries quickly,adversely affecting seedling establishment. The pres-ence of surface litter and retention of a snow coverbenefit sagebrush seedling establishment. Meyer(1990) found greater numbers of big sagebrush seed-lings within areas where snow collected compared toopen surfaces. Sagebrush seeds were able to germi-nate beneath the snow in a moist environment, andwere protected from spring frosts, as young seedlingshave little frost tolerance. Natural seedlings of bigsagebrush normally establish near mature shrubs,and around and under downed pinyon-juniper treesand litter piles. The existing shrubs and downed treesobviously entrap snow and provide more favorableseedbed conditions than exposed sites. Seeding sage-brush in large, open disturbances has usually beenunsuccessful because snow does not collect or is notretained for more than a few days. Within theseareas, soil surfaces dry rapidly, and favorable condi-tions do not exist for seed germination or seedlingestablishment.

Meyer and Monsen (1992) found that germinationresponse among sagebrush collections correlated tothe habitat from which the seed is produced. Seedcollections of mountain big sagebrush from severewinter sites had a larger dormant seed fraction andslower germination rates than collections from mildwinter sites. Collections from severe winter sites re-quire up to 113 days to germinate, while collectionsfrom mild winter sites require as few as 6 days. Habitat-correlated variation appears to be an adaptive feature



that prevents precocious germination, and promotesgermination when frost damage potential is low andwhen the best chance of success occurs. Plantingunadapted seed lots can undoubtedly lessen the chanceof seedling establishment.

Sagebrush seedling establishment is related to thepresence and composition of understory grasses andbroadleaf herbs. Sagebrush seedlings are generallyunable to compete with annual grasses, particularlycheatgrass (Evans and Young 1987a). Dense stands ofperennial native and introduced grasses have beenreported to reduce sagebrush seedling establishmentand growth (Blaisdell 1949; Holmgren 1954). How-ever, sagebrush seedings have frequently been able toinvade many seeded areas (Blaisdell and others 1982).In general, sagebrush seedlings are less likely toreestablish and spread throughout areas receivingless than 12 inches (30 cm) of annual moisture thansites receiving greater amounts.

The relationship of sagebrush seedling establish-ment to native understory grasses and broadleafherbs is not well understood. However, natural spreadof sagebrush seedlings into established stands ofunderstory herbs is frequently observed. In addition,seeding sagebrush directly into established stands ofnative herbs has also been successful.

Sagebrush seedlings establish satisfactorily usingsurface-type seeders such as a Brillion seeder (Monsenand Meyer 1990). Seedlings also establish well byaerial or broadcast seeding on a rough surface. Aerialseeding following chaining has been highly successfulthrough the juniper-pinyon and big sagebrush com-munities. Broadcast seeding onto snow over disturbedsoil in early or late winter also produces good stands(fig. 27). Most species of sagebrush can be interseeded

or spot seeded into some existing competition (Monsenand Stevens 1987; Stevens 1980b). Interseeding inrows or strips is a practical method of establishingshrubs and providing a seed source for further spread.

Adapted Species and Mixtures:Considerations in Selecting SpeciesTo Be Seeded

Extensive areas of sagebrush, particularly speciesof big sagebrush, have been seeded with introducedgrasses to reestablish a herbaceous understory thatwas eliminated by previous mismanagement. Conver-sion of sagebrush shrublands to introduced foragegrasses has provided a stable and productive foragebase for livestock, enhanced watershed conditions,and has helped to control weed invasion. Wildliferesources have been enhanced occasionally; in mostcases they have been dramatically reduced. Nativespecies and community recovery have been prevented,and multiple-use management has been reduced oreliminated by converting shrublands to stands of in-troduced grass.

Converting or altering sagebrush communities mustbe done carefully to assure that desired resourcevalues are retained or achieved. Numerous species areavailable to seed sagebrush sites. However, the com-munities that ultimately develop from mixed seedingsmust be recognized and appropriate seed mixturesutilized.

Revegetation efforts in the Wyoming big sagebrushand some basin big sagebrush habitat types are oftenonly partially successful. These sites frequently re-ceive inadequate moisture to sustain new seedlings.If seedings are completed in years of normal precipita-tion, planted species usually survive.

Attempts have been made to introduce other morepalatable, shrub species and convert the existing shrubcomposition to more preferred and palatable species toWyoming big sagebrush and basin big sagebrush com-munities. Few other woody plants naturally grow withthese two shrubs. Antelope bitterbrush has been ex-tensively planted throughout these sagebrush com-munities with limited success. In most instances,antelope bitterbrush should not be indiscriminatelyplanted in “offsite” circumstances.

Sources of fourwing saltbush and winterfat havebeen collected from native stands occurring inter-mixed with both Wyoming and basin big sagebrushcommunities. These selections have been planted onbroad areas throughout the big sagebrush types. Someindividual selections demonstrate good longevity, butlittle natural spread has been recorded. No populationof fourwing saltbush has been identified that is widelyadapted to the Wyoming big sagebrush communities.Numerous Intermountain collections of fourwing

Figure 27—Big sagebrush seedlings have suc-cessfully established from midwinter aerial seedingon sites covered by snow.



saltbush have been planted in southern Idaho, Utah,and Nevada, where Wyoming big sagebrush occurs. Todate, some sources have established and producedseeds but no seedling recruitment has occurred. Anumber of sources from southern Utah, Arizona, NewMexico, and Texas have survived for less than 10 yearswhen seeded in the northern portion of the Intermoun-tain region. Ecotypes of fourwing saltbush that natu-rally occur intermixed with basin big sagebrush haveestablished and persisted well if planted on sitessimilar to the area of collection. In most situations,however, it has not been practical to seed differentspecies of shrubs on Wyoming big sagebrush types.

In situations where the density of fourwing salt-bush, winterfat, or other shrubs is being increased byartificial seeding, it is imperative that an adapted seedsource is planted. A number of cultivars of differentnative shrubs have been developed for use in the bigsagebrush type (McArthur and others 1984b; Monsenand others 1985a; Welch and McArthur 1979a). Eachcultivar has regional areas of adaptation and is notuniversally adapted to all conditions where big sage-brush occurs. Various attempts have been made toplant “Rincon” fourwing saltbush, “Hatch” winterfat,“Lassen” antelope bitterbrush, and “Hobble Creek”and “Gordon Creek” big sagebrush throughout the bigsagebrush zone. These cultivars are adapted to spe-cific locations, and plantings should be confined tothese situations.

Most big sagebrush rangelands are subjected towildfires, particularly sites that support an under-story of cheatgrass. Burning reduces the density andrecruitment of many species, particularly shrubs. It isadvisable that species that are seeded into sagebrush-cheatgrass rangelands are able to withstand fires andrecover by natural seeding. To date, ecotypes offourwing saltbush and winterfat that have been plantedin these areas have not survived fires, particularly onsites that burn frequently.

Few native forbs are available in sufficient amountsto seed large disturbances. Seed of blue aster, Palmerpenstemon, western yarrow, globemallow, and Lewisflax are available to seed moderately sized distur-bances. All available sources are adapted to specificsite conditions. Broadleaf forbs are essential to aridshrublands, and development of additional sources isnecessary.

Selections of alfalfa and small burnet have beendeveloped and used to improve forage diversity, ex-tend grazing periods, and enhance forage qualitythroughout the big sagebrush type. Both species arewell adapted to sites receiving more than 12 inches(304 mm) of annual precipitation. Mountain big sage-brush and some basin big sagebrush and Wyoming bigsagebrush stands receive this amount of precipitation.Stands of highly preferred species have not been

maintained when small amounts of seed have beenplanted. Small burnet and alfalfa have frequentlybeen planted at only 0.5 to 1.0 lb (0.2 to 0.45 kg) peracre within the big sagebrush types. These broadleafherbs receive heavy use by all classes of animals,which may eliminate the plants from the seeded area.When highly preferred species are planted in mix-tures, enough seed (2.5 to 4 lbs [1.2 to 1.8 kg]) shouldbe seeded to establish a large enough population toreduce damage from concentrated grazing. Sufficientlylarge tracts should be seeded to lessen concentration ofanimals and heavy browsing of the more preferredspecies.

Many introduced and native species that have beenseeded in the sagebrush types exhibit a wide range ofadaptability. Crested wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass,intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass,Sandberg bluegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail arewidely adapted to the different habitat types of Wyo-ming and to basin big sagebrush. Bluebunch wheat-grass, Indian ricegrass, streambank wheatgrass,thickspike wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, andRussian wildrye are more sensitive to particular soiltypes occupied by these two shrubs, but are still widelyused. Great Basin wildrye is more restricted to par-ticular habitat types, and should only be seeded inareas of natural occurrence.

Desert wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, intermedi-ate wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, Canby blue-grass, streambank wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass,and hard sheep fescue have been widely seeded insagebrush communities. Numerous sites have beenconverted from a shrub-dominated community to anexotic perennial grass type. Desert wheatgrass hasproven better adapted to more arid sites. Crested,pubescent, and intermediate wheatgrass, and hardsheep fescue are more suited to upland situations withsouthern smooth brome being suited to sites withhigher amounts of precipitation. ‘Hycrest’ crestedwheatgrass, a cross between desert and crested wheat-grass, and ‘Douglas’ wheatgrass express excellentestablishment traits and are able to compete well withannual weeds. These two selections are not as droughttolerant as desert or crested wheatgrass. ‘Douglas’wheatgrass is the least drought tolerant. ‘Hycrest’wheatgrass has been widely planted, however, exten-sive stands have been lost in drought years. Desert,crested, ‘Hycrest’, intermediate wheatgrass, smoothbrome, and hard sheep fescue have not proven compat-ible with most native herbs. When seeded in mostsagebrush communities, these species will gain domi-nance and restrict recovery of native herbs. The lack ofspecies diversity adversely affects wildlife habitat,and does not provide the seasonal herbage or water-shed values as mixed communities do. Dominantstands of crested, desert, pubescent, intermediate



wheatgrass, smooth brome, and hard sheep fescuehave, in many situations, prevented shrub seedlingrecruitment. Loss of sagebrush and other woody spe-cies slowly occurs in many situations when thesegrasses have been planted. Wildlife habitat and otherresource values have been adversely affected. Seedingcrested, desert, or intermediate wheatgrass and hardsheep fescue throughout the sagebrush communitiesshould be evaluated to be sure management objectiveswill be achieved. Use of native herbs is desirable wherediverse communities are required.

Basin Big Sagebrush ____________Basin big sagebrush (fig. 26, 27) is one of the most

abundant shrubs in Western North America (McArthurand others 1979a). This plant occurs on plains, valleyand canyon bottoms, and foothill ranges. It is mostprevalent on deep, well-drained, fertile soils with a pHranging from slightly acidic to highly alkaline. Withinthe Intermountain West, basin big sagebrush can befound from 3,000 to 7,000 ft (914 to 2,140 m) elevation,with annual precipitation ranging from 9 to 16 inches(23 to 41 cm).

A majority of the irrigated farmlands, dry farms,and dryland pastures within the Intermountain Westwere once dominated by basin big sagebrush. A largenumber of native and introduced grasses and forbs dowell on these lands. The productive potential of thebasin big sagebrush type is reported to be higher thanthat of the Wyoming big sagebrush type but less thanthe mountain big sagebrush type (Winward 1980).

Basin big sagebrush is not readily eaten by livestockor big game when it occurs with other, more preferredspecies (Hanks and others 1973; Sheehy and Winward1981; Welch and others 1981). However, it does con-tain high levels of protein (McArthur and others 1979a;Welch 1981). The herbage is digestible (Welch 1981),and plants withstand heavy browsing. Deer and sheepuse this shrub seasonally. This species is critical ondeer winter ranges, especially during extended anddeep snow accumulation and cold periods. Sage-grousealso use this subspecies throughout the entire year(Call 1979).


The question arises of how much basin big sage-brush is enough. Should it be controlled, reduced, orseeded? The value of the shrub cover should be care-fully evaluated before attempts are made to reduceshrub density. This subspecies occurs in differingdensities, with various types and amounts of associ-ated species, and in differing climates and soils. Vari-ous range improvement treatments are thus requiredfor satisfactory control. Complete or near complete

elimination of basin big sagebrush can be accom-plished with plowing, burning, or use of herbicides.Anchor chaining can be used to reduce shrub density.The extent to which the shrubs are killed by chainingis determined by the number of times a site is chained,the type of chain used, and the method and season oftreatments. Similar results can be accomplished witha pipe harrow.

Disk chains and various types of disk plows havebeen developed that can be used to uproot and thin orremove dense stands of sagebrush. Disks can be ad-justed to regulate the percent of plants uprooted.Disking and plowing can, however, result in kill ofassociated, desirable vegetation. Fire can be effectivein eliminating or reducing basin big sagebrush. Thisshrub has essentially no fire tolerance. For fire to movethrough basin big sagebrush stands, there must besufficient understory to carry the fire. Density of basinbig sagebrush generally must be reduced to obtainsatisfactory establishment of seeded understory spe-cies (fig. 28). Once a basin big sagebrush area isdisturbed, it is imperative the area is seeded the sameyear (during the appropriate season) so undesirablespecies do not establish.

Planting Season

Fall and early winter planting is recommended;however, plantings at low elevations may be extendedinto midwinter or until frozen ground prevents tillage.Seeding on top of snow over areas that have beendisturbed has proven successful (fig. 27). Springplantings are not advised within this shrub type.

Planting Procedures

Seeding large areas can be best accomplished byaerial seeding using either a fixed-wing aircraft orhelicopter. This should be followed by some method ofseed coverage. Hand broadcasting is effective in plant-ing small, isolated tracts. The rangeland drill, andother types of heavy duty drills, can be used to seedareas where debris and rocks are absent and theground is fairly level. Species can be interplanted intosagebrush stands using a scalper and seeder combina-tion (Stevens and others 1981b). The Hansen seeddribbler and thimble seeder are also effective equip-ment that can be used to seed many forbs and shrubs.


A number of species, accessions, and varieties areadapted to and recommended for seeding areas for-merly inhabited or occupied by basin big sagebrush(table 18). Species recommended for seeding mixedfourwing saltbush-basin big sagebrush sites are listedin table 17. A number of introduced grasses and



A large number of grass, forb, and shrub speciesgrow in association with this shrub (Winward 1980),and usually produce an abundance of forage. Live-stock, big and small game, and upland game birdsprefer mountain big sagebrush (McArthur and others1979a; Welch 1981). Open stands with good, diverseunderstory are essential to sage-grouse and must beused in treatment projects to maintain sufficient shrubdensity and cover for sage-grouse. It is essential thatdesirable understory species and woody species asso-ciated with mountain big sagebrush be retained orreestablished as part of the revegetation effort.


The use of herbicides, plowing, and disking areeffective techniques in reducing competition, but oftenare not recommended for renovating mountain bigsagebrush stands, particularly areas supporting biggame and sage-grouse. These techniques usually killmost associated herbs and existing shrubs. Becausemountain big sagebrush provides palatable and nutri-tious forage for wildlife throughout the year, it is notadvisable to eliminate this shrub. Sage-grouse strut-ting, wintering, and chick-rearing areas can be seri-ously altered if mountain big sagebrush and associ-ated native forbs are removed.

Mechanical treatments, including once- or twice-over chaining or pipe harrowing, will normally elimi-nate enough mountain big sagebrush to reduce compe-tition, create a suitable seedbed, and preserve valuableforbs. If annual weeds dominate the understory andsagebrush density is extremely high, more aggressiveFigure 28—(A) Dense stands of basin big sage-

brush often develop that lack understory speciesessential to wildlife. (B) Thinning stands of big sage-brush can be accomplished using a disk-chain tofacilitate seeding of herbaceous species.

A

B

broadleaf herbs have been developed to revegetatethese communities. In addition, some of the principalnative grasses and some broadleaf herbs are available.The objectives of the project and availability of seed ofadapted species will determine what is planted.

Mountain Big Sagebrush _________Throughout the Intermountain West, mountain big

sagebrush (fig. 29) is found at elevations from 3,500 to9,800 ft (1,060 to 3,000 m) and occurs from foothills tosubalpine zones. Annual precipitation ranges from12 to 30 inches (300 to 760 mm). Soils on whichmountain big sagebrush grows range from slightlyacid to slightly alkaline (McArthur and others 1979a),and are generally well drained. Soil moisture is usu-ally favorable throughout the growing season.

Figure 29—Mountain big sagebrush frequentlygrows in association with Gambel oak and anassembly of grasses and broadleaf herbs.



methods are required to reduce the competition. How-ever, in many situations, thinning of mountain bigsagebrush may be all that is required.

When herbicides are used, mountain big sagebrushshould be treated at an earlier stage of growth than theother big sagebrush species. As leaves appear, it isespecially susceptible to herbicides. It can be sprayedin early spring prior to the emergence of most under-story species. If sprayed at a later date (late spring andearly summer), mountain big sagebrush is less suscep-tible, and herbicides can be more detrimental to un-derstory herbaceous species.

In stands where the associated herbaceous vegeta-tion has been depleted by grazing or other causes,mountain big sagebrush can increase in density andsize (Winward and Tisdale 1977). Early spring burnsthat occur soon after the snow starts to melt generallydo not completely eliminate a stand. Burns at thesedates will likely create a mosaic of shrubs and herbs.Herbicides can also be sprayed in similar patterns tocreate mosaics. Size and shape of areas treated mustbe designed to maintain or improve wildlife habitat,particularly for sage-grouse.

Planting Season

Late fall and early winter plantings are recom-mended. At higher elevations, plantings can be termi-nated by early heavy snowfall. Sites should not bespring planted. Sagebrush reduction or thinning op-erations in areas with healthy understory herbs maynot require seeding. Areas that lack desirable herba-ceous plants and those that are plowed or diskedrequire seeding. Table 19 lists species that are adaptedto the mountain big sagebrush type. The most success-ful seedings are those that include a mixture of speciesand are conducted in the fall just prior to snowfall.

Planting Procedures

Aerial broadcasting by fixed-wing plane or helicop-ter is recommended for seeding herbs and sagebrushseeds on large areas. Hand broadcasting or broadcast-ing with spreaders mounted on ground transport unitsare effective methods for seeding small tracts. Anchorchaining or pipe harrowing are economical and effec-tive methods for covering broadcast seeds on depletedsites and large disked or plowed areas, burns, orherbicide-treated ranges. Mountain big sagebrush canbe successfully seeded by broadcasting from aerial orground units. This shrub can spread well by naturalseeding. Chaining or other surface-manipulation prac-tices will enhance natural spread. Seedlings of moun-tain sagebrush are competitive and able to establishand persist with some herbs; consequently, mixedplantings are normally successful.

Antelope bitterbrush, mountain snowberry,Stansbury cliffrose, mountain mahogany, sakatoonserviceberry, and chokecherry occur intermixed withmountain big sagebrush. These species should be drillseeded to assure seeds are placed in the soil at appro-priate depths. The Hansen seed dribbler is very effec-tive in seeding most shrub and forb species. Thisseeder is normally mounted on the truck or crawlertractor used to chain or pipe harrow mountain bigsagebrush sites. Browse seeds can also be seeded inalternate rows with grasses and forbs with rangelanddrills or modified browse seeders.


Mountain big sagebrush communities normally sup-port a diverse composition of species, and plantingsshould be designed to reestablish the entire commu-nity structure. Small but important stands of service-berry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, mountainsnowberry, antelope bitterbrush, and Stansburycliffrose are desirable and should be reestablishedwithin mountain big sagebrush restoration projectswhere appropriate. It is important that understoryherbs are reestablished along with the shrubs ondepleted sites. Table 19 lists the primary speciesadapted to mountain big sagebrush sites.

Wyoming Big Sagebrush _________This subspecies can be found throughout the Inter-

mountain West on xeric sites, foothills, valleys, andmesas between 2,500 and 7,000 ft (760 and 2,100 m).Annual precipitation varies from 7 to 15 inches (180 to280 mm). Soils on which Wyoming big sagebrushoccurs are usually well drained, gravelly to stony, andmay have low water-holding capacity. Soils are shal-low, usually less than about 18 inches (46 cm) deep.Fewer herbaceous species are associated with Wyo-ming big sagebrush than with basin or mountain bigsagebrush (Winward 1980). Native bunchgrasses areoften important understory species in Wyoming bigsagebrush communities. In some areas, this sage-brush may be used extensively throughout the year bylivestock, big game, and upland game birds.


Following disturbance, Wyoming big sagebrush gen-erally does not reestablish as rapidly as mountain bigsagebrush. Cheatgrass has often displaced Wyomingbig sagebrush and associated understory species. Con-trol and eradication measures must be designed toreplace this weed if plantings of perennial herbs andsagebrush are to be successful.



Stands of Wyoming big sagebrush normally do notproduce abundant seed crops each year. Natural spreadonto disturbed sites can be delayed until years whenseeds are produced and favorable moisture conditionsoccur to support new seedlings. Attempts to seed thisshrub in semiarid sites have not always been success-ful because of adverse climatic conditions. The amountand timing of late winter and early spring precipita-tion is critical for sagebrush seed germination andseedling survival, particularly on areas that receiveless than 10 inches (250 mm) annual precipitation.Lack of spring and summer moisture often limit seed-ling survival. Wyoming big sagebrush can be success-fully seeded on sites that receive 10 to 12 inches (250to 300 mm) precipitation.

Natural spread of Wyoming big sagebrush has oftenbeen restricted by cheatgrass. This annual grass isextremely competitive and limits shrub regeneration.Seedings of crested, desert, pubescent, and intermedi-ate wheatgrass have, in many areas, also preventednatural recovery of this shrub.


Usually sites supporting Wyoming big sagebrushreceive low amounts of precipitation, and weed controlis essential for the establishment of all seeded species.Where cheatgrass occurs in dense stands, plowing orspraying may be required to adequately control thisweed. In many situations, cheatgrass and other an-nual weeds exist intermixed with Wyoming big sage-brush and perennial herbs. Under these conditionsthe annual weeds can provide sufficient competition toprevent natural recruitment of native plants, includ-ing Wyoming big sagebrush. Cheatgrass competitionmust also be reduced to assure establishment of seededspecies. Control measures used should not destroyexisting perennial herbs. Interseeding shrubs and/orherbs into cleared strips or spots is a satisfactorymethod of interplanting. This technique can be used toreintroduce desirable plants and ultimately createparental stock from which natural recruitment mayoccur. However, annual weeds must be controlled toallow natural spread.

Weed-infested sites can be burned after cheatgrassseeds are ripe and the foliage has dried, but before theseeds fall. Burning during this period consumes mostseed; however, some seeds usually escape, but theresulting competition may be reduced enough to allowestablishment of seeded species. Cheatgrass can re-cover quickly following burning, and sites must beplanted in the fall months after the burn. Waiting toseed beyond one season allows weeds adequate time tofully recover. Seeding burned areas that remain heavilyinfested with annual weeds is not advised. Burningwill kill existing Wyoming big sagebrush, but firesnormally will not seriously impact many existing

perennial herbs. If burns are relatively small, shrubrecruitment by natural seeding may occur, dependingon the success attained in replacing annual weedswith native perennial herbs.

Reduction in density of Wyoming big sagebrush maybe required where thick stands of this shrub havedeveloped, but the shrub can easily be controlled bydisking, plowing, burning, or use of herbicides. Shrubdensity can also be regulated by anchor chaining orpipe harrowing. Either practice can be modified toattain different levels of control. Treating in midwin-ter when stems are cold and brittle results in higherkill than late fall or early spring treatments whenplants are more flexible. Significant differences in killcan also be attained by using different weight chainsand modifying methods of operation (operating atdifferent speeds, adjusting width and spacing of trac-tors, once- or twice-over chaining). Brush beaters arealso effective in removing mature shrubs, but use isrestricted to level terrain and sites free of rock. Herbi-cides can be used to remove Wyoming big sagebrush,but the treatment often kills too much of the shrubstand and eliminates valuable forbs.

Planting Season

If possible, planting in winter is advisable, but latefall through early winter has been generally success-ful. Planting may continue through December, Janu-ary, and February, or until the ground has frozen,preventing operation of equipment. Planting on snowover disturbed soil is acceptable. Newly disturbedsites should be seeded in the fall or winter monthsfollowing disturbance.

Planting Procedures

Seeding practices described for mountain and basinbig sagebrush sites apply to treatment of Wyoming bigsagebrush communities. Extensive areas occupied byWyoming big sagebrush occur on relatively level ter-rain where conventional drills can operate; conse-quently, large areas have been planted with range-land drills coupled together in gangs of two to fivedrills drawn with a single tractor.

Broadcast seeding followed by anchor chaining orpipe harrowing is an appropriate practice for seedingextensive areas in a very short time. Most herbs andWyoming big sagebrush can be seeded in this manner.In some situations, reestablishing sagebrush on largebarren areas created by wildfires has been difficult toaccomplish. Studies by Meyer (1994) indicate thatsites receiving winter snow that persists until earlyspring (March) significantly favor shrub seedling es-tablishment. Young and others (1990) reported destruc-tion of soil surface morphology caused by various distur-bances destroys seedbed conditions, diminishing



seedling establishment. Soils throughout many Wyo-ming sagebrush communities have been altered bygrazing, weed invasion, and frequent fires. In addi-tion, loss of shrub cover and surface litter over exten-sive areas results in poor seedbed conditions. Largeopen sites often do not receive a winter snow cover andsoil surfaces dry rapidly, reducing emergence andsurvival of small seedlings.

Standing cover and surface litter provided by ma-ture shrubs or perennial grasses significantly im-proves seedbed conditions for Wyoming big sagebrushseedlings. Attempts to modify seedbed conditions bydiking, pitting, or deep furrow drilling have notimproved shrub seedling success; however, use of the“sagebrush-seeder” has improved sagebrush estab-lishment and survival over conventional drilling prac-tices. The sagebrush-seeder deposits and firms seedonto the soil surface without further modification ofthe seedbed (Boltz 1994). Although this practice doesnot ensure planting success in all situations, it isadvisable to use this equipment or other surface seed-ers when planting small seeds of sagebrush.


Within Wyoming big sagebrush areas, where an-nual precipitation is near 10 inches (250 mm) or lessand soils are light textured, Sandberg bluegrass, In-dian ricegrass, bottlebush squirreltail, and Bluebunchwheatgrass may be used if plants occur naturally.Thurber needlegrass, western wheatgrass, and sanddropseed are other recommended native grasses. Notall species are universally adapted to all Wyoming bigsagebrush sites. Crested and desert wheatgrass, Rus-sian wildrye, and pubescent wheatgrass are the pri-mary introductions adapted to this shrub type. Areasreceiving more than 12 inches (300 mm) of annualprecipitation will support bluebunch wheatgrass,western wheatgrass, alfalfa, small burnet, and in-termediate wheatgrass. Winterfat, antelope bitter-brush, fourwing saltbush, or other shrubs seeded onWyoming big sagebrush sites should be confined toareas where these species naturally occur. Attemptingto convert Wyoming big sagebrush to other nativeshrub species is not advisable. Seeds of certain nativebroadleaf herbs, including Lewis flax, Palmerpenstemon, Utah sweetvetch, and gooseberryleafglobemallow, may be sufficiently available to be in-cluded in large seedings. These species are only recom-mended for sites in which they naturally exist. At-tempts to seed them in more arid or offsite conditionsare not advised. Near pure stands of fourwing salt-bush occur in some Wyoming big sagebrush areas. Insome locations, the two shrubs can be intermixed.Soils in which fourwing saltbush occur are generallydeeper, possess more clay, and have a slightly higher

pH. Species recommended for seeding Wyoming bigsagebrush sites are listed in table 20. When fourwingsaltbush is intermixed with Wyoming big sagebrush,adapted species for seeding vary and are listed intable 17.

Plantings of forage kochia (fig. 30) have demon-strated adaptability to much of the Wyoming bigsagebrush type (Stevens 1985b). This introducedshrub establishes well amid considerable competi-tion from annual weeds (McArthur and others 1990a;Monsen and others 1990; Monsen and Turnipseed1990; Stevens and McArthur 1990), provides excellentwildlife habitat, and forage, and restricts the spread ofannual weeds (Monsen and others 1990). This shrub isalso effective in controlling wildfires when planted asgreenstrips or fuel breaks in weed infested rangelands(Pellent 1994). Currently, this low half-shrub is auseful species for planting semiarid sites where seed-ling establishment of other species is difficult to attain.Completely replacing sagebrush with forage kochia isnot advised. Forage kochia furnishes excellent winterforage for livestock under controlled grazing condi-tions, but it does not provide the habitat required forsage-grouse and other wildlife.

Black Sagebrush ________________Black sagebrush is highly palatable to livestock, big

game and sage-grouse. The species generally occursbetween 4,900 and 8,000 ft (1,500 and 2,400 m), butcan be encountered at lower elevations. A majority ofthe black sagebrush communities occur on calcareoussoils, derived from limestone. There are, however,extensive areas where black sagebrush occurs on

Figure 30—Forage kochia and fourwing saltbush havebeen successfully seeded into weed-infested sites thatonce supported Wyoming big sagebrush.



volcanic soils. Black sagebrush is encountered withhorsebrush, greasewood, shadscale, ephedra, pinyon-juniper, big sagebrush, and in salt desert shrub com-munities. In general, it grows in pinyon-juniper com-munities and at lower elevations; however, it is alsoencountered on rocky soils at higher elevations. Lowsagebrush is often confused with black sagebrush.Low sagebrush, however, normally grows with pin-yon-juniper, mountain brush, white fir, aspen, andspruce-fir communities.

Annual precipitation of black sagebrush sites rangefrom 7 to 18 inches (180 to 460 mm). Because of the lowmoisture-holding capacity of most soils, only a smallportion of the annual precipitation is available. Blacksagebrush may occur on warmer and well-drainedsoils, and on more xeric sites than Wyoming big sage-brush. Salt desert shrub species normally occur onsites that are too xeric or saline for black sagebrush.


Generally, stand reduction should not be attemptedin black sagebrush types. This is due to low precipita-tion, poor moisture-holding capacity of the soil, andthe small number of beneficial grasses, forbs, andshrubs that can be successfully seeded. Black sage-brush is a very important forage species and should beretained, not eliminated or altered. Some black sage-brush areas have been invaded by Utah juniper,singleleaf pinyon or pinyon. Removal of the trees byanchor chaining can result in substantial recovery ofresidual black sagebrush plants and original under-story species. Where stands of black sagebrush havebeen eliminated by a combination of grazing andburning, cheatgrass and red brome have frequentlyinvaded and dominate. These annual weeds can becontrolled using practices described for Wyoming bigsagebrush.

Black sagebrush does recover well when sites areprotected from extensive grazing. Seedlings of thisshrub are extremely competitive, and natural recruit-ment proceeds well if disturbances are protected.Interseeding black sagebrush into disturbances cancertainly speed up natural recruitment processes.Once established, black sagebrush plants competewell with annual weeds. Through protective manage-ment, weakened stands of black sagebrush can dis-place annual weeds and regain dominance.

Seeded grasses, including desert, crested, and Sibe-rian wheatgrass, have not persisted well amid standsof black sagebrush. Although some native grasses andbroadleaf herbs occur intermixed with this shrub,black sagebrush is extremely competitive and may notallow for the development of extensive stands of grass.Disturbances within the black sagebrush type thathave been seeded to drought-tolerant grasses havereverted to a shrub cover within 10 to 20 years.

Planting Season

When seeding is attempted, every effort should bemade to conserve and utilize available soil moisture.Late fall or early winter seedings are recommended.Seeding should be delayed until some winter moisturehas been received. Seeding into water catchments,holding basins, or deep furrows can improve seedlingestablishment. Broadcast seeding black sagebrushwith a mixture of native and introduced grasses hasnot diminished shrub seedling establishment.


Species with potential for seeding disturbed sites inthe black sage type are listed in table 21. Desert,crested, and Siberian wheatgrass, and Russian wildryeare introduced species that have established in blacksagebrush sites. These species have not persisted in allareas, particularly as black sagebrush recovers. West-ern wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheat-grass, and needle-and-threadgrass are native speciescommon in this shrub type. They persist better withblack sagebrush than do most introduced grasses, butmay occur as subdominant understory species. All canbe seeded with good success. There are generally fewforbs that are associated with black sagebrush. At-tempts should not be made to seed shrub species thatdo not naturally occur with black sagebrush.

Low Sagebrush _________________Low sagebrush can be found growing on more moist

sites, and generally at slightly higher elevations thanblack sagebrush. Soils in which low sagebrush occursare dry, rocky, and often alkaline, some have shallowclay pans, and most are not well drained. Sites may besubjected to spring flooding. Areas of occurrence rang-ing from 2,300 to 11,500 ft (700 to 3,500 m) (McArthurand others 1979a) and receive 9 to 20 inches (230 to510 mm) of annual precipitation.

Low sagebrush is an important and useful species,and attempts to convert this shrub type to introducedherbs is not advised. If the associated understory hasbeen removed, the potential for herbaceous vegetationimprovement through seeding is fairly good on mostlow sagebrush areas. Species adapted to the low sage-brush types are listed in table 22. Seeding should occurin the fall or early winter prior to snowfall. Lowsagebrush has not been as widely seeded as otherspecies of sagebrush; however, direct seedings areusually quite successful.

Some reduction of low sagebrush may be required toreestablish seedlings of displaced species, butelimination of this shrub is not recommended. Ifnecessary, density of low sagebrush can be reducedwith anchor chains and pipe harrows. These two



pieces of equipment are also useful for covering seed.Plowing, disking, fire, and herbicides are effectivetechniques for killing low sagebrush, but are notrecommended. These techniques cause major damageand can kill existing shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Seed-ing should be done in the fall or early winter prior tosnowfall.

Threetip Sagebrush _____________Within the Intermountain West, threetip sagebrush

occurs in northern Utah, northern Nevada, and south-ern Idaho. It can be found between the lower, warmerdry sites dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush andthe higher, cooler mountain big sagebrush type(Schlatterer 1973). Soils are quite variable, but areusually moderately deep, ranging from fine loam tovery gravelly. Annual precipitation ranges from 10 to20 inches (250 to 500 mm) and elevations from 3,000to 9,000 ft (900 to 2,750 m) (Beetle 1960).

A number of forbs, grasses, and other shrubs grow inassociation with threetip sagebrush. The potential forreestablishing herbaceous species through seeding isfairly high, but not as great as in mountain big sage-brush areas. Threetip sagebrush may resprout fromthe base following fire, defoliation, or other distur-bances. Practices can be used to initially reduce woodycompetition and allow understory species to establish,yet favoring the recovery of the sage. Threetip sage-brush sites should be seeded with adapted and avail-able species (table 23) at the same season as describedfor mountain big sagebrush, using similar practices.Best seeding success has been achieved by seeding inthe late fall just before snowfall .

Threetip sagebrush communities normally supporta wide array of herbaceous and woody species. Sitesusually are not invested with annual weeds. Areasdisrupted by grazing normally recover with protec-tion. Threetip sagebrush plants usually produce abun-dant seeds each year, facilitating natural recruitment.Stands of threetip disrupted by burning or extendedperiods of grazing can be restored by broadcast seed-ing. Aerial seeding of fresh burns or broadcasting priorto chaining or pipe harrowing are quite successful.Seeding threetip sagebrush with herbaceous specieshas also been successful.

Mountain Silver Sagebrush _______Throughout the Intermountain region, mountain

silver sagebrush occurs in valleys, plains, foothills,and mountains up to 10,000 ft (3,050 m). Precipitationranges from 18 to 30 inches (460 to 760 mm) annually.Soil texture ranges from loam to sandy loam. Manysites are poorly drained, with some having seasonally

high water tables. Some sites often collect a heavysnow pack that remains late into the spring. As snowmelts, the soil is saturated for a period of time.

Two other silver sagebrush subspecies occur in thewest: Bolander silver sagebrush occurs primarily inthe Sierra-Nevada Mountains, and plains silversagebrush occurs principally east of the ContinentalDivide (Shultz 1986). Timberline sagebrush grows inassociation with silver sagebrush, especially whenthere is heavy snow pack. Subalpine big sagebrushalso occurs on more open areas with silver sagebrush.

Considerable variations of understory species occuramong mountain silver sagebrush sites. Consequently,care should be taken when selecting species to seedwithin a particular mountain silver sagebrush com-munity. Mountain silver sagebrush communitiesshould not be altered or converted to other species.However, where disturbances have occurred, mountainsilver sagebrush density can be reduced with anchorchains, pipe harrows, disks, and disk chain if neces-sary. Fire and herbicides are also effective means forreducing silver sagebrush. Species that are adapted tothe mountain silver sagebrush, timberline sagebrushand subalpine big sagebrush areas are listed in table 24.

Ecotypes of mountain silver sagebrush demonstrateexcellent establishment features. Some ecotypes com-pete well with annual weeds. Natural spread of moun-tain silver sagebrush into weed infested sites oftenoccurs. This shrub resprouts following burning, andmay be used to seed areas occupied by flammableannual weeds.

Alkali or Early Sagebrush_________Alkali sagebrush occurs at elevations between 5,900

and 8,000 ft (1,800 and 2,450 m). It occupies extensiveareas along the foothill ranges from south-centralMontana southward into Wyoming, northern Colo-rado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon (Blaisdell andothers 1982). Alkali sagebrush usually occurs on heavytextured and poorly drained soils. This shrub is unlikemost other woody sagebrushes, with the exception oflow sagebrush or silver sagebrush, as it is able to growon wet sites. It is frequently mixed with antelopebitterbrush, and basin big, threetip, and low sage-brush, particularly in south-central Idaho. Yet, whengrowing with these shrubs, it usually occurs in sepa-rate and distinct patches.

Alkali sagebrush is useful forage for game birds,livestock, and big game animals. It is important habi-tat for sage-grouse and provides forage for sheep andantelope, especially as spring herbage. Rehabilitationor conversion of alkali sagebrush-dominated commu-nities should not be initiated until the impacts onthese game birds are considered.



Alkali sagebrush sites normally support a diverseunderstory of grasses and herbs. Sites that have beenwell managed support Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheat-grass, and Letterman needlegrass. It is not uncommonto encounter mixed communities of alkali sagebrushand antelope bitterbrush.

Areas that are heavily grazed usually lack a satisfac-tory understory of herbs. In these situations, the den-sity of alkali sagebrush increases significantly. Oncethis occurs, the native herbs are slow to reestablish.Alkali sagebrush-dominated areas in south-centralIdaho have been rested from grazing for over 30 yearswithout much community change or improvement.


Improvement of alkali sagebrush ranges can beattained by artificial measures. Grasses and broadleafherbs can be interseeded into clearings created byburning or disking. Alkali sagebrush can also be effec-tively controlled with chaining, disking, or spraying;however, chaining is the most effective treatment(Monsen and Shaw 1986). Complete removal of theexisting shrubs is neither necessary nor desirable. Areduction of 25 to 50 percent in density of the shrubsis sufficient to allow seedling establishment of addi-tional species. Alkali sagebrush stands exposed toburning or chaining recover quickly, often within 3 to5 years. Consequently, it is essential to immediatelyseed after these treatments. However, thinning bychaining, burning, spraying, or disking can result in arapid improvement of understory herbs (Monsen andShaw 1986). Following burning or chaining, alkalisagebrush plants recover quickly by sprouting. Thisshrub normally produces a good seed crop each year.Clearing techniques, including chaining or disking,usually improve the seedbed and result in rapid recov-ery of new shrub seedlings.

Burning of alkali sagebrush stands is usually notdifficult if conducted at the right season. Sites domi-nated by this shrub may lack a dense understory. If so,fires may burn erratically leaving a mosaic pattern. Ifan understory does exist, seeding following burning isnot required. Most associated plants recover followingburning and chaining.

Alkali sagebrush begins growth much earlier thaneither basin big sagebrush or low sagebrush. Plantsnormally flower a month before low sagebrush. Conse-quently, if herbicides are used to control alkali sage-brush, treatment should be completed much earlierthan would be scheduled for basin big sagebrush.

Planting Season

Fall seeding is normally recommended, althoughsome sites receive sufficient moisture to support earlyspring plantings.

Planting Procedures

Aerial seeding followed by anchor chaining is a satis-factory means of planting. Sites that are burned may beaerially seeded or drill seeded. Areas that have beenburned may be drill seeded using a rangeland drill orsimilar type drill that is capable of operating on sitessupporting considerable standing litter and debris.

Rocky outcrops often occur amid alkali sagebrushcommunities and can restrict the methods used to seedan area. Anchor chaining is normally the most practi-cal and effective method of seeding rocky sites.


Species recommended for rehabilitating alkali sage-brush sites are similar to those used for basin bigsagebrush (table 18) or low sagebrush sites (table 22).Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Letterman’sneedlegrass are also adapted to these sites.

Alkali sagebrush plants spread well by natural seed-ing. Attempts to improve a site by seeding understoryherbs normally results in the overall recovery of theshrub. This shrub is not difficult to establish by directseeding. Seedlings are quite competitive and can beestablished in combination with some herbs. Seeds arerelatively large compared with those of most othersagebrushes, and are easily cleaned and planted withmost equipment.

Budsage _______________________Budsage is locally important in the Intermountain

West (fig. 31). This species is found on dry, often saline,

Figure 31—Salt desert shrub communities support animportant group of woody species including bud sage-brush, shadscale, winterfat, spiny hopsage, and fourwingsaltbush. Maintaining these communities and prevent-ing weed invasion is essential because these sites aredifficult to restore.



plains and hills. It is well adapted to xeric conditionsand is often associated with shadscale saltbush, blackgreasewood, and other salt-tolerant shrubs (fig. 31). Insome places it can be found growing in associationwith black sagebrush and basin big sagebrush. Budsagesites are generally not recommended for rehabilita-tion because of arid conditions that prevail. If a site isdisturbed, few species can be recommended for seed-ing. Attempts made to seed this species have not beenvery successful because of poor quality seed and harshplanting conditions. Seeds are small and seedlings donot grow rapidly. Stands of bud sagebrush should beprotected and carefully managed to avoid loss.

Salt Desert ShrubCommunities ___________________

Salt desert shrub communities occur throughout theWestern United States, Canada, and Mexico. Cheno-pod shrubs dominate many of these communities,providing a diverse group of species (McArthur andSanderson 1984) (fig. 31). Some species that occupythe salt desert shrublands are encountered in bothcold desert and warm desert communities describedby Shreve (1942). Various species of sagebrush exist inassociation with certain salt desert communities, butthey normally grow at higher elevations and on betterdrained soils. Generally, salt desert species occur onheavy textured lowland soils containing some salt inthe subsoil. Not all sites have a developed carbonatelayer, and salt content may vary throughout the soilprofile.

Salt desert communities occupy harsh and some-what unique sites, including waste places, temperatesalt marshes, deserts, and semidesert regions (Goodall1982; McArthur and Sanderson 1984). Salt desertshrublands occur as extensive rangelands occupyingbroad valleys throughout southeastern Oregon andsouthern Idaho, southward through the Great Basininto southern California and western Arizona (Oosting1956). Precipitation is low, normally less than 10inches (250 mm), and erratic. Locally, physical differ-ences in topography, soils, and aspect produce distinctpatterns in the distribution of different plant commu-nities. It is important to recognize that quite differentvegetative associations occur throughout the salt desertshrublands, reflecting the effects of soil conditions,water accumulation, evaporation, and salt deposition.Accumulation of salts create zonal patterns of vegeta-tion around playa lakes and areas where flooding orrunoff may occur (Billings 1980). Where salt content isexcessive, samphire glasswort and iodine bush domi-nate. Shadscale, greasewood, gray molly, winterfat,blackbrush, Nevada ephedra, and spiny hopsage existon sites with less salt.

Differences in site conditions must be considered inany vegetative improvement projects. Salt desertshrublands may be difficult sites to restore or reveg-etate. Seasonal precipitation is not only low but veryerratic, and planting success is closely regulated byavailability of soil moisture in the spring and earlysummer. Restoration or revegetation measures mustbe developed to properly treat different communitiesand site conditions.

It is important that rehabilitation procedures se-lected apply to the specific plant association beingtreated. To date, disturbances within the salt desertshrublands have generally been seeded with crestedwheatgrass, desert wheatgrass, Siberian wheatgrass,Russian wildrye, Great Basin wildrye, and bottle-brush squirreltail (Plummer and others 1968). Al-though attempts have been made to reestablish nativeshrubs and associated herbs, erratic success has re-sulted. Most revegetation projects have relied on theuse of grasses, using species capable of developinguniform stands under adverse establishment condi-tions. Although native shrubs have evolved to popu-late these sites, natural and artificial seedings gener-ally do not provide reliable seedling establishmenteach year. Recent studies with some semiarid shrubsdemonstrate that by selecting adapted ecotypes(Meyer and Monsen 1990; Shaw and Haferkamp1990), proper seedbed preparation (Stevens and oth-ers 1986), and aggressive weed control (Monsen andPellant 1989), a number of species can be seeded withgood success. Recent development of native and in-troduced ecotypes has also provided additional plantmaterials for seeding salt desert disturbances(McArthur and others 1982; Stevens and McArthur1990; Stevens and others 1977; Welch and McArthur1986).

Shadscale-Saltbush _____________Shadscale-saltbush communities occur over 50,000

square miles (129,00 km2) ranging from Canada toMexico, and from 1,500 to 7,000 ft (450 to 2,100 m) inelevation (Hanson 1962). These species dominatebroad valley bottoms and adjacent foothills wherethey merge with big sagebrush and juniper-pinyon.Shadscale is the most common and abundant shrub ofthe salt desert shrubland (Blaisdell and Holmgren1984). Shadscale is found in heavy soils with solublesalts ranging from 160 to 3,000 ppm and pH of 7.4 to10.3 (Hanson 1962). On highly alkaline soils, shadscaleoccurs in nearly pure stands. Annual precipitation onthese areas is generally less than 10 inches (250 mm),with many areas receiving from 3 to 8 inches (80 to200 mm). Both pure and mixed stands of shadscaleoccur in the Colorado River drainage in western Utah



(fig. 31), and throughout Nevada, eastern Oregon,southern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming. Com-munity composition may be predominantly shadscaleor other saltbush species. Numerous shadscale com-munities have been described by various investigators(Hutchings and Stewart 1953; Stewart and others1940; Wood 1966). West and Ibrahim (1968) describedfour habitat types with distinctly different floristiccomposition and soil features in southeastern Utah.Shadscale exists as nearly pure stands with large openspaces among plants in valley bottoms. On higherslopes it exists in fairly complex mixtures with otherlow shrubs and some grasses (Hutchings and Stewart1953).

Shadscale plants can be completely killed by fires.Vest (1962) reported that shadscale is more sensitiveto extended periods of drought than any other of thesalt desert shrubs. Extensive stands have also beenkilled by periods of heavy precipitation and seasonalperiods of flooding or soil saturation.

Although heavy or improper seasons of grazing candiminish stands of shadscale, this species is reportedto replace palatable shrubs and grasses where grazinghas been excessive (Blaisdell 1958).

Most successful range improvement projects inshadscale-saltbush communities have occurred whereannual precipitation exceeds 8 inches (200 mm) (Bleakand others 1965; Plummer 1966; Plummer and others1968). Techniques and plant materials are limited atthe present time to ensure consistent, acceptable, long-term success in areas that receive less than 8 inches(200 mm) of precipitation. The presence of juniper orpinyon in a shadscale community indicates that ad-equate precipitation is generally available to success-fully seed the area.

Normally, areas with Gardner or mat saltbush aretoo dry or saline for successful seeding. However,treatments may be successful in shadscale or mixedshrub communities, which include fourwing saltbush,winterfat, black greasewood, blackbrush, basin bigsagebrush, spiny hopsage, horsebrush, and juniper.Bud sage is often codominant or subdominant withshadscale. Disturbed shadscale areas are usually oc-cupied by Russian thistle, cheatgrass (fig. 32), andhalogeton. It is important to revegetate these distur-bances to reduce erosion and to check the increase ofundesirable annuals, poisonous plants, and noxiousweeds, and to control wildfires.

Natural recovery of large stands of shadscale hasfrequently occurred following fires. In some situa-tions, plants appeared 3 to 4 years after disturbance,indicating seeds survive in the soil and may remainviable for a number of years. Shadscale seedlings areable to compete with some herbaceous competition,but recent trials indicate seedlings are susceptible tocompetition.


Disturbance of the perennial plant cover maythreaten soil stability (Bleak and others 1965; Plummer1966). Typically, perennial plant density is low withmajor openings existing between individual shrubs.Annual and perennial weeds have often invaded dis-turbances and sites where plant density is low orwhere shrubs have been burned by wildfires. Weedshave also established on sites where shrub density hasnot been diminished. Weed invasion and persistencefluctuates annually, creating the potential for largeand disruptive fires.

Where cheatgrass brome (fig. 32) has become estab-lished and gained control, removal of weedy competi-tion should follow the same general procedure asoutlined in guides for seeding into cheatgrass, redbrome, and medusahead types. Likewise, where halo-geton and Russian thistle have established, the treat-ments described in this chapter for seeding into lowannual weed communities would be appropriate.

If a reduction in shrub density is desired, this can beaccomplished by anchor chaining, shallow plowing,and disking, or with disk-chains, pipe harrows, andscalpers of various types (McArthur and others 1978b).Shrubs within this type are generally very brittle andeasily removed. Destruction of shrub cover shouldnot be done unless specific objectives would justifyconversion to a different community.

Control of annual weeds is a major problem through-out most of the salt desert communities. Annual weedshave invaded many sites and restrict natural recruit-ment of native species. The annual weeds also flourishfollowing a wildfire or other disturbance. Once in

Figure 32—Shadscale communities are often invadedby cheatgrass following wildfires, creating serious prob-lems in restoration of this native shrub.



place, the weeds dominate and prevent establish-ment of artificial seedings. Cheatgrass is highlycompetitive and produces abundant seed crops, pro-viding a seedbank that persists for more than oneseason. Any attempt to plant these disturbancesrequires removal of existing plants and elimination ofthe seedbank. Single treatments, including mechani-cal tillage or application of herbicides, are not alwayssuccessful.

Planting Season

If soils are not frozen, midwinter seeding is recom-mended. Disking, drill seeding, or other disturbanceswhen soils are wet can cause surface crusting, whichprevents emergence of most seedlings. Generally, low-elevation sites can be seeded from late fall until earlyspring. Spring planting should be completed beforewinter moisture has diminished and soil surfaces aredry.

Planting Procedures

Unless weeds are present, drill seeding can usuallybe accomplished with little reduction of existing cover(Plummer 1966). Where the objective is to improveground cover and increase production by leaving pe-rennial vegetation and adding some additional spe-cies, direct seeding with the rangeland drill is espe-cially successful. If shrubs are seeded, they should beplanted in alternate rows separated from seededgrasses. Good results can be obtained when the drillmakes wide furrows, permitting the maximum amountof precipitation to be collected in the depressions.However, a drill can often compact the furrow, whichmay interfere with seedling emergence. The use ofscalpers, pitters, and land imprinters to create depres-sions where moisture will collect, combined with broad-cast seeding, has resulted in improved establishment(Ferguson and Frischknecht 1981; Fisser and others1974; Giunta and others 1975; Hull 1963b; Knudson1977; Lavin and others 1981; Stevens 1980b, 1981;Wein and West 1971; Wight and White 1974). Furrowsand pits are useful for collecting and conserving mois-ture on heavy soils with slow infiltration rates (Bleakand others 1965). Anchor chains and pipe harrows arenot recommended for seed coverage where existingstands of shadscale occur, as the brittle shrubs will beseriously damaged. If shadscale shrubs have beendestroyed by burning or other disturbances, chainingor harrowing can be used to cover broadcast seeds.


Species that are adapted to the shadscale type arelisted in table 25 (Bleak and others 1965; Fergusonand Frischknecht 1981; McArthur and others 1978b;

McKell and VanEpps 1981; Monsen and Plummer1978; Plummer 1966, 1977; Plummer and others 1968).

Seeding shadscale onto sites where wildfires orother disturbances have removed the shrub has fre-quently been attempted. Erratic stands have oftendeveloped from direct seedings, yet new shadscaleplants appear over a number of years, eventuallyproducing good stands. If a seedbank has been devel-oped in the soil, natural recovery of shadscale hasoccurred following burns at a number of locations.Natural seedlings compete well with other species,and mature individuals develop in 3 to 5 years. Heavyand continuous grazing has weakened and killed ex-isting plants. Weakened plants may fail to producenormal seed crops, slowing the recovery process.Natural recovery following extended periods of de-structive grazing can be slow or may not occur. Weedinvasion can also prevent shrub recruitment.

Natural recovery of shadscale can be expected onrecent burns if weeds are absent and a seedbank hasaccumulated in the soil. Seeding shadscale or otherspecies may not be required. If weed invasion is appar-ent, planting is usually necessary to ensure shrubrecovery. Seeding introduced perennial grasses fol-lowing wildfires is often recommended to stabilizesoils and control weed invasion. However, plantings ofcrested wheatgrass on upland foothills and plains hasprevented shadscale recovery. This practice should beavoided if conditions suggest shadscale is capable ofrecovery.

Seed lots of shadscale obtained from native collec-tions often have less than 40 percent viability. A largepercentage of the seed fails to develop, and many emptyutricles are formed. In addition, the hard utricle pre-vents germination. Once the utricle is fractured oropened, seeds germinate rapidly. Procedures have notbeen developed to open the utricle and permit uniformgermination. Seed from various native stands germi-nate more freely than others, and collections fromnorth-central Nevada, southern Idaho, and easternUtah have germinated better than collections frommost other areas. This demonstrates the practicality ofimproving stand establishment through controlledbreeding and selection.

Plantings of forage kochia (fig. 30), an introducedhalf-shrub, have demonstrated adaptability to andcan establish in the shadscale type (McArthur andothers 1990a). This plant is competitive as a seedling(Monsen and Turnipseed 1990; Stevens and McArthur1990) and has established very well when seeded amidsites occupied by annual weeds. This introduced shrubprovides useful herbage, competes well with annuals,and has significantly reduced the incident of wildfireswhere cheatgrass has invaded. Converting shadscalecommunities to forage kochia is not advised, but exist-ing disturbances currently occupied by cheatgrass



(McArthur and others 1990a), Russian thistle, or ha-logeton (Stevens and McArthur 1990) can be con-verted to a more manageable and productive coverwith forage kochia. In addition, this shrub can be usedto control the further spread of weeds and restrictfurther decline in site productivity and erosion. For-age kochia is able to outcompete summer annualsbecause of its early spring growth, rapid germination,and growth of numerous small seedlings.

Black Greasewood ______________Black greasewood occupies considerable acreages

on salty valley bottoms. This plant also occurs onsalt-bearing shale outcrops in canyons and on foot-hills (fig. 33). Sites vary in respect to soil texture andavailability of ground water. Some areas are wetwith high water tables, and others are dry with well-drained soils.

Black greasewood occurs in pure or mixed stands.The plant contains oxalic acid and can cause poison-ing, particularly when grazed in the spring (USDA1968). Livestock can safely consume moderate amountsof greasewood when it is eaten in conjunction withother forage. Black greasewood is not known to bepoisonous to game animals and, in fact, has someforage value. However, forage production and groundcover can often be increased by establishing additionalspecies within greasewood stands.


Some stands of black greasewood have been con-verted to herbaceous species for livestock pastures orcultivated fields. Many black greasewood sites can berelatively productive areas, and increases in forageproduction can economically support developmentcosts. Introduced perennial grasses are commonlyseeded to provide spring/fall pastures.

Many black greasewood sites have been invaded bycheatgrass and summer annuals. These sites fre-quently burn, which decreases shrub density anddiminishes understory herbs. Where control of annualweeds and fire suppression is a major concern, plant-ing introduced perennial grasses has been justified.Reestablishment of the native understory is attain-able in many situations, although seed availabilitycurrently limits restoration programs.

Many black greasewood sites are important formaintaining wildlife habitat and soil protection.Streams and riparian zones often align this plant type.Consequently, restoration measures are often requiredto restore the understory vegetation. Complete elimi-nation of all shrubs is not necessary or advisable.Shrub density should only be decreased to facilitate

planting understory species. Converting this woodycommunity to other shrub species is not advisable inmost situations.

Black greasewood is not very competitive with seededherbs. However, some thinning of the shrubs is usu-ally required to reduce competition and facilitate seed-ing. A heavy offset disk, disk-chain (fig. 34), pipeharrows, brushland plow, or similar equipment can beused to remove top growth and eliminate plants. Pipeharrowing, chaining, mowing, beating, or use of theland imprinter effectively reduce top growth, andleave litter on the ground as mulch. These treatmentsdo not kill or remove all greasewood plants. Topgrowth of greasewood can be removed with fire when

Figure 33—Black greasewood sites often existwith a limited cover of understory herbs, and aresubject to invasion by annual weeds, includingcheatgrass.

Figure 34—Mechanical tillage is often used toreduce competition from black greasewood andestablish understory species.



there is sufficient fuel to carry a fire. Greasewood canbe satisfactorily controlled with 2,4-D (Cluff and oth-ers 1983b; Roundy and others 1983).

Soil crusting in the black greasewood type is a majorproblem. Mulching helps to reduce crusting and pro-vides improved seedling emergence and establish-ment. Every effort should be made to leave mulch onthe soil surface.

Planting Season

If the surface is dry or moist, February is the pre-ferred time for planting because the soil crusts lessfollowing tillage or seeding than in late fall or earlywinter. However, planting from late fall (mid-October)through January can produce good stands. Seeding inMarch and early April is normally successful if soilsare dry and firm. Spring tillage or seeding dries thesoil surface and prevents seed germination and seed-ling establishment.

Planting Procedures

Broadcasting by aerial or hand-seeding techniques,followed by anchor chaining or pipe harrowing, aresuitable and practical procedures. Anchor chainingand pipe harrowing after seeding are usually pre-ferred treatments, as litter is scattered over the soilsurface. Drilling or imprint seeding can be used unlessnumerous woody stems are left on the soil surface.Surface planting using a Brillon seeder often preventssurface compaction and crusting, and produces ad-equate stands.


Even though few species (table 26) are adapted tothe akaline soils of greasewood communities, goodopportunities exist for improving forage production,ground cover, and soil stabilization. Bottlebrushsquirreltail, western wheatgrass, and Great Basinwildrye are the principal native grasses adapted tothis shrub type. “Fairway” and “Ephraim” crestedwheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are all well-adaptedintroductions and useful forage species. Russianwildrye provides excellent forage during late springand summer periods and helps control reinvasion ofweeds. Although greasewood is not eliminated by thepresence of seeded herbs, shrub density can be con-trolled by the presence of understory species andseasonal grazing practices.

Winterfat_______________________Winterfat occurs in the pinyon-juniper, basin big

sagebrush, Wyoming big sagebrush, and salt desert

communities and in pure stands. It occurs from Canadato the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain States toCalifornia, Mexico, and eastward to Texas and NorthDakota (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984). This shrub isabundant on low foothill ranges, dry valley bottoms,and plains, growing on subalkaline soils (Gates andothers 1956; Shantz and Piemeisel 1940). It is notuncommon to find this shrub in nearly pure standsover extensive areas (Branson and others 1967).

Winterfat may frequently dominate upland or foot-hill sites, normally growing with some understorygrasses in these situations. Blaisdell and Holmgren(1984) conclude that winterfat appears as a dominantspecies in three major salt desert shrub communities:winterfat-low rabbitbrush, winterfat-low rabbitbrush-grass, and winterfat-grass. It also exists as almostpure stands or intermixed with shadscale on alluvialsoils on broad valley bottoms and lower valley slopes.Indian ricegrass, galleta, and black sagebrush arefrequently associated with winterfat. Throughout thesalt desert communities, winterfat is second only toshadscale in importance.

Salt desert shrub communities occur on soils withextreme salinity, alkalinity, or both (West 1982) whereprecipitation is mostly under 6 inches (15 cm). Thiscombination of factors creates climatically and physi-ologically dry soils (Billings 1945). Winterfat differsfrom some other salt desert shrubs in that it grows onsoils relatively low in salt and sodium (Naphan 1966).Although it may occur on coarser textured soils withlow water holding capacity, it also occupies fertile,moist sites.

Winterfat is highly palatable and nutritious. Itstolerance to winter grazing is remarkable. Even so,persistent and continuous overgrazing, especially inspring and summer, has reduced its density on manyranges, and in places, has completely eliminated stands.Low rabbitbrush, snakeweed, shadscale saltbush, andsuch annuals as Russian thistle, cheatgrass, red brome,and halogeton now occupy extensive areas that wereformerly dominated by winterfat (Stevens and others1977a). Spring and summer grazing essentially elimi-nates seed production.

Winterfat can survive through extensive moistureshortage. It has an extensively fibrous and deep tap-root. During prolonged drought, growth is negligibleand plants may even appear to be dead. However, thewoody crowns often survive. With moisture, it has aremarkable ability to recover. The more successfulrange improvement projects have occurred where an-nual precipitation is in excess of 8 inches (200 mm).


Winterfat has been eliminated by grazing or otherdisturbances and replaced by cheatgrass, red brome,



Russian thistle, and halogeton. These sites frequentlyburn and further reduce shrub density and understoryherbs. Techniques described in the chapter for treat-ing these annual communities should be employed.Where control of annual weeds and fire suppression isa major concern, planting of introduced perennialgrasses has been justified. However, reestablishmentof natives can occur in many situations.

When winterfat stands have been invaded by orreplaced with low rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush,and snakeweed, the density of these species must bereduced to facilitate seeding. A Dixie chain or pipeharrow can effectively reduce competition from thesespecies and prepare a favorable seedbed. Plowing ordisking will kill and eliminate winterfat plants thatmay be present. Working the soil when it is damp orwet will cause soil crusting and prevent seedlingemergence.

Planting Season

The most ideal time for seeding winterfat and asso-ciated species is in the fall before the soil freezes.Where summer storms occur, particularly in the south-west, seeding prior to these storms has resulted ingood success.

Planting Procedures

A major factor in successful seeding is seed coverage.Winterfat seeds are encircled by two cottony, hairybracts. Seed should not be removed from these bracts.Winterfat seed does best when it is surface seeded. Thebracts, when embedded in soil, help to anchor the seedto the soil and provide for successful germination andseedling establishment. Aerial broadcasting onto dis-turbed sites or with slight disturbance with chainingor pipe harrowing can be successful. Drill seeding canbe successful when a picker wheel or chaffy seeddispenser is incorporated in the seedbox. Seed shouldbe deposited behind the furrow openers and in front ofthe drag chain. Winterfat should be seeded in alter-nate rows separated from grasses. The use of scalpers,pitters, and land imprinters that form depressions formoisture collection has resulted in good seedings.


Ecotypic variations exist in winterfat. Generally,low-growing, drought-tolerant forms are found in val-ley bottoms with heavier soils. Tall-growing, morewoody types occur on more upland sites with higherprecipitation, generally associated with ponderosapine and pinyon-juniper (Stevens and others 1977a).When seeding winterfat, it is imperative that adap-tive ecotypes be selected and seeded.

Species adapted to seeding onto winterfat vary withclimatic and edaphic conditions. Winterfat most oftenoccurs in association with other species. Species rec-ommended for seeding are listed by associated speciesin table 13 (mountain brush-ponderosa pine); tables14 to 16 (juniper-pinyon); table 17 (fourwing salt-bush); table 18 (basin big sagebrush); table 20 (Wyo-ming big sagebrush); table 25 (shadscale saltbush);and table 28 (cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead).

Fourwing Saltbush ______________Fourwing saltbush is widely distributed over the

west in foothills and desert ranges. It reaches well intothe Great Plains on the east and nearly to the PacificOcean on the west, from Canada on the north andsouth into Mexico. It occurs from below sea level in theMojave Desert to over 8,000 ft (3,280 m). It is found inpure stands and in scattered stands associated withshadscale saltbush, Gardner saltbush, juniper-pin-yon, basin big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sage-brush.

Over its wide range of distribution, fourwing salt-bush exhibits extensive variations in growth form,seed production, germination, establishment, droughttolerance, cold tolerance, grazing, palatability to live-stock, and adaptability to soil type.


Fourwing saltbush has been eliminated or reducedin density on many sites by overgrazing and/or fire.Grazing has also depleted or eliminated associatedunderstory species. Cheatgrass brome, red brome, andspring and summer annuals have invaded and occupythe understory of many fourwing saltbush areas.

The objective of most seedings has been to establishperennial understory and retain and increase fourwingsaltbush density. This requires removal of grazingpressure, reduction of competitive annuals, and seed-ing of adapted understory species and fourwing salt-bush. Treatment used to reduce competition will varywith density and composition of existing understorycommunites and associated perennial species. Tech-niques are described in the chapter for treating thevarious community conditions. These are listed bymajor species types: juniper-pinyon, basin big sage-brush, Wyoming big sagebrush, annual weedy grasses,and lowland annuals.

Planting Season

Late fall seedings are most often recommended;however, in the Southwest, when summer storms occur,seeding prior to these storms is generally recommended.



Planting Procedures

Fourwing saltbush seed requires that the seed beplanted at least 1/4 inch (6 mm) deep, preferably in afirm seedbed. When drill seeding, this species doesbest seeded separately from grasses. Broadcastseeding will accomplish this, but provisions must bemade to ensure the seed is covered. Seeding througha Hansen seed dribbler or thimble seeder mounted on acrawler tractor can result in superior establishment.


Ecotypic variations in fourwing saltbush requirethat only seed sources adapted to the planting site beseeded. Sources from warmer, more southern climatescannot be moved to cooler, northern areas. Likewise,lower elevation sources cannot be moved to higherelevations. When this occurs, few seedlings generallysurvive.

A large majority of the fourwing saltbush seed thatis produced and harvested comes from Texas, NewMexico, Arizona, southern Utah, Nevada, and Califor-nia. These ecotypes should not be seeded in northernColorado, Utah and Nevada, southern Idaho, Wyoming,or eastern Oregon. Species adapted to fourwing salt-bush sites are listed by associated species. Table 17lists species adapted to areas where fourwing saltbushoccurs in assocation with juniper-pinyon, basin bigsagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush; table 25,shadscale saltbush; table 27, blackbrush; and table 28,areas where cheatgrass, red brome, and medusaheaddominate.

Blackbrush Communities _________Blackbrush grows on fairly large tracts in the Colo-

rado river drainage, Arizona, and New Mexico. Insome locations, it occurs with few associated species(Bowns and West 1976). In some areas, spreadingcreosotebush, desert peachbrush, silver buffaloberry,Utah serviceberry, basin big sagebrush, and variouscacti, yuccas, and Utah juniper grow in associationwith blackbrush. Annual precipitation ranges from 6to 16 inches (150 and 400 mm). Seedings are usuallynot successful where annual precipitation averagesless than 9 inches (220 mm). Blackbrush is a valuableshrub for livestock (fig. 35) and deer. It should not bedisturbed, nor should attempts be made to convert it toanother vegetative type.

Cheatgrass and red brome grow under the crowns ofblackbrush plants. In wet years, these annuals may beso abundant that once they dry out, fires may burnacross large acreages. Since blackbrush is not firetolerant, these burned areas automatically become

annual cheatgrass and red brome ranges and, there-fore, special problem areas. Unless such disturbancesare seeded, the annual grasses may persist for manyyears.


Control of plant competition is required only in areaswhere red brome and cheatgrass brome have invaded.Seeding is recommended following wildfires as a meansof controlling the spread of the annual grasses. Onceannuals have gained control, these plants must besignificantly reduced in density to allow shrubs andnative herbs to recover. Because the chief aim in im-proving blackbrush areas is the retention of blackbrush,and because blackbrush is not tolerant of fire, burningto control the annual grasses should be avoided. Diskingor spraying with ground equipment can be used to treatspecific sites, while avoiding scattered shrubs.

Planting Season

Storm patterns favor late June to early July seedings,just prior to summer storms (Jordon 1981, 1983). Falland winter seedings can, however, be successful. Workcan continue from November through February.Pendleton and others (1995) reported that naturalemergence of blackbrush seedlings in southern Utahoccurred between December and February. In addi-tion, these authors found that blackbrush seeds re-quire 4 to 6 months of stratification to break seeddormancy. Consequently, fall seeding is required toassure stratification and emergence of blackbrushseedlings. Occasional low temperatures seldom delay

Figure 35—Domestic livestock often grazeblackbrush sites, but these areas are also importantto big game animals.



ground treatment or planting for more than a fewdays. Rodents gather and feed on planted seeds andgraze young sprouts, causing considerable damageand loss of a high percent of all seeds and seedlings(Longland 1994). As a precaution against undue loss ofseeds to small rodents, plantings may be delayed untilDecember when rodents are less active.

Planting Procedures

Probably the best method of seeding herbaceousspecies is aerial broadcasting followed by anchorchaining or pipe harrowing. This method is particu-larly applicable on rocky areas, where it is difficult todrill. Chaining can be detrimental to blackbrush plantsand should not be used where these shrubs are present.In rock-free areas, where the rangeland drill or otherdisk-type drills can be used, good stands can be at-tained with these machines. Planting seeds ofblackbrush in alternate rows with herbaceous speciesis recommended. Shrub seeds can also be sown usinga seed dribbler or thimble seeder mounted on crawlertractors.


Because temperatures are much warmer in this typethan in more northern shrublands, a mixture of adaptedspecies that can tolerate heat is required (table 27).Seed mixtures may be modified according to differencein climate and availability of seed. Seed of adaptednative grasses is currently quite limited, and is notalways sufficient for planting large acreages. Indianricegrass and squirreltail are adapted native speciesfor which seed is most available. In areas that have afair amount of summer rainfall, sand dropseed can beplanted.

Pendleton and others (1995) found that naturalrecruitment and artificial seedings are quite success-ful during years when sites receive adequate springand winter moisture. Environmentally acceptedmethods are not currently available to control seeddepredation by rodents, yet planting few seeds perspot and planting in discontinuous rows or furrowsdecrease seed gathering. In addition, planting openareas or sites free of cover tends to enhance seedlingestablishment, as rodents seek some protective cover.Seeding during periods when rodent populations arelow can increase seedling survival.

Seeds of blackbrush are limited and expensive, whichrestricts their use on large-scale projects. Big sage-brush, desert bitterbrush, Apache plume, fourwingsaltbush, and winterfat can be included in seedings inthe blackbrush type where these species naturallyoccur.

Cheatgrass Brome, Red Brome, andMedusahead Communities________

Cheatgrass brome, red brome, and medusaheaddominate large areas of depleted foothill and valleyrangelands (Mack 1981; Piemeisel 1938; Stewart andYoung 1939; Young and Evans 1970, 1971; Young andothers 1968). These grasses germinate in fall or springand demonstrate phenomenal ability to utilize spaceand soil moisture to the exclusion of perennial grassand herb seedlings (Evans 1961; Hull and Hansen1974; Robertson and Pearse 1945). The competitiveinfluence exerted by these plants enables them todominate vast areas for many years.

Piemeisel (1951) reported that sites in southernIdaho infested with cheatgrass and other annualscontinued to support a weedy cover for over 50 years,even when protected from grazing. Natural reestab-lishment of desirable perennials occurs slowly on siteswhere annual weeds exist. On most sites, particularlyarid rangelands where native seedbanks have beendepleted, changes in plant composition will not occurunless aided by revegetation (Hull and Holmgren1964; Monsen and Kitchen 1994; Monsen and McArthur1985; Young 1983). Annual grasses, particularlycheatgrass brome, are extremely difficult to control,but must be significantly reduced in density prior toseeding other species.

Cheatgrass (fig. 36) now dominates former brushand tree types in the following approximate order ofdecreasing importance: big sagebrush (fig. 28, 30),juniper-pinyon (fig. 20), blackbrush, shadscale salt-bush (fig. 32), and mountain brush (Monsen andMcArthur 1985). Cheatgrass has recently invaded

Figure 36—Cheatgrass now dominates extensiveareas previously occupied by Wyoming big sage-brush, increasing wildfire and fire suppressionproblems throughout the West.



southern desert shrub regions. Major areas of concern,where restoration is needed, are within the blackbrushand associated shrub types where red brome may alsooccur (fig. 37). Both annual grasses spread quickly andgain control soon after the perennial cover is dis-turbed. Wherever red brome dominates, it should betreated in much the same way as cheatgrass brome.

Different methods are required to revegetate sitesinfested with annual grasses than would be requiredif these annuals were not present. Consequently, theannual weeds have been considered as a separatemajor vegetative type.

Both cheatgrass and red brome provide a shortgrazing season for livestock and game animals. Forageproduction varies greatly between wet and dry years(Klemmedson and Smith 1964; Stewart and Young1939). Seeds and new shoots provide valuable suste-nance for chuckars, partridge, Gambel quail, andmourning doves. Both grasses are grazed in springand fall by livestock and big game.

As with other annuals, production of cheatgrass, redbrome, and medusahead is often negligible in dryyears. All three species are serious fire hazards, par-ticularly in wet years. Areas dominated by these twobromes and medusahead frequently burn and gradu-ally extend their areas of dominance (Pickford 1932;Wright 1985; Wright and Klemmedson 1965; Youngand Evans 1978b). Because they become a fire hazardin wet years, produce little forage in dry years, andprevent reestablishment of native species, attemptsshould be made to replace these annuals with adaptedperennials. These two bromes can persist as minorcomponents in perennial stands (fig. 32) (Astroth andFrischknecht 1984; Barney and Frischknecht 1974).They are, however, able to take advantage of anyreduction or weakness in the perennial stand. For thisreason, any major increase in establishment of eitherof these grasses immediately indicates damaging use,or at least a weakening of the perennials.

Medusahead has invaded many western rangelands(Major and others 1960), particularly low sagebrushsites (Young and Evans 1971). This annual grassexhibits characteristics similar to those of cheatgrass,and usually occurs in similar climatic zones. Whereboth occur together, medusahead has sometimesbeen able to replace cheatgrass. It has been able toadvance into clay or heavy textured soils, particularlyon sites lacking a competitive plant cover (Young andEvans 1971). Well-drained or coarse-textured soils areusually not inhabited by this grass. Plants normallyoccur in closed, dense patches. Medusahead (fig. 38) isa highly competitive winter annual. An abundance ofseed and litter builds on the soil surface. This createsserious fire management problems, as highly flam-mable foliage is present every year (Bunting 1985).Medusahead seeds are not consumed by ground fires

as readily as cheatgrass seeds, and intense and slow-burning fires are required to destroy accumulatedseeds. Medusahead is a poor forage plant. Sites domi-nated by this weedy annual must be treated in amanner similar to cheatgrass sites, using competitiveperennials. Once a perennial cover is established, thegrass can be controlled, but not eliminated.

Cheatgrass, medusahead, and red brome possess anumber of traits that must be recognized before resto-ration practices are initiated. Cheatgrass has spreadto occupy a wide array of habitats throughout theWestern United States (Mack 1981) and has quicklydeveloped habitat-adapted populations. Although red

Figure 37—Red brome is a serious invader in more aridenvironments than those occupied by cheatgrass orother annual weeds. It is as competitive as cheatgrassand has created similar fire problems.

Figure 38—Medusahead is an annual grass that israpidly expanding its area of occupation, and is nowfound on sites once dominated by cheatgrass.



brome and medusahead occupy less diverse habitats,populations of all three species are well suited to thevariety of sites they occupy. Plants of all species areable to respond to differences in annual climatic con-ditions, and to mature and produce some seeds eachyear, even during years of relatively high stress (Riceand Mack 1991). Generally, plants produce an abun-dant seed crop. Seed germination patterns vary amongpopulations of cheatgrass, although a high percent ofseeds will germinate if moisture is available (Hulland Hansen 1974). Hulbert (1955) reported thatrecently harvested seeds of cheatgrass from easternWashington and southern Idaho were conditionallydormant at summer incubation temperatures, butbecame nondormant with autumn temperatures.Young and others (1969a) reported that freshly har-vested seed from western Nevada were nondormant.Beckstead and others (1993) concluded that high sum-mer dormancy has evolved with populations growingin climates with plentiful summer rain, as opposed tonondormant populations occurring in areas with lesschance of premature germination from summer rains.

Most studies demonstrate that seed of cheatgrassfully afterripens and germinates in response to fallrains. Seeds that are partially covered with litter or soilreadily germinate and become established. Medusa-head and red brome seeds also fall germinate atsimilar periods as reported for cheatgrass. Seeds thatdo not fall germinate are left on the soil surface andwill carryover until the following spring (Evans andYoung 1972b; Wicks and others 1971; Young andothers 1969a). Regular spring germination is commonin many regions with little carryover beyond this date(Mack and Pyke 1983). Young and Evans (1975) foundthat seeds from western Nevada were induced intosecondary dormancy under winter conditions, whichdelayed germination, resulting in substantial carryoveruntil the second year. Hull and Hansen (1974) re-ported similar results from seeds of northern Utah.Consequently, a sufficient reservoir, or seedbank re-mained from year to year (Wright 1985).

Plants of cheatgrass, red brome, and medusaheadare highly competitive. The number of seedlings ger-minating and becoming established varies from yearto year. Regardless of the number of seedlings toappear, the plants can extract all available soil mois-ture throughout their rooting depth. One large plantmay be as competitive as a large number of small,individual plants (Monsen and McArthur 1985). Thus,reducing the density of seedlings may not significantlyreduce the overall effect on soil moisture.

Cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead are winterannuals. Seeds may germinate either in fall or springmonths, depending on weather conditions (Bunting1985). Seeds that germinate in the fall produce plantsthat overwinter and resume growth in the early spring

(Young and Evans 1973). Seeds that germinate in thespring do so prior to most seeded or native perennials(Buman and others 1988). In addition, seedling vigorand rate of growth is superior to that of most perenni-als (Harris 1967); therefore, they provide serious com-petition to newly developing seedlings of other species.To eliminate or reduce density of these weedy annuals,any treatment must effectively control live plants andboth fall- and spring-germinated seeds (Monsen 1994).


Burning before seeds shatter is an economical treat-ment, particularly on rocky rangelands. To be mosteffective, burning should be done before seeds aredispersed (Hull 1944; Pechanec and Hull 1945). Firesmust burn slowly or hot enough to consume seeds lefton the soil surface. Most fires destroy only a portion ofthe seed, particularly medusahead seed. Cheatgrassis often infested with smut (Fisher 1937), which maydestroy over 95 percent of the seeds. Scheduling treat-ments to coincide with smut outbreaks may not alwaysbe practical, yet sites that are heavily infested can betreated to good advantage with fire.

Deep furrow drilling or other methods to controlthese annuals may be required to reduce competitionwithin the seeded area. Plowing, shallow disking, orpipe harrowing young plants before seeds mature canbe effective on areas that are accessible to tractordrawn equipment. Except on small tracts, disking orplowing is more costly than burning. Offset disks, diskchains, pipe harrows, and disk harrows are satisfac-tory implements for removing competition.

Ogg (1994) summarizes the status and potential useof herbicides to control annual grasses. More than 20herbicides are registered for use. Cheatgrass seed-lings are easily killed with herbicides. The main prob-lem is to develop methods that selectively control theweed, but retain desirable plants. Pronamide appliedlate in the fall will selectively control cheatgrasswithout damage to slender wheatgrass, tall wheat-grass, western wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, inter-mediate wheatgrass, creeping foxtail, or orchardgrass.Currently, labeling permits grazing of treated grasses(Ogg 1994). Evans and others (1967, l983) reportedthat Paraquat, a contact herbicide, could be applied inthe spring followed by spring seeding.

Glyphosate is a foliage-active herbicide that willcontrol cheatgrass when applied at rates as low as 0.3kg/ha. This herbicide can be applied early in springwhen cheatgrass growth is quite active, with littledamage to dormant perennials. This herbicide can beeffectively used where extensive stands of cheatgrassoccur. Glyphosate can also be used to spray strips thatare about 3 ft (1 m) wide to allow interseeding of otherspecies. Cheatgrass plants can be fall or spring treated



if these plants are actively growing. Spraying andseeding can be done in one operation if care is given toprevent overturning soil from the seeding operationonto sprayed plants.

Drilling seeds in scalped furrows 16 to 32 inches(40 to 60 cm) wide with an interseeder eliminatescompetition for one or two seasons and allows suffi-cient time for new seedlings to establish (Monsen1980a,b; Nyren and others 1980; Stevens 1994). Thescalps create good barriers against the spread of wild-fires in the same season. On hillsides too steep formachinery, shoveled scalps 3.3 ft2 (l m2) remove com-petition sufficiently for planting shrubs (Giunta andothers 1975).

No single method is completely effective for elimi-nating live plants and seeds of annual grasses. To bemost effective, disturbances should be treated beforethese annuals have gained dominance.

Planting Season

Late fall (mid-October) through February is recom-mended for seeding. Planting in winter is preferable,especially on sites in the southern desert shrub type.If herbicides are used, planting must be scheduledfollowing recommendations for the specific herbicide.Sites should not be seeded in the summer or early fallmonths. Burned areas are frequently planted immedi-ately after wildfires regardless of the date of the burn.This is a mistake and should not be done. Earlyseeding does not reduce the reestablishment of theannual grasses. Seeds planted too early in the seasonmay germinate after a light rainfall, only to succumbas soils quickly dry.

Planting Procedures

Aerial broadcasting, using fixed-wing aircraft orhelicopters, followed by anchor chaining or pipe har-rowing, can be widely used on both rocky and rock-freesites. This treatment is especially useful on extensiveburns. Selected areas referred to as “greenbelts,” or“fuel barriers,” can be planted to help contain rangefires. Small areas can be broadcast seeded with acyclone seeder or by hand, but seeds must be coveredafterward. Failure to cover the seed, or planting out ofseason, will often result in failure of the project. Ashand litter remaining on the soil following burns cannotbe expected to adequately cover seeded perennials.

Drilling is successful on plowed, machine-scalped,and burned areas. The rangeland drill, with its disksregulated to make deep, wide furrows, can satisfacto-rily interseed perennial grasses into cheatgrass stands.The drill can also plant forbs and shrubs on burnedcheatgrass ranges. Depth bands should be used on thedisks to insure that drills do not plant too deep in loose

seedbeds. Both the browse seeder and the rangelanddrill can be used to plant browse seeds in alternaterows with herbs. The browse seeder, equipped withwide scalpers, has been the most satisfactory planterused for seeding into cheatgrass. Recently developeddrills with multiple seed boxes can plant individualspecies in separate drill rows. In addition, press wheelshave been added that firm the seedbed and improveseedling establishment. It is important that sites arecorrectly seeded, as annual grass will quickly recoverand occupy openings. Seeded plants must competewith the weeds, and should be established in the mostoptimal sites.


Cheatgrass sites must be planted with perennials toreduce the reestablishment of the annual grass. Ifperennials are not established the first season aftertreatment, cheatgrass will regain dominance. If pe-rennial seedlings survive the first growing season,they will usually attain dominance. The time requiredfor seeded plants to develop a mature stand is depen-dent on annual climatic conditions. The perennialgrasses usually require at least two growing seasonsto fully establish. Seeded stands generally reach fullmaturity 4 to 6 years after planting. Treated areasmust be carefully managed to ensure development ofthe seeded species.

Individual species and mixtures recommended foruse in cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead areasare essentially the same as those recommended forwhatever vegetative type existed prior to invasion ofthe annual weeds. Some species are more competitiveand have the potential to establish and spread inannual grass communities (table 28). Included in thisgroup are Sandberg bluegrass, Lewis flax streambankwheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail (Stevens 1998),crested wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass, and rubberrabbitbrush (fig. 30). At higher elevations, muttongrass,sheep fescue, intermediate wheatgrass, pubescentwheatgrass, and small burnet compete and increasewell with annual grasses. Other species can also com-pete with the annuals, but may require a longer periodto attain maturity and dominate the site. Some ex-amples are western yarrow, Pacific aster, Thurberneedlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and needle-and-threadgrass.

Lowland Annual WeedCommunities ___________________

There are two types of lowland annual weed commu-nities; those that prosper in the spring, and those thatdevelop in the summer (fig. 39).



Spring-Growing Annuals _________Spring-growing annuals germinate early (February

through April), grow rapidly, and flower before sum-mer arrives. Major spring-growing species found onvalley and foothill ranges in the Intermountain Westare bur buttercup, tumble mustard, blue mustard,tansy mustard, prickly lettuce, fiddleneck, and Africanmustard. These annuals can be found in pure or mixedstands, mainly in the sagebrush zone. Abandonedfarmlands, sheep bedgrounds, feeding areas, and siteswhere the native vegetation has been severely de-pleted are typical areas for these weeds. Annual pre-cipitation throughout these areas varies from 9 to 16inches (230 to 410 mm), and soils are generally basic.

Spring-growing annuals germinate early, sometimesunder snow cover. To establish desirable perennials incommunities of spring-growing annuals, the followingshould be done: (1) eliminate the annual seed source,(2) use perennial species that exhibit early germina-tion or that have vigorous seedlings that are able tocompete with the established annual seedlings, and(3) seed at the most opportunistic time.


Most spring-growing annuals can be controlled byshallow disking using offset disks, pipe harrows, diskchains, or anchor chains. Seeds of most weed speciesare small and germinate on or near the soil surface.Plowing or deep disking can be used to bury theseseeds in areas where elimination of other species is nota concern. Weeds can be removed with broadleafherbicides applied prior to seed maturation. Mostspring-growing annuals are not as competitive ascheatgrass, and desirable species can be established

by reducing competition. Some weed-infested sites canimprove if livestock grazing is better regulated; how-ever, many sites will require control measures topromote recovery.

Planting Season

Areas dominated by spring-growing annuals gener-ally are best seeded in the fall or winter. Seeds of manyperennial species exhibit dormancy, which can beovercome by fall or winter seeding. Fall, winter, andspring seedings generally require reduction or re-moval of weedy species and their seeds. Control mea-sures should be designed not only to reduce competi-tion, but to conserve soil moisture and aid in seedbedpreparation and planting.

Spring seedings are not recommended. By the timesoil surfaces dry enough to operate planting equip-ment, annuals have germinated and soil moisture hasnearly been depleted. Consequently, sufficient soilmoisture is not available to support germination andestablishment of new seedlings.

Planting Procedures

Seedling establishment can be enhanced by seedinginto scalps or furrows created to remove the annualweeds. Various types of equipment are available thatmake scalps or furrows and plant seeds into thecleared depression (Larson 1980). Scalps 4 to 8 inches(10 to 20 cm) wide are generally sufficient for seedingadapted grasses. Strips of this width can be createdusing offset disks on the rangeland drill or othercommercial drills. Shrubs and perennial forbs do bet-ter with wider clearings. Scalps should be at least 12to 24 inches (30 to 60 cm) wide for shrubs. The morecompetition, or potential competition (seed), that isremoved, the greater chance for success.


Species seeded into spring-growing annual commu-nities can face considerable competition until they arewell established. Seeded areas should not be grazeduntil there is a good, healthy stand of the seededspecies. This generally requires at least 2 to 4 years ofnonuse. One should not expect stand density to beexceptionally high the first 2 to 4 years. However,some sites do respond rapidly.

Species recommended for seeding are those recom-mended for seeding the vegetative type that existedprior to disturbance. These include juniper-pinyon(tables 14 through 16), fourwing saltbush (table 17),basin big sagebrush (table 18), Wyoming big sage-brush (table 20), black sagebrush (table 21), low sage-brush (table 22), shadscale saltbush (table 25), blackgreasewood (table 26), and blackbrush (table 27).

Figure 39—Interplanting and interseeding shrubsand herbs on sites infested with annual weeds havebeen successful methods of facilitating establish-ment and spread of the desired species.



Summer-Growing Annuals ________Major summer-growing annuals are Russian thistle

and halogeton. Two species of Russian thistle havebeen identified (Welsh and others 1987). Both growwith halogeton and are widespread on lower elevationranges (Beatley 1973; Evans and Young 1980). Theseplants are most abundant on abused, deterioratedareas in the salt desert shrub and basin big sagebrushtypes. Soils are basic, and annual precipitation usu-ally ranges from 5 to 16 inches (130 to 410 mm). Mostimprovement can be gained on areas that receive morethan 9 inches (230 mm) of annual precipitation. Areasthat receive less than 9 inches (230 mm) of precipita-tion may, however, warrant treatment. Russian thistleand halogeton are early spring germinators, but donot grow much until midsummer. When both speciesgrow rapidly (Cook and Stoddart 1953; Dwyer andWolde-Yhannia 1972; Evans and Young 1972a, 1980).


Chaining, disk chaining, disking, scalping, or pipeharrowing generally eliminate sufficient competi-tion so adapted perennials can be established. Deepfurrow drills can also be used to clear strips adjacentto the seeded furrow to assure establishment ofseeded species.

Burning is not effective in removal or control of thesesummer annuals. Both species generally remain greenuntil late summer and are not easily burned. Abun-dant seed crops are formed each year, and primarycontrol measures must be developed to eliminate orremove weed seeds. Broadleaf herbicides can be usedto kill established plants, but sufficient seed persistsin the soil to germinate the following season. To bemost effective, mechanical or herbicide treatmentsshould be conducted when weeds are young, generallyeach summer. However, sites cannot be seeded at thisdate, and planting should be delayed until the fall.Weeds quickly reinvade treated areas, and sites shouldbe fall seeded to prevent weed invasion.

These weeds invade and increase rapidly followingdisturbances. It is important to seed new disturbancesas soon as possible. Sites should not be allowed toremain open or occupied by these weeds because a

seedbank will quickly develop. Disturbances that havebeen occupied by these weeds for a number of yearsmay require 1 to 2 years of fallowing to exhaust theseedbank. Once perennial herbs or shrubs have rees-tablished, weeds can be controlled.

Because early season competition from these twoannuals is usually not serious, perennial species thatgerminate early and quickly develop a root systemthat can be most successful. If environmental condi-tions are adequate and seeded species become estab-lished, Russian thistle and halogeton density can bereduced substantially.

Planting Season

Fall seedings are essential in summer-growing an-nual communities.

Planting Procedures

Most disturbances can be seeded with a number ofmethods. Sites can be aerial seeded, and seeds coveredwith a drag, harrow, or similar implement. Drill seed-ing is a primary method of planting, and deep furrowdrills are commonly used to remove weeds in a narrowstrip or scalp. Interseeding using the Hansen seeder orsimilar equipment is particularly effective in reestab-lishing desired species.

Many species established from interseedings willnaturally spread by seedling recruitment into theweedy areas. Russian thistle density fluctuates fromyear to year, allowing for invasion of other species.


Summer-growing annuals have established and be-come dominant over areas in a number of vegetativetypes. Species recommended for seeding summer-grow-ing annual communities are essentially the same asthose recommended for seeding the vegetative typethat existed prior to when the annuals gained control.These include juniper-pinyon (tables 14 through 16),fourwing saltbush (table 17), basin big sagebrush(table 18), Wyoming big sagebrush (table 20), blacksagebrush (table 21), low sagebrush (table 22),shadscale saltbush (table 25), black greasewood (table26), and blackbrush (table 27).



(con.)

Table 1—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding subalpine herblands andupper-elevation aspen openings.

Competitivenessb as aUse index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum MatureSpecies statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses and sedgesBarley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX MEBentgrass, redtop P,E X ME ME POBluegrass, big E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, meadow P,E X EX EX MEBrome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EXBrome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

(northern)Brome, subalpine E,L X ME EX EXFescue, sulcata P,E,L X X PO EX ME

sheepFescue, tall P,E X EX EX MEFoxtail, creeping P,E,L X ME EX EXFoxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EXHairgrass, tufted P,E,L X X PO ME MENeedlegrass, subalpine E,L X ME ME MEOniongrass P,E X ME ME POOrchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX MEOatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX MEReedgrass, chee E,L X PO PO EXSedge, ovalhead E,L X X PO ME EXTimothy P,E X EX EX POTimothy, alpine P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, P X EX EX EX,NC

intermediateWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX ME

ForbsAlfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)Aster, leafybract E,L X PO PO PO

alpineAster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MEAster, smooth P,E,L X X PO PO EXBluebell, tall E,L X PO PO EXCinquefoil, gland E,L X ME ME MEColumbine, E X PO ME ME

ColoradoCowparsnip E,L X ME ME MECrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME MEFleabane, Bear River E,L X ME ME MEFleabane, Oregon E,L XGeranium, sticky and P,E,L X X PO PO ME

RichardsonGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME EX MEGoldenrod, low E,L X X ME EX MEGroundsel, butterweed E,L X ME ME MEHelianthella, P,E X ME ME ME

oneflowerLigusticum, Porter P,E,L X ME ME MELomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME MELupine, mountain E,L X ME ME EX



Lupine, silky E,L X ME ME EXMeadowrue, Fendler L X PO ME MEPainted-cup, sulphur L X ME ME EXPenstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X PO ME ME

MountainPenstemon, Rydberg P,E X X PO ME MEPenstemon, Wasatch P,E X X ME ME MESage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME MESolomon-plume, fat E,L X PO PO MESweetanise P,E,L X ME EX MEValerian, edible E,L X PO PO EXVetch, American L X X ME ME MEViolet, Nuttall P,E,L X ME EX MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME EX ME

ShrubsCinquefoil, shrubby E,L X PO PO EXCurrant, sticky E,L X PO PO EXCurrant, wax E,L X PO PO EXElderberry, red E,L X PO ME EXRabbitbrush, low P,E,L X X ME ME EXRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

mountain rubberRabbitbrush, Parry P,E,L X X ME ME MERose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EXSagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

big mountainSagebrush, big timberline P,E,L X EX EX EXSagebrush, silver P,L X ME ME MESnowberry, mountain E,L X X PO PO EX

Soil seeding rateGrowth form Well drained Moist

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6 4 to 6Forbs 6 to 8 6 to 8Shrubs 1 to 2 1 to 2

aSpecies status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.bCompetitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species.cDrill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 1 (Con.)





Table 2—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding wet and semiwetmeadows.



Grasses and sedgesBarley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX MEBentgrass, redtop P,E X X ME ME POBrome, mountain P,E,L X XBrome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

(northern)Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X PO ME EXHairgrass, tufted P,E,L X X PO ME MEOatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX MESedge, ovalhead E,L X PO ME EXTimothy P,E X EX EX POWheatgrass, tall P,L X EX EX EXWildrye, Great Basin E,L X PO PO ME

ForbsAster, alpine P,E,L X X PO PO PO

leafybractAster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO PO MEAster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MECinquefoil, gland P,E,L X ME ME EXClover, alsike E,L X ME ME MEClover, strawberry P,E,L X ME ME MEGeranium, sticky and P,E,L X ME ME EX

RichardsonMedick, black P,E,L X EX EX MEMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME EXSainfoin E X ME ME POSage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME MESweetanise P,E,L X ME ME MEValerian, edible E,L X PO PO EXYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Soil seeding rateGrowth form Well drained Moist

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 5 3 to 4Forbs 5 to 7 6 to 8




Table 3—Ecological status, use index, and competitiveness for shrubs recommended for transplanting in wet meadows.



Grasses and sedgesBirch, water P,E,L X ME ME EXCinquefoil, bush E,L X ME ME EXDogwood, redosier E,L X PO ME EXHoneysuckle, Utah E,L X PO PO EXRose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EXWillows (see table 11) P,E,L X X PO PO EX

aSpecies status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.bCompetitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor.

Table 4—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding inland saltgrass sites.



GrassesDropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME MEFescue, tall P,E,L X EX EX POFoxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME EX MESacaton, alkali P,E,L X X PO PO MEWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME

crestedWheatgrass, ‘NewHy’ P,E,L X ME ME EXWheatgrass, P,L X X ME ME EX

streambankWheatgrass, tall P,L X ME ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EXWildrye, Salina P,L X PO PO ME

ForbsAster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MEClover, strawberry P,E,L X ME ME MEMedick, black P,E X EX EX POSummercypress, P,E X EX EX PO

BelvedereSweetclover, yellow P X EX EX PO

ShrubsBuffaloberry, silverc E,L X PO PO EXGreasewood, black E,L X PO PO EXHoneysuckle, E,L X PO PO EX

tatarianc

Plum, Americanc E,L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, rubber P,E X X ME ME MESaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME MESaltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME MEWillow, purpleosierc E,L X EX

Soil seeding rateGrowth form Wet and dry soils

Pls lb/acred

Grasses 6 to 8Forbs 2 to 3Shrubs 1 to 2

aSpecies status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.bCompetitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor.cEstablished most successfully by tansplants.dDrill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.



Table 5—Distribution and rooting characteristics of select native sedges and rushes for riparian sites. Information, in part, is from Lewis(1958a) and Monsen, in Platts and others (1987).

Species Areasa Habitat Abundance Characteristic Comments

Bulrush, saltmarsh Mtn. B. Lake edge, streambank, Abundant Rhizomatous Dense patches, spreads rapidly.alkali sites

Bulrush, tule Val.-Mtn. B. Lake edge Abundant Rhizomatous Tall, rank, dense patches, restrictedto water’s edge.

Rush, Baltic Val.-Asp. Wet and semiwet meadows Abundant Rhizomatous Principal species for stabilization.Use adapted ecotypes, spreadsaggressively, persists with grazing.

Rush, Drummond LPP-Alp. Wet and dry meadows Common Caespitose Spreads after disturbance, occupiesinfertile soil.

Rush, longstyle Sage-SF Wet meadows and streams Common Rhizomatous Moderately palatable rush,long style.

Rush, swordleaf Sage-SF Streams and wet meadows Abundant Strongly Moderately palatable, widerhizomatous elevational range.

Rush, Torrey Val.-PJ Streams, wet meadows, Common Strongly Spreads onto disturbances.seeps, alkali tolerant rhizomatous

Sedge, analogue PP-SF Bogs and wet meadows Frequent Long, creeping Excellent cover, widely distributed,rootstock calcareous soils.

Sedge, beaked Val.-SF Streams, water’s edge, Abundant Culms from Principal species for streambank,standing water stout, long stabilization, low palatability.

rhizomes

Sedge, black alpine SF-Alp. Well-drained meadows Frequent Creeping Good cover for wet areas.rootstock

Sedge, blackroot Alp. Open, dry meadows Common Caespitose Vigorous, abundant.

Sedge, Douglas PF-Asp. Dry meadows, alkali Abundant Creeping Adapted to compact soils, lowtolerant rootstocks, palatability.

long culms,increasesunder grazing

Sedge, downy Alp. Dry and wet meadows Abundant Rhizomatous Vigorous, spreads rapidly.

Sedge, golden Val.-SF Marsh, wet Frequent Caespitose, Widely distributed, goodlong rootstock ground cover.

Sedge, Hepburn Alp. Open meadows Abundant Densely Short stature, open cover.caespitose

Sedge, Hood Mtn. B.-SF Open parks, drainageways Abundant Densely Excellent ground cover,caespitose useful forage.

Sedge, Kellogg Mtn. B.-SF Wet meadows, marshes Abundant Caespitose, Pioneer species, invadeslong rootstock water’s edge.

Sedge, Nebraska Val.-Asp. Marshes and meadows Common Strongly Excellent soil stabilizer,rhizomatous palatable, widely distributed.

Sedge, rock Alp. Dry slopes and meadows Abundant Short rhizomes Vigorous, spreads rapidly,limited distribution.

Sedge, russet LLP-SF Water’s edge Abundant Culms from Excellent streambank cover,long, creeping limited distribution.rootstock

Sedge, slim Val.-Asp. Dry to moist alkali Abundant Long, creeping Large, dense, persistent,bottomlands rootstock moderately palatable.

Sedge, smallwing Mtn. B.-Asp. Meadow edges Abundant Densely Good cover for streambank,caespitose palatable, spreads by seeds,

widely distributed.

Sedge, soft-leaved ASP-Alp. Swamps, meadows Abundant Caespitose, Shady areas, solid mat,long rhizomes moderate vigor.

Sedge, valley Sage-Asp. Dry slopes Abundant Caespitose Spreads onto dry grass-sage sites.

Sedge, woolly Val.-SF Dry to wet meadows Abundant Caespitose Very robust, good speciesfor streambank stabilization.

Spikerush, common Val.-SF Wet meadows and streams, Abundant Rhizomatous Spreads rapidly, low palatability,alkali tolerant wide elevational range.

aAreas: Alp. = alpine; SF = spruce-fir; Asp. = aspen; LPP = lodgepole pine; PP = ponderosa pine; Mtn. B. = mountain brush; PJ = pinyon-juniper; Sage = big sagebrush;Val. = valley.



Table 6—Characteristics of broadleaf herbs recommended for planting riparian sites (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Areas of Seeding Transplant GrowthSpecies adaptationa Origin trait capability rate

Alfalfa Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Good RapidAster, Pacific Asp.-V Native Poor Excellent ModerateBassia, fivehook PJ-SDS Native Excellent Good RapidChecker-mallow, Oregon Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Good Good ModerateClover, alsike Asp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Fair ModerateClover, strawberry V Introduced Good Fair ModerateCinquefoil, gland Asp.-PP Native Good Excellent ModerateCowparsnip Alp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Poor PoorCrownvetch PJ-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Excellent RapidFireweed Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Excellent Good RapidFlax, Lewis Asp.-Sage Native Excellent Good ModerateGroundsel, butterweed Asp.-PP Native Good Excellent ModerateMedick, black Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Good ModerateSage, Louisiana Alp.-Sage Native Excellent Excellent RapidSolomon-seal, western Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Fair SlowSweetclover, yellow Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Poor RapidValerian, edible Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Fair SlowYarrow, western Alp.-V Native Excellent Excellent Rapid

aAreas of adaptation: Alp. = alpine; SF = spruce-fir; Asp. = aspen; PP = ponderosa pine; Mtn. B. = mountain brush; PJ = pinyon-juniper; Sage =big sagebrush; Salp. = subalpine; SDS = salt desert shrub; V = valley bottom.

Table 7—Characteristics of grasses adapted for direct seeding and transplanting riparian sites (from Monsen in Platts and others1987).

Areas of Seeding Transplant GrowthSpecies adaptationa Origin trait capability rate

Barley, meadow Alp.-Asp. Native Excellent Excellent ModerateBentgrass, redtop Salp.-SF Introduced Fair Good ModerateBluegrass, Sandberg Mtn. B.-Sage Native Fair Good SlowBrome, meadow Alp.-PJ Introduced Excellent Excellent ModerateBrome, mountain Alp.-PJ Native Excellent Excellent RapidBrome, smooth Alp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Excellent ModerateFescue, tall Asp.-SDS Introduced Excellent Excellent RapidFoxtail, meadow Alp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Excellent Good RapidHairgrass, tufted Alp.-SF Native Poor Fair SlowOrchardgrass Alp.-Sage Introduced Good Good RapidReedgrass, bluejoint SF-Sage Native Good Excellent ModerateReedgrass, chee Alp.-PJ Introduced Poor Good SlowRyegrass, perennial SF-PP Introduced Excellent Good RapidSacaton, alkali Sage-SDS Native Fair Good SlowSaltgrass V Native Poor Excellent SlowSquirreltail, bottlebrush Mtn. B.-V Native Good Fair ModerateTimothy Asp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Good RapidWheatgrass, slender SF-PJ Native Excellent Excellent RapidWheatgrass, tall Mtn. B.-V Introduced Excellent Good RapidWheatgrass, western PP-Sage Native Fair Excellent SlowWildrye, creeping JP-V Introduced Good Excellent ModerateWildrye, Great Basin Mtn. B.-V Native Good Good ModerateWildrye, mammoth Mtn. B.-Sage Introduced Fair Good ModerateWildrye, Russian Mtn. B.-V Introduced Fair Good Moderate

aAreas of adaptation: Alp. = alpine; SF = spruce-fir; Asp. = aspen; PP = ponderosa pine; Mtn. B. = mountain brush; PJ = pinyon-juniper; Sage =big sagebrush; Salp. = subalpine; SDS = salt desert shrub; V = valley bottom.



Table 8—Characteristics of grasses adapted for direct seeding and transplanting riparian sites (from Monsen in Platts and others1987).

Growth Salinity FloodingSpecies habit tolerancea tolerance Palatability Spreadability

Barley, meadow Rhizomatous T Tolerant Fair GoodBentgrass, redtop Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good RapidBluegrass, Sandberg Bunch MT Moderate Good FairBrome, meadow Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good RapidBrome, mountain Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good GoodBrome, smooth Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good RapidFescue, tall Rhizomatous T Tolerant Good RapidFoxtail, meadow Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good RapidHairgrass, tufted Bunch MT Tolerant Fair PoorOrchardgrass Bunch MS Sensitive Excellent FairReedgrass, bluejoint Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good RapidReedgrass, chee Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good GoodRyegrass, perennial Small bunch MT Sensitive Good GoodSacaton, alkali Bunch MT Moderate Good RapidSaltgrass Rhizomatous T Tolerant Fair RapidSquirreltail, bottlebrush Bunch MT Moderate Good GoodTimothy Bunch MS Moderate Good GoodWheatgrass, slender Rhizomatous MS Sensitive Excellent GoodWheatgrass, tall Large clump MT Moderate Fair GoodWheatgrass, western Rhizomatous MS Moderate Good GoodWildrye, creeping Rhizomatous T Tolerant Poor GoodWildrye, Great Basin Large clump T Moderate Good FairWildrye, mammoth Rhizomatous T Tolerant Good Good

aSalinity tolerance: MS = moderately sensitive; MT = moderately tolerant; T = tolerant.



Table 9—Characteristics of woody species recommended for riparian disturbances (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Areas of occurrence Adaptation to MethodsSpecies Zonesa Habitat disturbed sites of cultureb

Alder, thinleaf SF-Mtn. B. Stream edge and well-drained soils Excellent NS, CS, DS

Aspen, quaking SF-Asp. Well-drained, moist soils, occasionally occurs at Fair NS, CS, RCstreams edges

Birch, water SF-Mtn. B. Stream edges Good NS

Buckthorn, cascara Frequently wet sites

Buffaloberry, silver Mtn. B.-V Well-drained sites, edges of streams and ponds Good NS

Ceanothus, redstem SF-PP Moist soils, seeps, well-drained soils Good DS, NS, CS

Chokecherry, black SF-PJ Well-drained, moist soils, occasionally occurs at Fair NS, CS, RCstream edges

Cinquefoil, shrubby Alp.-PP Stream edges, wet meadows Excellent NS, CS

Cottonwood, Fremont Mtn. B.-V Moist soils, seeps, frequently wet sites Good NS, CS, RC

Cottonwood, narrowleaf Asp.-Sage Well-drained and wet sites, edges of streams, Good NS, CS, RCponds, and bogs

Currant, golden SF-PP Moist soils Fair NS, CS

Dogwood, redosier SF-Mtn. B. Stream edges and well-drained soils Good DS, NS, CS, RC

Elderberry, red Asp.-PP Moist sites, occasional seeps and streambanks Good NS, CS

Greasewood, black SDS-V Sites with shallow water tables, occasionally Good NS, CSflooded sites

Hawthorn, Douglas Asp.-Sage Stream edges and well-drained soils Good NS

Honeysuckle, Tatarian Mtn. B.-Sage Well-drained and moist soils, occasional wet sites Excellent NC, CS, DS

Mountain ash, Greene’s SF-Asp. Moist soils, occasional seeps and stream bottoms Fair NS, CS

Mountain lover SF-Asp. Moist soils and seeps, requires some shade Fair NS, CS

Ninebark, mallow SF-Asp. Moist and well-drained soils Fair NS, CS

Rabbitbrush, threadleaf Sage-V Well-drained soils Good DS, NS, CS rubber

Rockspirea SF-Mtn. B. Well-drained and moist soils, occasional seeps Good NC, CS

Rose, Woods Asp.-Mtn. B. Moist and well-drained soils, seeps, streambanks Excellent NS, CS, W, RC

Sagebrush, big basin Mtn. B.-SDS Deep, well-drained soils, occasional flooding Excellent DS, NS, CS

Sagebrush, big Asp.-Mtn. B. Well-drained soils, moist sites Excellent DS, NS, CS mountain

Sagebrush, silver Asp.-Sage Well-drained and moist soils Fair DS, NS, CS

Sagebrush, tall threetip Asp.-Mtn. B. Well-drained soils, moist sites Excellent DS, NS, CS

Saltbush, fourwing Mtn. B.-V Well-drained soils, frequent flooding Good DS, NS

Saltbush, Gardner SDS-V Semi-arid deserts, withstands seasonal Fair DS, NS, CSflooding and alternating wet/dry periods

Serviceberry, Saskatoon Asp.-Mtn. B. Well-drained soils, seeps occasionally Good NS, CS

Silverberry PJ-V Stream edges and well-drained soils Excellent NS, SC

Snowberry, common SF-Asp. Moist sites and well-drained soils Good NS, CS, W, RC

Snowberry, mountain Asp.-Sage Well-drained soils, edges of streams Good NS, CS, W, RC

Snowberry, western SF-Mtn. B. Moist sites, occasionally streambanks Good NS, CS, W, RCand valley bottoms

Thimbleberry Asp.-PP Well-drained soils, frequently wet sites Excellent NS, CS, W, RC

Willows (see table 11)

aAreas of adaptation: Alp. = alpine; SF = spruce-fir; Asp. = aspen; PP = ponderosa pine; Mtn. B. = mountain brush; PJ = pinyon-juniper; Sage =big sagebrush; SDS = salt desert shrub; V = valley bottom.

bMethods of culture: DS = direct seeding; RC = rooted cuttings; NS = nursery-grown seedling; CS = container-grown seedling; W = wilding.



Table 10—Characteristics of woody species recommended for riparian disturbances (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Establishment traitsSeedling Growth Soil stability

Species establishment rates value Comments

Alder, thinleaf Excellent Rapid Excellent Easily established, adapted to harsh sites, grows rapidly.Aspen, quaking Good Rapid Good Considerable ecotypic differences, not well-suited to highly

disturbed sites.Birch, water Excellent Rapid Excellent Establishes well by transplanting, adapted to streambanks

and bogs.Buckthorn, cascara Fair Moderate Good Limited plantings, plants perform well on disturbed sites.Buffaloberry, silver Good Moderate Good Adapted to valley bottoms and saline soils.Ceanothus, redstem Excellent Rapid Excellent Not adapted to saturated soils, but useful in planting

disturbed streambanks.Chokecherry, black Good Moderate Good Widely adapted, larger transplant stock establishes, and

grows rapidly.Cinquefoil, shrubby Good Moderate Excellent Valuable species for riparian disturbances, establishes well,

and provides excellent site stability.Cottonwood, Fremont Good Rapid Good Establishes easily, grows rapidly, furnishes good cover.Cottonwood, narrowleaf Good Rapid Good Establishes easily, grows rapidly.Currant, golden Excellent Excellent Good Widely adapted, easily established, excellent site stability.Dogwood, redosier Excellent Rapid Excellent Easy to grow and establish, useful for disturbed sites,

requires fresh aerated water.Elderberry, red Fair Moderate Good Adapted to restricted sites, establishes slowly on disturbed sites.Greasewood, black Fair Slow Good Difficult to establish, well adapted to valley bottoms and

salty soils.Hawthorn, Douglas Fair Slow Good Slow growing, but well-suited to disturbed streambanks.Honeysuckle, Tatarian Excellent Rapid Good Easily established, provides immediate cover, well-adapted

to different soil conditions.Mountain ash, Greene’s Fair Slow Good Not well adapted to disturbed soils, establishes slowly.Mountain lover Fair Slow Good Common on upland slopes, not well adapted to disturbances.Ninebark, mallow Fair Moderate Good Requires good sites.Rabbitbrush, rubber Excellent Moderate Good Suited to heavy, saturated soils. threadleafRockspirea Fair Moderate Good Erratic establishment, but suited to disturbed sites.Rose, Woods Excellent Moderate Good Widely adapted, easily established, excellent site stability,

commonly used species for riparian disturbances.Sagebrush, big basin Good Rapid Fair Useful for planting extremely disturbed and well-drained

soils.Sagebrush, big Good Rapid Fair Adapted to disturbed sites, suited to moist, but not mountain saturated, soils.Sagebrush, silver Good Rapid Fair Well adapted to exposed, moist soils, able to tolerate

flooding for a short time.Sagebrush, tall threetip Excellent Rapid Fair Well suited to eroded, exposed soils, spreads quickly.Saltbush, fourwing Excellent Rapid Good Useful for well-drained and disturbed soils.Saltbush, Gardner Fair Moderate Fair Adapted to arid sites and seasonally saturated soils.Serviceberry, Saskatoon Fair Slow Good Slow to establish, sensitive to understory competition.Silverberry Excellent Rapid Good Easily established, rapid rate of growth, adapted to harsh

sites.Snowberry, common Fair Moderate Excellent Not well suited to extremely disturbed soils, provides

excellent stability and spreads well.Snowberry, mountain Fair Slow Excellent Plants not well adapted to disturbed soils, provides

excellent stability and spreads well.Snowberry, western Fair Slow Excellent Plants not well adapted to disturbed soils, provides

excellent stability and spreads well.Thimbleberry Excellent Moderate Good Well adapted to eroded sites, limited range of distribution.Willows (see table 11)



Table 11—Areas of adaptation and selected characteristics of several willow species (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Period required for:Areas of adaptation Prevalence of Root Stem

Species Zones Habitat Origin of roots roots formation formation Comments

- - - - Days - - - -Willow, arroyo Aspen- Restricted to Callus and lower Few to many 10 10 Erratic rooting

mountain brush stream edges one-third of stem habits.

Willow, barrenground Subalpine- Wet sites and Roots throughout Abundant 15–20 15–25 Roots freely.spruce-fir well-drained entire length of stem

soils

Willow, Bebb Spruce-fir- Edges of Roots throughout entire Moderate 10 10–20 Roots freely.aspen streams, length of stem

occasionallywell-drainedsoils

Willow, Booth Aspen- Stream edges Roots mostly at lower Abundant 10–15 10–15 Roots freely.sagebrush and standing one-third of stem

water

Willow, Drummond Spruce-fir, Edges of Roots throughout Abundant 10 10 Roots freely.upper sagebrush streams and entire length of stem

ponds

Willow, Geyer’s Subalpine- Edges of Roots throughout entire Few to moderate 10 10–15 Fair rootingaspen-upper streams, length of stem capabilitiessagebrush frequent in

wet meadows

Willow, grayleaf Subalpine- Wet and dry Roots throughout Few to moderate 10 10 Requires specialspruce-fir sites, widely entire length of stem treatment to

distributed, root.occupies seeps

Willow, Pacific Aspen- Wet soils, Roots throughout Abundant 10 10–15 Easily rooted.upper sage- edges of entire length of stembrush streams and

ponds

Willow, peachleaf Aspen-big Stream edges, Callus cut Moderate 10–20 10 Moderatesagebrush pond margins, rooting

soils saturated capabilities.seasonally

Willow, plainleaf Subalpine- Wet sites, edges Roots throughout Few to moderate 10 10–15 Fair rooting.aspen of streams, wet entire length of stem

meadows

Willow, sandbar Spruce-fir- Edges of Roots throughout Moderate 10–15 10 Easily rooted.sagebrush streams, wet entire length of stem

sites, sometimes well-drained soils

Willow, Scouler Spruce-fir Well-drained Callus cut Moderate 10–15 10–15 Requires specialsoils, forest treatment tounderstory root.

Willow, Wolf Spruce-fir- Stream edges Roots throughout Few to moderate 10–15 10–15 Erratic rooting.aspen and ponds entire length of stem

Willow, yellow Aspen- Mostly along Entire stem section, Moderate 10 10 Roots easily.sagebrush streams, may most abundant at

occur on sites lower one-thirdthat remain dryfor short periods



(con.)

Table 12—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding aspen and coniferousforests and associated openings.



GrassesBarley, foxtail P,E X ME ME MEBarley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX MEBentgrass redtop P,E,L X EX EX MEBluegrass, Canada P,E X ME ME MEBluegrass, big P,E X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Kentucky P,E,L X X ME ME ME,NCBrome, meadow P,E,L X EX EX MEBrome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EXBrome, nodding P,E,L X X EX EX MEBrome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

northernBrome, subalpine P,E,L X ME EX EXFescue, alta P,E,L X ME ME MEFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X PO ME MEFescue, red P,E,L X X ME ME MEFescue, thurber P,E X ME ME POFoxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EXNeedlegrass, green P,E,L X X PO ME MENeedlegrass, Letterman P,E,L X X ME ME EXNeedlegrass, subalpine P,E,L X X ME ME MEOatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME POOrchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX MERye, mountain P,E X EX EX POTimothy P,E X EX EX METimothy, alpine P,E,L X ME ME MEWheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X EX EX EXWildrye, blue P,E,L X X EX ME ME


(drought tolerant)Angelica, small leaf P,E,L X EX EX MEAster, P,E,L X EX EX ME

alpine leafybractAster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO ME MEAster, Engelmann P,E,L X X PO PO EXAster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MEAster, smooth P,E,L X X PO PO EXBluebell, tall E,L X PO ME EXColumbine, Colorado E,L X PO ME MECowparsnip P,E,L X ME ME MECrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EXEriogonum, cushion P,E,L X ME ME MEGeranium, sticky and P,E,L X PO PO ME

RichardsonGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME MEGoldenrod, Canada P,E,L X X ME ME MEGoldenrod, low P,E,L X X ME ME ME



Groundsel, butterweed P,E,L X ME ME MEHelianthella, P,E X X EX EX ME

oneflowerLigusticum, Porter P,E X ME ME EXLomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME MELupine, mountain E,L X ME ME EXLupine, silky E,L X ME ME EXMedick, black P,E,L X ME ME MEMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME EX MEPeavine, thickleaf P,E,L X PO ME MEPeavine, Utah P,E,L X PO ME EXPenstemon, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Rocky MountainPenstemon, Rydberg P,E X X PO ME POPenstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X ME ME MESainfoin P,E X ME ME POSage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME MESweetanise P,E,L X ME ME EXSweetroot, spreading P,E,L X ME ME MEVetch, American P,E,L X PO ME EXYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

ShrubsAlder, thinleaf P,E,L X ME EX EXBitterbrush, antelope P,L X ME ME EXChokecherry, black P,L X PO PO EXCinquefoil, shrubby E,L X PO PO EXElderberry, blue E,L X PO PO EXElderberry, red E,L X PO PO EXMaple, bigtooth P,E,L X ME ME EXMountain ash, Greene’s L X PO ME EXOregon grape L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, P,E X ME ME ME

rubber mountainRabbitbrush, rubber P,E X X ME EX EX

whitestem mountainand basin

Rose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EXSagebrush, big P,E,L X X ME ME EX

mountainServiceberry, E,L X PO PO EX

SaskatoonSnowberry, mountain E,L X PO PO EX

Seeding rateGrowth form Wet and dry sites

Pls lb/acrec



Table 12 (Con.)



Forbs (con.)



(con.)

Table 13—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding mountain brush andponderosa pine communities.



-GrassesBluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, mountain P,E X X EX EX MEBrome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX MEBrome, smooth P,L X EX EX EX,NC

northern and southernFescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME MEFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NCFescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME EX EXJunegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME MENeedlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EXOatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME MEOrchardgrass P,E,L X ME ME EXOrchardgrass,‘Paiute’ P,E,L X ME ME EXSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushTimothy P,E X EX EX MEWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X ME ME EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX

crestedWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX

crestedWheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX

intermediateWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX MEWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME EX EXWheatgrass, tall P,E X EX EX MEWheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X X ME EX EXWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

ForbsAlfalfa P,E,L X EX EX EX

(drought tolerant)Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO PO MEAster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MEBalsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EXBalsamroot, cutleaf E,L X PO PO EXBalsamroot, hairy E,L X PO PO EXBurnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MECrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EXEriogonum, cushion P,E,L X X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX MEGoldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

showyGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME MEGoldenrod, Canada P,E,L X X ME ME MEGroundsel, butterweed P,E,L X ME ME EXLomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME MELupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME MELupine, silky E,L X ME ME MEMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME MEPenstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX MEPenstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX POPenstemon, Rocky P,E,L X ME ME EX

MountainPenstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX MESage, Louisiana P,E,L X X PO ME EX



Sainfoin P,E,L X ME ME MESweetclover, yellow P X EX EX POSweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME EXTrefoil, birdsfoot P,E X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

ShrubsAlder, thinleaf P,E,L X X ME EX EXBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EXCeanothus, Martin P,E,L X PO ME EXCeanothus, redstem P,E,L X X ME EX EXCeanothus, snowbush P,E,L X ME EX EXCherry, bitter P,E,L X PO PO EXChokecherry, black E,L X PO PO EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EXCotoneaster, Peking P,E X PO PO MEElderberry, blue E,L X PO ME EXEphedra, green P,E,L X ME ME MEEriogonum, sulfur P,E,L X X ME ME MEHoneysuckle, Tatarian P,E,L X PO ME MEHoneysuckle, Utah E,L X PO ME MEMaple, Rocky Mountain E,L X X ME ME EXMountain ash, E,L X PO ME EX

Greene’sMountain mahogany, P,L X X PO ME EX

trueMountain mahogany, P,L X X PO ME EX

curlleafPenstemon, bush P,E,L X X ME ME MERabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME

rubberRabbitbrush, Parry P,E X X ME ME MERabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestemrubber

Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EXSagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

mountain bigSagebrush, silver P,E,L X ME ME EXSagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X ME ME EX

bigServiceberry, E,L X PO PO EX

SaskatoonServiceberry, Utah E,L X PO PO EXSnowberry, longleaf E,L X PO PO EXSnowberry, mountain E,L X PO PO EXSquawapple E,L X PO PO EXSumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X X PO ME EX

smoothSumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Seeding rateExposure

Growth form North and East South and WestPls lb/acrec



Table 13 (Con.)



Forbs (con.)



Table 14—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sitesthat receive less than 11 inches (280 mm) of annual precipitation.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME MEDropseed, sand P,E,L X PO ME MEFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NCFescue, sheep P,E,L X ME ME EXMuttongrass P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MEOrchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EXRye, winter P X EX EX POSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X ME EX MEWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crestedWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crestedWheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME EX EXWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX


(drought tolerant)Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX MEGoldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X EX EX ME

showyGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX POSweetclover, yellow P X EX EX POYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

ShrubsApache plume P,L X PO ME EXBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EXBitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X EX EX EXBuffaloberry, L X PO PO EX

roundleafCeanothus, Fendler P,E,L X ME ME EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME MEEphedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EXEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EXHopsage, spineless P,L X PO ME EXKochia, forage P,E X EX EX ME

‘Immigrant’(con.)



Mountain mahogany, P,L X PO ME EXlittleleaf

Peachbrush, desert P,L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X PO ME EXSagebrush, black P,E,L X X PO ME EXSagebrush, fringed P,L X PO ME EXSagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X PO ME EX

bigSagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X ME ME EX

bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME MEServiceberry, Utah P,E,L X X PO PO EXWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec



Table 14 (Con.)



Shrubs (con.)



(con.)

Table 15—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sitesthat receive 11 to 15 inches (280 to 380 mm) of annual precipitation.



GrassesBluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME MEBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME MEBrome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, smooth P,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern)Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME ME,NCFescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EXJunegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME MEMuttongrass P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MENeedlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EXOrchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX PORye, winter P X EX EX POSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crestedWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC


intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X EX EX EXWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME EX EX

thickspikeWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

ForbsAlfalfa P,E,L X EX EX EX

(drought tolerant)Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME MEBalsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EXBurnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX MEGlobemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

gooseberryleafGoldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

showyGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX POSainfoin P,E,L X ME ME MESweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX POSweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME



ShrubsApache plume P,L X PO ME EXAsh, singleleaf P,E,L X PO PO EXBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EXBitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X EX EX EXCeanothus, Fendler P,E,L X ME ME EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EXCypress, Arizona P,L X PO PO MEElderberry, blue E,L X PO ME EXEphedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EXEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EXEriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X X ME EX MEKochia, forage P,E X EX EX MEMountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

curlleafMountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

littleleafMountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

truePeachbrush, desert P,L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME

rubberRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME EX

bigSagebrush, foothill P,E,L X X ME ME EX

bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME MEServiceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

SaskatoonServiceberry, Utah P,E,L X X PO PO EXSnowberry, mountain P,E,L X X PO PO EXSquawapple E,L X PO PO EXSumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X X PO ME EX

smoothSumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X PO ME EXWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX


Pls lb/acrec



Table 15 (Con.)





Table 16—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sitesthat receive more than 15 inches (380 mm) of annual precipitation.



GrassesBluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME MEBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME MEBrome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX MEBrome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(northern and southern)Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NCFescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X ME EX EXJunegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X X ME ME MENeedlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EXOrchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX PORye, winter P,E X EX EX POSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC



intermediateWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X ME ME EX


(drought tolerant)Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X EX EX EXAster, Pacific P,E,L X X EX EX EXBalsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EXBalsamroot, cutleaf E,L X PO PO EXBalsamroot, hairy E,L X PO PO EXBurnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MECrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME MEEriogonum, cushion P,E,L X X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME ME MEGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME MEGoldenrod, Parry P,E,L X ME ME MEHelianthella, P,E X ME ME ME

oneflowerLupine, Nevada E,L X PO PO EXLupine, silky E,L X PO PO MELomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME MEMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME MEPenstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX POPenstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X ME ME PO

MountainPenstemon, thickleaf P,E,L X ME ME MEPenstemon, toadflax P,E,L X PO ME MEPenstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX ME

(con.)



Sainfoin P,E,L X ME ME MESage, Louisiana P,E,L X X PO PO MESage, tarragon P,E,L X PO PO MESweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX POSweetvetch, Utah P,E X PO ME ME

ShrubsAsh, singleleaf P,E,L X PO PO MEBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EXCeanothus, Martin P,E,L X ME ME EXChokecherry, black P,L X PO ME EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EXCotoneaster, Peking P,E X PO ME MECypress, Arizona P,E X PO PO MEElderberry, blue P,E,L X PO ME EXEphedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EXEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EXEriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X EX EX MEKochia, forage P,E X EX EX MEMountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

curlleafMountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

trueMaple, Rocky Mountain E,L X ME ME EXRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain rubberRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EXSagebrush, P,E,L X X ME EX EX

mountain bigSagebrush, foothill P,E,L X X ME ME EX

bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME MEServiceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

SaskatoonSnowberry, longflower E,L X PO PO EXSnowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO ME EXSquawapple P,E,L X PO ME EXSumac, Rocky P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Mountain smoothSumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X PO ME EXWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Seeding rateSoils

Growth form Neutral pH Basic pHPls lb/acrec



Table 16 (Con.)



Forbs (con.)



Table 17—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding fourwing saltbush sitesoccurring in association with juniper-pinyon, basin big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME EX MEDropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EXGalleta E,L X ME ME EXNeedle-and-thread E,L X ME ME MERicegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EXSacaton, alkali P,E,L X ME ME MESquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

bottlebrushWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crestedWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crestedWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

streambankWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspikeWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X PO PO EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

ForbsBurnet, small P,E X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME MEGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME POSweetclover, yellow P X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

ShrubsEphedra, green P,E,L X X PO ME EXEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X X PO ME EXHopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO PO EXKochia, forage P,E X EX EX MERabbitbrush, low P,E X X EX EX MESagebrush, basin big E,L X X ME ME MESagebrush, foothills E,L X X ME ME MESagebrush, low E,L X X ME EX MESagebrush, Wyoming E,L X X ME ME ME

bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME EXSaltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME EXShadscale P,E,L X PO PO MEWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Pls lb/acrec





(con.)

Table 18—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding basin big sagebrushsites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME MEDropseed, sand P,E,L X PO ME MEFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NCFescue, Idaho E,L X PO ME MEFescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME ME,NCFescue, sheep P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MENeedlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X ME ME EXOrchardgrass,‘Paiute’ P,E,L X ME ME MERicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME EX EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX MESquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch E,L X ME ME EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC



intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME MEWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspikeWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX


(drought tolerant)Aster, Pacific P,E X X ME ME MEBurnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME EX MEGoldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME PO

showyGlobemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

gooseberryleafand scarlet

Lupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME EXPenstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX MEPenstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX POSweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX POSweetvetch, Utah E,L X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X EX EX ME

ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X ME EX EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EXEphedra, green P,E,L X PO ME EX



Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO ME EXHopsage, spiny P,E,L X ME ME EXRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain lowRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX ME


Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME EX EXSagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X ME EX EX

bigSagebrush, foothills P,E,L X ME ME EX

bigSagebrush, low P,E,L X ME EX EXSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME MEWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Seeding ratePrecipitation

Growth form 9 to 13 inches 13+ inchesPls lb/acrec



Table 18 (Con.)



Shrubs (con.)



Table 19—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding mountain big sagebrushsites.



GrassesBluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada E,L X ME ME MEBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX MEBrome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern)Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NCFescue, Idaho E,L X PO ME MEFescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EXFescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME MEJunegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME MEMuttongrass P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MENeedlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME MENeedlegrass, P,E,L X ME ME ME

LettermanOatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME MEOrchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME EX MERye, mountain P,E X EX EX MESquirreltail, P,E X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX ME

bluebunchWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC



intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X EX EX MEWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspikeWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E X PO ME ME


(drought tolerant)Aster, Pacific P,E X X ME ME MEBalsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EXBurnet, small P,E,L X EX EX MECrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX MEGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME POLupine, mountain E,L X PO ME MELupine, silky E,L X ME ME MEMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME MEPenstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX MEPenstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X EX EX PO

(con.)



Penstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X ME ME MEMountain

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX MESainfoin P,E X ME ME MESweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX POSweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME METrefoil, birdsfoot P,E X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X EX EX ME

ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EXCeanothus, Martin P,E,L X PO ME EXCeanothus, snowbush P,E,L X ME ME EXChokecherry, black E,L X PO PO EXCliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EXElderberry, blue P,E,L X PO ME EXEphedra, green E,L X ME ME MEEriogonum, sulfur P,E,L X X ME ME MEEriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X X ME ME MEKochia, forage P,E X ME EX MEMountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

curlleafMountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

trueRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain lowRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain rubberRabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EX


Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO PO EXSagebrush, low P,E,L X EX EX MESagebrush, mountain big P,E,L X X EX EX EXSagebrush, silver P,E,L X EX EX MESagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X EX EX EX

bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME MEServiceberry, P,E,L X PO PO EX

SaskatoonSnowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO PO EXSquawapple P,E,L X PO PO EXSumac, skunkbush P,E,L X PO ME EXSumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X PO ME EX

smooth

Seeding ratePrecipitation

Growth form 12 to 17 inches 17+ inchesPls lb/acrec



Table 19 (Con.)



Forbs (con.)



Table 20—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding Wyoming bigsagebrush sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME EXDropseed, sand P,E,L X X PO ME EXFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EXFescue, Idaho P,E,L X PO ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MENeedlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X ME ME EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX MESquirreltail, bottlebrush P,E,L X X EX EX EXWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC


crestedWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X ME ME MEWheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X ME ME EXWheatgrass, western P,E,L X PO ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

ForbsAlfalfa P,E,L X ME ME POBurnet, small P,E,L X ME ME POFlax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME ME POGoldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME PO

showyGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO ME EXLupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E,L X X ME ME POSweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

ShrubsEphedra, green P,E,L X PO PO POEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO PO MEHopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO ME EXKochia, forage P,E,L X EX EX MEPeachbrush, desert P,E,L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain lowRabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain and basinwhitestem rubber

Sagebrush, foothills big P,E,L X X EX EX EXSagebrush, Wyoming big P,E,L X X ME EX EXSaltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME MEWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Pls lb/acrec





Table 21—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding black sagebrush sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME ME MERicegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME MESquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

bottlebrushWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC


crestedWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

ForbsGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO ME

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

ShrubsEphedra, green P,E,L X PO ME POEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO ME PORabbitbrush, low P,E,L X X EX EX MESagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, low P,E,L X ME ME EXWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME


Pls lb/acrec





Table 22—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding low sagebrush sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME EX MEFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X X EX EX EX,NCFescue, Idaho E,L X X ME ME MEMuttongrass P,E,L X X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X ME EX PORicegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX POSquirreltail, P,E X X ME EX PO

bottlebrushSacatoon, alkali P,E,L X ME ME MEWheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X X ME EX MEWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crestedWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX ME,NCWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crestedWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME EX ME

thickspikeWildrye, Russian P,E,L X ME EX EX

ForbsBurnet, small P,E X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME MEGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EXPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME POSweetclover, yellow P X ME ME ME

ShrubsRabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME MERabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain whitestemrubber

Sagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X ME ME EXbig

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EXSaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X PO ME EX


Pls lb/acrec





Table 23—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding threetip sagebrush sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X EX EX EXBrome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern and northern)Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NCFescue, Idaho P,E,L X X PO ME MEFescue, sheep P,E,L X X EX EX EXJunegrass, prairie P,E X PO ME MEMuttongrass P,E,L X X ME ME MENeedlegrass, green E,L X X ME ME MENeedlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X PO EX MEOatgrass, tall P,E X EX EX MEOrchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX EXRicegrass, Indian P,E X X ME EX EXRye, mountain P,E X EX EX POSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch E,L X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC



intermediateWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX EX,NCWheatgrass, slender E,L X X ME EX MEWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

streambankWheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspikeWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

ForbsAlfalfa P,E,L X ME ME EX

(drought tolerant)Balsamroot, arrowleaf P,E X X PO ME EXBalsamroot, cutleaf P,E X X PO ME EXBurnet, small P,E X ME ME MEFlax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME MEGoldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME EXGlobemallow, P,E X PO ME EX

gooseberryLupine, silky E,L X PO PO EXPenstemon, Eaton P,E X X ME ME MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME MESweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X X ME ME MESunflower P,E X X ME EX MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME EX EX

(con.)



ShrubsBitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EXCeanothus, snowbush P,E X X ME EX EXChokecherry, black P,E,L X X PO PO EXElderberry, blue P,E X X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain lowRabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain rubberRabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME


Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EXSpirea, rock P,E X PO PO EXSagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME ME MESagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

mountain bigSagebrush, threetip P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X ME ME ME

bigServiceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

SaskatoonSnowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO PO EXSumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X ME ME EX


Pls lb/acrec



Table 23 (Con.)





Table 24—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding silver sagebrush,timberline sagebrush, and subalpine big sagebrush sites.



Grasses and sedgesBarley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX MEBluegrass, big E,L X X ME ME MEBluegrass, Canada E,L X ME ME MEBrome, meadow P,E,L X ME ME MEBrome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EXBrome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(northern and southern)Brome, subalpine E,L X ME EX EX,NCFescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NCFescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EX,NCFoxtail, creeping P,E,L X ME EX EXFoxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EXNeedlegrass, green P,E,L X ME ME MENeedlegrass, Letterman P,E,L X X ME ME MEOatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX MEOrchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX MEHairgrass, tufted P,E X X PO ME MESedge, ovalhead P,E,L X PO ME EXTimothy P,E X EX EX POTimothy, alpine P,E,L X EX EX MEWheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX ME

ForbsAlfalfa (nonirrigated type) P,E X EX EX MEAster, blueleaf P,E,L X ME ME EXAster, Engelmann P,E,L X PO ME EXCrownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EXGeranium, sticky and P,E,L X X ME ME EX

RichardsonGoldeneye, showy P,E X ME EX EXGoldenrod, Canada P,E,L X ME ME EXGroundsel, butterweed P,E X PO ME EXLupine, mountain P,E X ME ME EXLupine, silky P,E X ME ME EXMilkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME EX MEPenstemon, Eaton P,E X X ME ME MEPenstemon, low P,E X X ME ME MEPenstemon, Rocky P,E X X ME ME ME

MountainPenstemon, Wasatch P,E X X ME ME EXSage, Lousiana P,E X X ME ME POSainfoin P,E X ME EX MESweetanise P,E,L X X ME ME MEYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

(con.)



ShrubsCeanothus, Martin P,E,L X X PO ME EXCeanothus, snowbush P,E,L X X ME ME EXChokecherry, black P,E,L X X PO PO EXCinquefoil, shrubby P,E,L X X ME ME EXElderberry, blue P,E X X PO ME EXElderberry, red P,E X X PO ME EXRabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain lowSagebrush, silver P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, subalpine big P,E,L X X ME ME EXSagebrush, timberline big P,E,L X X ME ME EXSnowberry, mountain big P,E,L X X PO PO EX


Pls lb/acrec



Table 24 (Con.)





Table 25—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding shadscale saltbush sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME MEDropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EXRicegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EXSquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crestedWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NCWheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME MEWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME MEWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EXWildrye, Salina P,E,L X PO PO EX

ForbsGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

scarletYarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

ShrubsBudsage P,E,L X PO PO EXHopsage, spineless P,E,L X PO ME EXHopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO ME EXPeachbrush, desert P,E,L X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

spreadingRabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME MESagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME MESagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wyoming bigSaltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME MESaltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME EXSaltbush, mat P,E X X ME ME EXShadscale P,E,L X X PO PO EXWinterfat P,E,L X X ME EX EX


Pls lb/acrec





Table 26—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding black greasewood sites.



GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME MESquirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX

crestedWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX EXWheatgrass, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

streambankWheatgrass, tall P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

ForbsGlobemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

gooseberryleaf

ShrubsGreasewood, black P,E,L X PO PO EXKochia, forage P,E,L X EX EX EXSagebrush, basin big P,E X X ME ME MESaltbush, Castle P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Valley cloverSaltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME MESaltbush, Gardner P,E X X ME ME MEShadscale P,E,L X X PO PO MEWinterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX


Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 6 to 8Forbs 1Shrubs 3 to 4




Table 27—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding in the blackbrush type.



GrassesDropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EXGalleta P,E X X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread P,E X X ME ME PORicegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EXSquirreltail, P,E X X ME EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, fairway P,E X ME EX ME

crestedWheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EXWheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME ME EXWheatgrass, standard P,E X ME EX ME

crestedWheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EXWildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

ForbsGlobemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

gooseberryleafGlobemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X ME ME MEPenstemon, Palmer P,E X X PO ME ME

ShrubsApache plume P,E,L X PO ME EXBitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X ME EX EXBlackbrush P,E,L X ME ME EXBuffaloberry, P,E,L X PO PO EX

roundleafEphedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EXHopsage, spineless P,E,L X ME ME EXHopsage, spiny P,E,L X ME ME EXKochia, forage P,E X EX EX EXPeachbrush, desert P,E,L X X PO PO EXRabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME MESagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME MESagebrush, sand P,E,L X ME ME MESaltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME EX MEWinterfat P,E,L X X ME EX EX


Pls lb/acrec





Table 28—Species with the ability to establish and spread within stands of cheatgrass brome, red brome, or medusaheada.

Adapted to:Mid- Foothills Spread- Competitivenessb as a:

Species Native Introduced elevation and valleys abilityb Seedling Mature plant

GrassesBluegrass, Sandberg X X ME ME MEFescue, hard sheep X X EX ME EXFescue, Idaho X X ME ME MENeedle-and-thread X X ME EX MENeedlegrass, Thurber X X EX ME EXRicegrass, Indian X X PO PO EXRye, mountain X X EX EX EXSquirreltail, X X EX EX ME

bottlebrushWheatgrass, bluebunch X X X ME EXWheatgrass, fairway X X X ME EX EX

crestedWheatgrass, standard X X X ME EX EX

crestedWheatgrass, ‘Hycrest’ X X ME EX EXWheatgrass, intermediate X X ME EX EXWheatgrass, pubescent X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, streambank X X X ME ME EXWheatgrass, thickspike X X X EX ME EXWheatgrass, western X X X ME ME EX

ForbsAster, Pacific X X EX ME EXBurnet, small X X X EX EX MEFlax, Lewis X X X EX EX EXPenstemon, Palmer X X X EX EX EXYarrow, western X X X EX EX EX

ShrubsKochia, forage X X X EX EX EXRabbitbrush, low X X X ME ME EXSagebrush, big X X ME ME EX

aIndividual species and mixtures recommended for use in cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead areas are essentially the same as arerecommended for seeding the vegetative type that existed prior to when the annuals gained control. These include: mountain brush-ponderosa pine(table 13), juniper-pinyon (tables 14,15,16), fourwing saltbush (table 17), basin big sagebrush (table 18), mountain big sagebrush (table 19), Wyomingbig sagebrush (table 20), black sagebrush (table 21), low sagebrush (table 22), threetip sagebrush (table 23),shadscale saltbush (table 25), blackgreasewood (table 26), and blackbrush (table 27).

bKey to ability to spread and compete with annual grasses: PO = poor spreader, poor competitor; ME = medium spreadability, medium competitor;EX = excellent spreadability, excellent competitor.

Index-1USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Index

A

Acer glabrum See maple, Rocky MountainAchillea millefolium lanulosa See yarrow, westernAchnatherum hymenoides See ricegrass, IndianAchnatherum thurberianum See needlegrass, Thurberacid equivalent 97aerial broadcasting 77, 205aerial ignitors 85aerial seeding 77–79, 205

fixed-wing aircraft 78helicopter 78–79

aesthetics 133Agropyron cristatum See wheatgrass, crested; wheat-

grass, crested fairwayAgropyron cristatum x A. desertorum See wheatgrass,

crested hybridAgropyron dasystachyum See wheatgrass, thickspikeAgropyron desertorum See wheatgrass, crested

standardAgropyron elongatum See wheatgrass, tallAgropyron fragile See wheatgrass, crested SiberianAgropyron inerme See wheatgrass, bluebunch;

wheatgrass, bluebunch bearAgropyron intermedium See wheatgrass, intermediateAgropyron repens x A. spicatum See wheatgrass,

hybrid: NewHyAgropyron sibiricum See wheatgrass, crested SiberianAgropyron smithii See wheatgrass, westernAgropyron spicatum See wheatgrass, bluebunchAgropyron spicatum x A. dasystachyum See wheat-

grass, hybrid: SL1Agropyron trachycaulum See wheatgrass, slenderAgropyron trichophorum See wheatgrass, intermediateAgrostis alba See bentgrass, redtopAgrostis palustris See bentgrass, redtopAgrostis stolonifera See bentgrass, redtopair-screen separator 715Aira cespitosa See hairgrass, tuftedalder, thinleaf 266–267, 270, 272, 601, 616–618, 748alfalfa 132, 135, 136, 138, 142, 182, 183, 196, 206,

216, 220, 237, 242, 259, 264, 269, 271, 273, 275,277, 280, 282, 284, 287, 289, 425, 448, 449–450,702, 727, 741

Drylander 451Ladak 450–451, 724, 728Nomad 450, 724Rambler 450Rhizoma 451Runner 451

Spreader 451Spreader II 451Teton 451Travois 451

alfalfa, range type 427alfalfa, sicklepod 447–448alfileria 291, 427Allenrolfea occidentalis See iodine bushAlnus incana See alder, thinleafAlopecurus arundinaceus See foxtail, creepingAlopecurus pratensis See foxtail, meadowAlopecurus ventricosus See foxtail, creepingAmelanchier alnifolia See serviceberry, SaskatoonAmelanchier utahensis See serviceberry, Utahammonium 54anchor chain 68–69

disk-chain 69Dixie sager 69–70Ely 66, 68, 70smooth 66swivels 231–232

Andropogon curtipendula See grama, sideoatsangelica, small leaf 269, 427animal control See depredationanimal depredation See depredationannuals, spring-growing 257annuals, summer-growing 258Apache plume 253, 273, 276, 293, 559, 561–563, 601,

704, 724, 748Arctostaphylos uva-ursi See manzanita, bearberryAristida purpurea See threeawn, redAroga websteri See moth, sagebrush defoliatorArrhenatherum elatius See oatgrass, tallArtemisia abrotanum See wormwood, oldmanArtemisia arbuscula See sagebrush, lowArtemisia bigelovii See sagebrush BigelowArtemisia cana See sagebrush, silverArtemisia filifolia See sandsageArtemisia frigida See sage, fringedArtemisia longiloba See sagebrush, alkaliArtemisia ludoviciana See sage, LouisianaArtemisia nova See sagebrush, blackArtemisia pygmaea See sagebrush, pygmyArtemisia rigida See sagebrush, stiffArtemisia spinescens See budsageArtemisia tridentata See sagebrush, bigArtemisia tripartita See sagebrush, threetipartificial seeding 516, 539ash, singleleaf 276, 278, 601, 650–652, 704, 748aspen 119, 195, 214, 266–267, 748aspen communities 118, 215, 308–309

aspen low forb 118aspen shrub 118aspen tall forb 118aspen-conifer 195, 213, 269

Index-2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

mixed forb 118mixed shrub 118

aspen-conifer communities 9, 216, 601aspen openings 204–205aspen openings, upper elevation 201, 259aster 196, 202, 223, 237, 246–248, 252, 255–256,

259, 261–262, 264, 269, 271–272, 275, 277–278,280, 282, 289, 294, 741

aster, alpine leafybract 259, 261aster, blueleaf 135, 261, 269, 271, 277, 289, 426–427,

433, 702, 724Aster chilensis See aster, Pacificaster, Engelmann 269, 289, 427, 702, 724Aster glaucodes See aster, blueleafaster, Pacific 259, 261–262, 264, 269, 271, 275, 277,

280, 282, 294, 426–427, 431–432, 702, 724, 763aster, smooth 259Astragalus cicer See milkvetch, cicerastragalus, giant 731Atriplex buxifolia 481–482 See also saltbush, GardnerAtriplex canescens See saltbush, fourwingAtriplex confertifolia See shadscaleAtriplex corrugata See saltbush, matAtriplex cuneata See saltbush, Castle Valley cloverAtriplex falcata 481–482 See also saltbush, GardnerAtriplex gardneri See saltbush, GardnerAtriplex hymenelytra See saltbush; saltbush, desert

hollyAtriplex lentiformis See saltbush; saltbush, quailbushAtriplex obovata See saltbush; saltbush, broadscaleAtriplex polycarpa See saltbush; saltbush, allscaleAtriplex tridentata 481–482 See also saltbush,

Gardnerauger 765Avena elatior See oatgrass, tall

B

Balsamorhiza hookeri See balsamroot, hairyBalsamorhiza macrophylla See balsamroot, cutleafBalsamorhiza sagittata See balsamroot, arrowleafbalsamroot, arrowleaf 132, 135, 138–139, 142,

182–183, 185, 196, 271, 275, 277, 282, 287, 426–427, 435–436, 702, 724, 727–728, 741

balsamroot, cutleaf 271, 277, 287, 426–427, 436, 702,724, 727, 741

balsamroot, hairy 271, 277, 426–427, 436barberry, creeping 601, 704, 748 See also Oregon

grapebarberry, Fremont 614, 704barberry, shining 613bareroot stock 739–742, 747, 754–755, 763–767barley, beardless 311barley, bulbous 308, 311, 700barley, common 311barley, foxtail 269, 311

barley, meadow 259, 261, 264, 265, 269, 289, 308,311

bassia, fivehook 264bentgrass, carpet 310 See also bentgrass, redtopbentgrass, creeping 310 See also bentgrass, redtopbentgrass, redtop 208, 259, 261, 264, 265, 269, 308,

310, 345–346, 700Streaker 298, 346

Betula glandulosa See birch, bogBetula occidentalis See birch, waterBetula papyrifera See birch, paperbig game depredation See depredationbig sagebrush-cheatgrass 106bighorn sheep 165–166biological insect control 721birch, bog 601, 618–620birch, paper 601, 622, 748birch, water 262, 266, 267, 601, 620–621bitterbrush, antelope 103, 132, 135, 138, 142, 143,

181, 182, 183, 185, 196, 270, 272, 273, 276, 278,280, 283, 288, 557, 559, 581–586, 587, 601, 704,724, 727, 730, 741, 748

Lassen 586bitterbrush, desert 273, 276, 293, 559, 579–581, 582,

601, 704, 724, 727, 748blackbrush 195, 199, 232, 246, 247, 252, 253, 254,

257, 258, 293, 294, 552–555, 601, 704, 748blackbrush communities 9, 252–253, 293, 308, 601blackcap 751 See raspberry, blackblackthorn 577bladersenna, common 741bluebell 741bluebell, tall 259, 269, 427, 452, 453bluegrass 102bluegrass, alpine

Gruening 298bluegrass, big 228, 259, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 289,

308, 401–402, 700Sherman 298, 402

bluegrass, bulbous 311bluegrass, Canada 259, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 289,

308, 311, 402–404, 700Foothills 298, 404Reubens 298, 404

bluegrass, Cusick’s 311bluegrass, Kentucky 196, 269, 308, 311, 406–408, 724

Newport 138, 298, 408bluegrass, longtongue 311bluegrass, mutton 308, 311, 404–406bluegrass, nodding 311bluegrass, pine 311bluegrass, Sandberg 135, 182–183, 185, 264–265,

273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284–287, 291–292,294, 308, 311, 408–410, 700

Canbar 298, 410


High Plains germplasm 298, 410Service 298, 410

boron 51, 52, 54bouncing-bet 427Bouteloua curtipendula See grama, sideoatsBouteloua eriopoda See grama, blackBouteloua gracilis See grama, blueboxelder 602Brillion Seeder 80broadcast ground application 93broadcast seeder 72, 76–77broadcast seeding 76, 141broadcast spray application 92brome, California 310 See also brome, mountain

Cucamonga 298brome, cheatgrass See cheatgrassbrome, downy See cheatgrassbrome, erect 310brome, foxtail 310brome, fringed 358–360brome, Hungarian See brome, smoothbrome, meadow 259, 264–265, 269, 289, 310,

365–367, 700Fleet 367Paddock 367Regar 196, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 287, 298, 310,

367, 724, 728brome, mountain 135, 138, 196, 259, 261, 264, 265,

269, 271, 289, 308, 310, 360–362, 700, 724Bromar 298, 362Garnet 362

brome, nodding 308, 310, 358–360brome, red 254, 255, 310brome, red communities 9, 253–256, 294brome, smooth 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185,

196, 205, 259, 261, 264–265, 269, 271, 275, 277,282, 287, 289, 310, 363–366, 700, 727, 728, 731

Achenbach 299Lincoln 299, 365Manchar 299, 365northern 259, 308Polar 299southern 308, 724varieties 365

brome, subalpine 259, 269, 289, 308, 700Bromus anomalus See brome, noddingBromus biebersteinii See brome, meadowBromus carinatus See brome, California; brome,

mountainBromus ciliatus See brome, fringedBromus erectus See brome, meadowBromus inermis See brome, smoothBromus marginatus See brome, mountainBromus riparius See brome, meadowBromus tomentellus See brome, subalpine

brushland plow 66buckthorn, cascara 266–267, 601, 704buckwheat 652–653 See also eriogonumbuckwheat, wild California flattop 704budsage 245–246, 291, 495, 511–513 See also

sagebrush, budsagebudsage communities 245

buffaloberry, roundleaf 273, 293, 601, 643–644, 704,748

buffaloberry, russet 601, 642–643, 704, 748buffaloberry, silver 262, 266–267, 601, 641–642, 704,

731, 748bulrush, saltmarsh 263bulrush, tule 263Bureau of Plant Industry 2, 3burnet, small 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185, 196,

271, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 286, 287,294, 425, 427, 457–459, 702, 724, 728, 741, 763

Delar 459burning, prescribed 101, 106, 160, 168

aspen communities 118–119cheatgrass 116effects 105pinyon-juniper 116–117postfire management 119sagebrush 115–116uses 101

C

cables 67, 68, 69 See also anchor chainCalamagrostis canadensis See reedgrass, bluejointcalcium 51, 54, 178–179calcium nitrate 54camphorfume, Mediterranean 469, 491Camphorosoma monspeliaca See camphorfume,

Mediterraneancanarygrass, reed 135, 182–184, 196, 261, 308, 311,

396–398Ioreed 299, 397

cattle 176, 178–179Ceanothus 656Ceanothus cuneatus See ceanothus, wedgeleafceanothus, deerbrush 601, 658–659, 704, 748ceanothus, desert 657–658ceanothus, Fendler 273, 276, 601Ceanothus fendleri See ceanothus FendlerCeanothus greggii See ceanothus, desertCeanothus integerrimus See ceanothus, deerbrushceanothus, Lemmon 659Ceanothus lemmonii See ceanothus, Lemmonceanothus, Martin 143, 196, 222, 272, 278, 283, 290,

601, 661–662, 704, 724, 727, 748Ceanothus martinii See ceanothus, Martinceanothus, prostrate 601, 659–661, 705, 748Ceanothus prostratus See ceanothus, prostrate


ceanothus, redstem 142–143, 222, 266–267, 272,601, 662–665, 668, 704, 748

Ceanothus sanguineus See ceanothus, redstemceanothus, snowbrush 196, 272, 283, 288, 290, 601,

665–668, 705, 748Ceanothus velutinus See ceanothus, snowbrushceanothus, wedgeleaf 601, 656–657, 705, 749Celtis reticulata See hackberry, netleafCeratoides lanata See winterfatCeratoides lanata subspinosa See winterfat, foothillsCeratoides latens See winterfat, PamirianCercocarpus betuloides See mountain mahogany,

birchleafCercocarpus intricatus See mountain mahogany,

littleleafCercocarpus ledifolius See mountain mahogany,

curlleafCercocarpus montanus See mountain mahogany, truecertification, seed 734certified seed See seed, certifiedchain See anchor chainchaining 70, 228–229, 231, 233cheatgrass 102, 107, 254–255, 310cheatgrass communities 9, 253–256, 294, 601checker-mallow, Oregon 264chemical plant control 62chenopod 467cherry, Bessey 573–574, 601, 705, 749cherry, bitter 217, 222, 272, 574–575, 601, 705, 749cherry, Nanking 577cherry, western sand See cherry, Besseychokecherry 135, 142–143, 196, 266–267, 270, 272,

278, 283, 288, 290, 577–579, 601, 705, 724, 730,749

Chrysothamnus See rabbitbrushChrysothamnus albidus See rabbitbrush, alkaliChrysothamnus depressus See rabbitbrush, dwarfChrysothamnus greenei See rabbitbrush, Greene’sChrysothamnus linifolius See rabbitbrush, spreadingChrysothamnus nauseosus See rabbitbrush, rubberChrysothamnus parryi See rabbitbrush, ParryChrysothamnus vaseyi See rabbitbrush, VaseyChrysothamnus viscidiflorus See rabbitbrush, lowchukar partridge 170cinquefoil 749cinquefoil, bush 601, 705 See also cinquefoil, shrubbycinquefoil, gland 259, 261, 264, 427cinquefoil, shrubby 260, 262, 266, 267, 270, 290,

569–571Clematis ligusticifolia See virginsbower, westerncliffrose, Stansbury 132, 135, 138, 142–143, 185, 196,

272–273, 276, 278, 280, 283, 556–559, 562, 579,601, 705, 725, 727, 730, 741, 749

climate 29, 34–35, 124clover 463

clover, alsike 261, 264, 427, 464, 702Aurora 464Dawn 464

clover, Castle Valley See saltbush, Castle Valley cloverclover, red 464

Dollard 464Kenland 464Lakeland 464Pennscott 464

clover, strawberry 261–262, 264, 427, 463–464, 702,724

clover, white 464coarse fragment content 41, 43cold tolerance 128Coleogyne ramosissima See blackbrushcolumbine, Colorado 259, 269, 427communities, plant 199 See also site preparation and

seeding prescriptions; vegetation typescompanion species 62compatibility

perennial grasses 122seeding and species 122, 133

competition, plant See plant competitioncompetitiveness of species 259, 261–262, 269, 271,

273, 279–280, 282, 284–287, 289, 291–293composite shrubs 493container stock 739–742, 747, 754, 757, 764copper 51–52, 54Cornus sericeus See dogwood, redosierCornus stolonifera See dogwood, redosierCoronilla varia See crownvetchCotoneaster acutifolia See cotoneaster, Pekingcotoneaster, Peking 272, 278, 555–556, 705cottonwood, Fremont 266–267cottonwood, narrowleaf 266–267, 749cover See wildlife habitat, coverCowania mexicana See cliffrose, StansburyCowania stansburiana See cliffrose, Stansburycowparsnip 216, 259, 264, 269, 426–427, 441–442,

702, 724, 727Crataegus douglasii See hawthorn, Douglascrown divisions 762crownvetch 135, 196, 259, 264, 269, 271, 277, 282,

289, 426–427, 437–438, 702, 724, 731, 741Chemung 438Emerald 438Penngift 438

crude fat 177, 180crude fiber 177, 180crude protein 177, 180cultivars 129, 138, 298, 734Cupressus arizonica See cypress, Arizonacurly grass See galletacurrant, golden 135, 143, 196, 266–267, 601,

690–691, 705, 725, 727, 741, 749


currant, sticky 260, 602, 693–694, 705, 749currant, wax 260, 602, 691–693, 705, 749cut stump treatment 92cuttings, hardwood 761–762cuttings, stem 739, 741cypress, Arizona 276, 278, 602, 632–633, 705, 749

D

Dactylis glomerata See orchardgrassdaisy, oxeye 427debearder 713deer 159, 161, 176, 515deervetch, birdfoot 427depredation 144–145, 163, 768Deschampsia caespitosa See hairgrass, tufteddesert almond 572–573desert blite 491 See also sumpweed, desertdibbles 764–765digestibility 181disease, plant 601disks 66–69Distichlis spicata See saltgrass, inlanddixie sager 67, 69, 70dogwood, creek See dogwood, redosierdogwood, redosier 262, 266–267, 602, 630–632, 705,

749dozers and blades 84drags 71drill seeding 205drills 73

horizon 75no-till 75rangeland 73–75, 228Truax 75Tye 75

dropseed, sand 135, 142, 182–183, 185, 196, 262,273, 279–280, 284, 291, 293, 308, 311, 414–416,700

drought tolerance 127–128Dybvig separator 714

E

ecotypes 126, 200edges, vegetative 111elaeagnus, autumn 602, 705Elaeagnus commutata See silverberryelderberry, blue 135, 143, 196, 270, 272, 276, 278,

283, 288, 290, 602, 624–625, 705, 741, 748elderberry, red 260, 266–267, 270, 290, 602, 625–627,

705elk 111, 158–164, 176Elymus angustus See wildrye, AltaiElymus canadensis See wildrye, CanadaElymus cinereus See wildrye, Great BasinElymus dahuricus See wildrye, Dahurian

Elymus elymoides See squirreltail, bottlebrushElymus giganteus See wildrye, mammothElymus glaucus See wildrye, blueElymus junceus See wildrye, RussianElymus lanceolatus lanceolatus See wheatgrass,

thickspikeElymus lanceolatus wawawai See wheatgrass,

bluebunch; wheatgrass, Snake RiverElymus salinus See wildrye, SalinaElymus simplex See wildrye, alkaliElymus trachycaulus See wheatgrass, slenderElymus triticoides See wildrye, creepingElymus wawawaiensis See wheatgrass, Snake River;

wheatgrass, bluebunchElytrigia repens x Pseudoroegneria spicata See

wheatgrass, hybrid: NewHyenergy 176–177ephedra, green 132, 135, 142–143, 196, 272–273,

276, 278–280, 283–285, 602, 645–646, 705, 725,727, 730, 741, 749

ephedra, Nevada 273, 276, 278–279, 281, 284–285,293, 602, 644–646, 705, 725, 727, 749

Ephedra nevadensis See ephedra, Nevadaephedra, Torrey 705, 749Ephedra viridis See ephedra, greeneriogonum, cushion 269, 271, 277, 427, 705Eriogonum heracleoides See eriogonum, Wyetheriogonum, sulfur 272, 283, 602, 652, 653–654, 749

Sierra sulfur buckwheat 654Eriogonum umbellatum See eriogonum, sulfureriogonum, Wright 652, 654Eriogonum wrightii See eriogonum, Wrighteriogonum, Wyeth 143, 196, 276, 278, 283, 602, 652,

652–653, 706, 727, 749establishment 131esthetics 60

F

Fallugia paradoxa See Apache plumefences 172fertilizers 53, 54, 55

application 55–56elemental composition 54

fescue, Alpine See fescue, sheepfescue, Arizona 311

Redondo 299fescue, bluebunch See fescue, Idahofescue, desert 700fescue, hard See fescue, hard sheepfescue, hard sheep 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 269, 271,

273, 275, 277, 280, 282, 284, 286–287, 289, 294,308, 311, 389, 700, 724, 728

Durar 299, 390fescue, Idaho 102, 139, 182–184, 280, 282, 284,

286–287, 294, 308, 311, 386–388, 700


Joseph 299, 388Nezpurs 299, 388

fescue, meadow 308, 311, 731fescue, red 132, 269fescue, reed 308, 384 See also fescue, tallfescue, sheep 271, 273, 280, 282, 287, 289, 308, 311,

388, 700Covar 299, 390MX86 299sulcate 259, 271, 275, 277, 280, 282, 389

fescue, spike 308, 311fescue, tall 209, 259, 262, 264–265, 311, 384–386

Alta 269, 299, 311, 385Fawn 299, 385varieties 386

fescue, Thurber 269, 308, 311Festuca arizonica See fescue, ArizonaFestuca arundinacea See fescue, tallFestuca idahoensis See fescue, IdahoFestuca ovina See fescue, sheepFestuca ovina duriuscula See fescue, hard sheepfilaree See alfileriafire effects 102–104, 107, 113–114

big sagebrush-cheatgrass 106bitterbrush, antelope 103bluegrass 102cheatgrass 102fescue, Idaho 102habitat management 113horsebrush 103intensity 113junegrass, prairie 102mountain mahogany, curlleaf 103needlegrass 102oak, Gambel 103plant succession 114rabbitbrush 103reedgrass, plains 102ricegrass, Indian 102riparian 112sagebrush 103severity 113snowberry 103squirreltail, bottlebrush 102wheatgrass 102

fire ignitor 85aerial ignitors 85flame thrower 85helitorch 85ping-pong ball injector 85teratorch 85

fire intensity 113fire severity 113firebreak 114, 115fireline 115, 117fireplow 84

fireweed 264, 427fixed-wing aircraft 78flame thrower 85flax, Lewis 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 264, 271, 273,

275, 277, 279–280, 282, 284, 286–287, 294, 425–427, 443–444, 702, 727–728, 741

Appar 444, 724fleabane, Bear River 259fleabane, Oregon 259fluted shaft seeder 81foliage application 92–93forage production 60forbs 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185, 259, 702,

724, 727, 731, 741, 763forestiera, New Mexico 602, 706fox 178foxtail, creeping 259, 289, 308, 310, 346–349, 700

Garrison 300, 349foxtail, meadow 206, 259, 261–262, 264–265, 269,

289, 308, 310, 346–349, 700, 724Dan 300, 349

foxtail, reed See foxtail, creepingFraxinus anomala See ash, singleleaf

G

galleta 183–184, 250, 279, 293, 308, 311, 390–392Viva 300, 391

geranium 132, 741geranium, Richardson 426–427, 438, 702, 724Geranium richardsonii See geranium, Richardsongeranium, sticky 259, 261, 269, 289, 426, 427, 439,

702Geranium viscosissimum See geranium, stickygermination 601giant hyssop, nettleleaf 427globemallow 132, 135, 196globemallow, gooseberryleaf 142, 182, 273, 275, 279,

280, 284–285, 287, 292–293, 427, 461–462, 702,727, 741

globemallow, scarlet 273, 279, 284–286, 291, 293,427, 462, 702, 741

ARS 2936 462globemallow, stream 427goat's beard See salsify, vegetable-oystergoldeneye, Nevada 271, 273, 275, 280, 284, 427, 466,

703goldeneye, showy 132, 135, 142, 196, 259, 269, 271,

275, 277, 282, 287, 289, 427, 465, 466, 703, 724,727, 731, 741

goldenrod, Canada 269, 271, 289, 427, 460–461, 703,763

goldenrod, low 259, 269, 427goldenrod, Parry 277, 427goldenweed 534, 706gouger 84


grama, black 308, 355–356Nogal 300, 356Sonora 356

grama, blue 308, 310, 356–358Hachita 300, 358Lovington 300, 358

grama, sideoats 308, 310, 353–355Butte 300El Reno 300Haskell 300Killdeer 300, 354Niner 300, 354Pierre 300, 355Premier 300Trailway 300Vaughn 300, 355

gravity separators 715Grayia brandegei See hopsage, spinelessGrayia spinosa See hopsage, spinygrazing 2, 3, 128–129, 601

plant control 59grazing management 194–198greasewood 470greasewood, Bailey 469, 490, 706greasewood, black 135, 195, 247, 262, 266, 267, 292,

469, 472, 490, 491, 602, 706, 725, 741, 750greasewood, black communities 9, 249–250, 292,

308–309, 601Great Basin Experimental Range 16Great Basin Station 3, 4, 16–17greenhouse bioassay 53grid ball 92grinder-macerator 715ground broadcast seeding 76, 205groundsel, butterweed 259, 264, 270–271, 289, 427,

459–460, 702grouse 178–179

blue 170Columbian sharp-tail 168–169ruffed 169–171sage See sage-grouse

growth rate 128Gutierrezia See matchbrush; snakeweedGutierrezia microcephala See matchbrush, small

headedGutierrezia sarothrae See snakeweed, broom

H

habitat improvement projects 156hackberry, netleaf 602, 696–698hairgrass, tufted 259, 261, 264–265, 289, 308, 310,

369–371Norcoast 301, 371Nortran 301, 371Peru Creek 301, 371

hammermill 713Hansen seed dribbler 79Haplopappus See goldenweedHaplopappus bloomeri See rabbitbrush, goldenweedharvester

sprigger 763harvesting, seed 712hawthorn, Columbia 561hawthorn, Douglas 266–267, 560–561, 602, 706, 750hawthorn, river See hawthorn, Douglasheat damage 103Hedysarum boreale See sweetvetch, Utahhelianthella, oneflower 182–183, 185, 259, 270, 277,

426–427, 441, 703, 724Helianthella uniflora See helianthella, oneflowerhelicopter 78–79helitorch 85Heracleum lanatum See cowparsnipherbicide effects 90–91, 96herbicide sprayer 85–87herbicide types 94, 97

acid equivalent 97nonselective 94selective 94soil sterilant 94toxicant 97

herbicides 89, 95, 167, 255application 92, 98

broadcast ground application 93broadcast spray application 92cut stump treatment 92foilage 92foilage spray 93grid ball 92rate, calculation 97–98safety considerations 99soil application 92soil injection 92soil surface placement 92stem 92timing of application 98trunk base spray 92trunk injection 92wipe on 92, 93

common nameclopyralid 95dicamba 95glyphosate 95Oust 95paraquat 95picloram 95tebuthiuron 95triclopyr 95

type 95uses 90


Hesperostipa comata See needle-and-threadHilaria jamesii See galletahoedad 764Holodiscus discolor See oceanspray, creambushHolodiscus dumosus See spiraea, rockhoneylocust 602, 706honeysuckle 731honeysuckle, bearberry 602, 623–624honeysuckle, orange 602, 623honeysuckle, Tatarian 262, 266–267, 272, 706, 750honeysuckle, Utah 262, 272, 602, 623–624, 706, 750honeysuckle, western trumpet See honeysuckle,

orangehopsage, spineless 273, 291, 293, 469, 472, 487, 488,

602, 706, 727hopsage, spiny 279, 281, 284, 291, 293, 469, 487,

488, 602, 706, 725, 750Horizon drill 75horsebrush 103, 534–536horsebrush, cottonthorn 706horsebrush, gray 495, 535, 706horsebrush, littleleaf 495, 706horsebrush, Nuttall 495, 706horsebrush, spiny 495horses 176, 178, 179human activities 194, 198hydroseeder 82

I

Indian apple 272, 276, 278, 283, 566–567, 604, 711,727, 731, 741

inkbush See iodine bushIntermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 3,

16 See also Intermountain Research StationIntermountain Research Station 4, 5, 17interseeder 81

fluted shaft seeder 81Truax single row seeder 81

interseeding 142, 742–744iodine bush 469, 491iris, German 427, 741iron 51, 52, 54

J

jointfir See ephedra, green; ephedra, Nevadajunegrass, prairie 102, 271, 275, 277, 282, 287, 308,

311, 392–393, 700juniper 108juniper, creeping 602, 633–635juniper, Rocky Mountain 602, 638–640, 706, 750juniper, Utah 182–183, 185, 602, 635–638, 638, 707,

750juniper woodlands 38juniper-pinyon See pinyon-juniperJuniperus horizontalis See juniper, creeping

Juniperus osteosperma See juniper, UtahJuniperus scopulorum See juniper, Rocky Mountain

K

kinnikinnik See manzanita, bearberryKochia americana See molly, graykochia, Belvedere 703kochia, forage 135, 138, 142, 196, 273, 276, 278, 279,

281, 283, 284, 285, 292, 293, 294, 469, 472, 489,490, 603, 707, 730, 741

Immigrant 490, 725Kochia prostrata See kochia, forageKoch’s postulates 188Koeleria cristata See junegrass, prairieKoeleria macrantha See junegrass, prairieKoeleria nitida See junegrass, prairie

L

land imprinter 67, 72larkspur, tall 204layering 762

crown divisions 762runners and stolons 762shoots 762stem layers 762suckers 762

layers 762legumes 136, 137Lepidospartum latisquamatum See scalebroomLeymus angustus See wildrye, AltaiLeymus cinereus See wildrye, Great BasinLeymus racemosus See wildrye, mammothLeymus salinus See wildrye, SalinaLeymus simplex See wildrye, alkaliLeymus triticoides See wildrye, creepingligusticum, Porter 259, 270, 426–427, 442–443, 703,

727Ligusticum porteri See ligusticum, Porterlilac, common 707, 750Linum perenne lewisii See flax, Lewislivestock grazing See grazing; grazing managementlocust, black 603, 707, 750Lomatium kingii See lomatium, Nuttalllomatium, narrowleaf See lomatium, nineleaflomatium, nineleaf 426, 428, 444–445, 703, 724, 728lomatium, Nuttall 259, 270–271, 277, 426, 428,

445–446, 703, 727Lomatium triternatum See lomatium, nineleafLonicera ciliosa See honeysuckle, orangeLonicera involucrata See honeysuckle, bearberryLonicera utahensis See honeysuckle, Utahlupine 135, 196, 741lupine, mountain 142, 259, 270, 282, 289, 703, 724,

727, 728lupine, Nevada 271, 277, 280, 284, 428


lupine, silky 260, 270–271, 277, 282, 287, 289, 426,428, 446–447, 703, 724, 727–728

lupine, silvery 428, 448, 703Lupinus argenteus See lupine, silveryLupinus sericeus See lupine, silky

M

MacLeod 764, 765magnesium 51–52, 54Mahonia aquifolium See barberry, shiningmahonia, creeping See Oregon grapeMahonia fremontii See barberry, FremontMahonia repens See Oregon grapemanagement 28, 32

considerations 26climate 29impacts on adjacent areas 31resource values 31soil condition 27–28, 30–31strategy 28vegetation condition 26–27

manganese 51–52, 54manzanita, bearberry 601, 647–648, 707, 750maple 195maple, bigtooth 270, 603, 750maple, Rocky Mountain 216, 272, 278, 600–608, 707,

750matchbrush 493, 534matchbrush, small head 495McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 3meadowrue, Fendler 260mechanical plant control 62

brushland plow 66disk plow 66disk-chain 66moldboard plow 66off-set disk 66personnel 78

Medicago falcata See alfalfa, sicklepodMedicago sativa See alfalfamedick, black 261–262, 264, 270, 428medusahead 254–255medusahead communities 253–256, 294Melilotus officinalis See sweetclover, yellowMertensia arizonica See bluebell, tallmilkvetch, Canadian 703milkvetch, cicer 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 261, 270,

271, 277, 282, 289, 425–426, 428, 433–434, 703,724, 728, 731, 741, 763

Lutana 434milkvetch, Snake River 428milkvetch, tall 428mixed seedings 130–134mockorange, Lewis 687–689, 707

Waterton 689

mockorange, littleleaf 689moldboard plow 66molly, gray 469, 488, 603molybdenum 51–52, 54moose

Shiras 164moth, sagebrush defoliator 514mountain ash, American 707, 750mountain ash, Greene’s 266–267, 270, 272, 592–594,

601, 603mountain ash, Sitka 594mountain brush communities 9, 195, 216, 217, 219,

271, 308–309, 601mountain lover 222, 266–267, 603, 707mountain mahogany, birchleaf 138, 544–545, 707, 750mountain mahogany, curlleaf 103, 132, 135, 142–143,

182, 183, 185, 196, 217, 272, 276, 278, 283, 545–550, 603, 707, 725, 727, 730, 741, 750

mountain mahogany, Intermountain 546mountain mahogany, Intermountain curlleaf 549mountain mahogany, littleleaf 274, 276, 545, 549, 603,

707, 751mountain mahogany, true 132, 135, 138, 142–143,

185, 196, 272, 276, 278, 283, 549, 550–552, 603,707, 725, 727, 730, 741, 751

Montane 552muhly, spike 731

El Vado 301mule deer 158, 163, 178

ranges 162multiple use 131muttongrass 273, 275, 282, 286–287 See also blue-

grass, muttonmuttongrass, longtongue 311

N

Nassella viridula See needlegrass, greennatural spread 134needle-and-thread 182–184, 220, 228, 237, 243, 256,

273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284–286, 293–294,308, 311, 418–419, 700, 731

needlegrass 102, 139needlegrass, Columbia See needlegrass, subalpineneedlegrass, green 135, 142, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282,

287, 289, 308, 311, 422–424, 700Cucharas 424Lodorm 301, 424

needlegrass, Letterman 269, 282, 289, 308, 311, 419–421, 700

needlegrass, subalpine 259, 269, 308, 311, 416–418,420

varieties 418needlegrass, Thurber 280, 284, 287, 294, 308, 311,

421–422ninebark, dwarf 568


ninebark, mallow 266–267, 567–569, 603, 707, 751ninebark, mountain 568ninebark, Pacific 568nitrogen 51, 52, 54nitrogen-free extract 177, 180no-till drill 75nurseries and facilities 747nutrient content 112nutrient requirements of range animals 176

calcium 178dry material 176minerals 178phosphorus 178protein 177, 178vitamins 179

nutrient values of range plants 180–184

O

oak, Gambel 103, 135, 183, 185, 195, 217, 218, 603,648–650, 707, 741, 751

oatgrass, tall 135, 206, 259, 261, 269, 271, 282, 287,289, 308, 310, 351–353, 701

Tualatin 353, 354oceanspray, bush 565 See also oceanspray, spiraeaoceanspray, creambush 563–565, 603Office of Grazing Studies 3olive, autumn 751oniongrass 259, 308, 311, 701Onobrychis viciaefolia See sainfoinorchardgrass 132, 135, 142, 196, 205, 206, 216, 220,

255, 259, 264–265, 269, 271, 273, 275, 277, 280,282, 287, 289, 308, 310, 367–369, 701, 724, 728

Berber 368Latar 301, 368Paiute 138, 301, 368, 724, 728Potomac 301

Oregon grape 270, 614–616, 731 See also barberry,creeping

Oryzopsis hymenoides See ricegrass, IndianOsmorhiza occidentalis See sweetanise

P

painted-cup 428painted-cup, sulphur 260Pascopyrum smithii See wheatgrass, westernpathogen-free planting stock 189pathogens, plant 187–190peachbrush, Anderson 707, 751 See almond, desertpeachbrush, desert 274, 276, 284, 291, 293, 575–577,

603, 707, 725pearly everlasting 763peashrub, Siberian 731, 751peavine, flat 428peavine, perennial 428peavine, thickleaf 270, 428

peavine, Utah 270, 428penstemon, bush 272, 603, 694–696, 707, 751Penstemon cyananthus See penstemon, Wasatchpenstemon, Eaton 139, 271, 277, 280, 282, 287, 289,

428, 456, 703, 731Richfield 457

Penstemon eatonii See penstemon, Eatonpenstemon, firecracker 456Penstemon fruticosus See penstemon, bushPenstemon humilis See penstemon, lowpenstemon, littlecup 428penstemon, low 206, 271, 280, 282, 289, 428, 457,

703, 724, 763Penstemon pachyphyllus See penstemon, thickleafpenstemon, Palmer 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 271, 273,

275, 277, 279–280, 282, 284–287, 293–294, 425,428, 454–456, 703, 727–728, 731

Cedar 456Penstemon palmeri See penstemon, Palmerpenstemon, Rocky Mountain 132, 135, 260, 270–271,

277, 283, 289, 425, 428, 457penstemon, Rydberg 260, 270, 428, 457Penstemon rydbergii See penstemon, Rydbergpenstemon, sidehill 428Penstemon strictus See penstemon, Rocky Mountainpenstemon, thickleaf 277, 428, 457, 703, 731penstemon, toadflax 277, 428penstemon, Wasatch 260, 270–271, 277, 283, 289,

428, 456, 703Peraphyllum ramosissimum See Indian applepersistence

species 129personnel 63Phalaris arundinacea See canarygrass, reedpheasant 159, 178–179Philadelphus lewisii See mockorange, LewisPhleum alpinum See timothy, alpinePhleum pratense See timothyphosphate, single super 54phosphate, trebel super 54phosphoric acid (liquid) 54phosphorus 51, 52, 54, 178, 179Physocarpus malvaceus See ninebark, mallowpine, ponderosa 195pine, ponderosa communities 222–223, 309, 601ping-pong ball injector 85pinyon 108pinyon-juniper 195, 224, 225, 279pinyon-juniper communities 9, 37, 223–224, 227–228,

273, 279, 308, 601, 638pipe harrow 67, 71plant communities, diverse 130plant community indicators 124plant competition 21, 57, 61, 112, 134, 202, 207–208,

211, 214, 218, 221, 226, 235, 238, 239–240, 243,245, 247, 249, 251–252, 255, 257–258


controlling 57, 65, 147–148biological 58, 59burning 60chemical 62fallowing 62grazing 59herbicides 58logging 60mechanical 58, 62, 65objectives 60species 21successional changes 59–60

plant controlherbicides 89

plant diseasefungal diseases 516

plant tissue analysis 53planting bar 764–767planting hoe 764–765planting mixtures, advantages 130–133planting season 23, 150–151planting shovels 764–765planting stock 745–746plows

brushland 66–67disk 66moldboard 66root 67, 73

PLS See pure live-seed (PLS)plum, American 262, 571–572, 603, 708, 751plume, Apache See Apache plumePoa alpina See bluegrass, alpinePoa ampla See bluegrass, bigPoa canbyi See bluegrass, SandbergPoa compressa See bluegrass, CanadaPoa fendleriana See bluegrass, muttonPoa longiligula See bluegrass, muttonPoa nevadensis See bluegrass, SandbergPoa pratensis See bluegrass, KentuckyPoa sandbergii See bluegrass, SandbergPoa scabrella See bluegrass, SandbergPoa secunda See bluegrass, big; bluegrass, Sandbergponderosa pine communities 220, 271, 308poplar 751postfire management 119potash 54potassium 51–52, 54Potentilla fruticosa See cinquefoil, shrubbyprecipitation 21, 34–35

average annual 34pronghorn antelope 111, 164–165propagation See seed propagation; vegetative

propagationprotein 177proximal analysis 180Prunus americana See plum, American

Prunus andersonii See almond, desertPrunus besseyi See cherry, BesseyPrunus emarginata See cherry, bitterPrunus fasciculata See peachbrush, desertPrunus spinosa See blackthornPrunus tomentosa See cherry, NankingPrunus virginiana See chokecherryPsathyrostachys juncea See wildrye, RussianPseudoroegneria spicata See wheatgrass, bluebunchPseudoroegneria spicata inerme See wheatgrass,

beardlesspure live-seed (PLS) 22, 139, 736Purshia glandulosa See bitterbrush, desertPurshia tridentata See bitterbrush, antelope

Q

quackgrass 310quail 178, 179quailbush See saltbush, quailbushQuercus gambelii See oak, Gambel

R

rabbit 178rabbitbrush 103, 493–496, 522–524rabbitbrush, alkali 495, 533–534, 708rabbitbrush, Douglas 603rabbitbrush, dwarf 495, 524, 603, 708rabbitbrush, goldenweed 534rabbitbrush, Greene’s 495, 533–534, 708rabbitbrush, low 135, 182–183, 185, 196, 260, 279,

285–286, 291, 293–294, 495, 531–533, 603, 708hairy low 533mountain low 142, 288, 290, 532, 708, 725, 741narrowleaf low 533, 708stickyleaf low 532–533, 708

rabbitbrush, Nevada 530rabbitbrush, Parry 260, 272, 495, 529–531, 603, 708rabbitbrush, rubber 132, 135, 182–183, 185, 196, 251,

262, 495, 525–529, 603, 751green rubber 529, 708green-stemmed rubber 526, 741leafless rubber 708leiospermus rubber 708mountain rubber 270, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 529,

708, 725mountain whitestem rubber 708threadleaf rubber 266–267, 528–529, 708, 741tubinatus rubber 708whitestem mountain and basin rubber 270, 272,

274, 276, 278, 281, 283–284, 286, 288whitestem rubber 138, 142–143, 525–526, 528, 725,

727, 730, 741rabbitbrush, small 603rabbitbrush, spreading 291, 495, 524, 603, 708, 741rabbitbrush, Vasey 495, 531, 709


rails 71–72range, season of use 182–184Range Seeding Equipment Committee 17raspberry, black 590, 601redtop See bentgrass, redtopreedgrass, bluejoint 264–265, 310

Sourdough 301reedgrass, chee 259, 264–265, 310, 701, 763reedgrass, plains 102rehabilitation 200 See also site preparation and

seeding prescriptionsresistance, host 190resource values 31restoration 19, 200 See also revegetation; site prepa-

ration and seeding prescriptionshistory 1, 15–17human activities 198

restored sitesgrazing 194human activities 194management 193post-treatment 194

revegetation 19, 29, 200, 470, 717, 746 See alsorestoration; site preparation and seedingprescriptions

artificial 29considerations 19

cost 32impacts on adjacent areas 31–32plant competition 21plant material availability 32planting season 23precipitation 21pure live seed (PLS) 22resource values 31seed mixture 22seedbed 23site-adapted species and populations 21soil conditions 27–28, 30soil types 20terrain 20vegetation condition 26–27weeds 31

history 15–17human activities 198impact on resources 28range 19site suitability 29–30wildland 19

Rhizobium 146rhizomes 763Rhus aromatica See sumac, skunkbushRhus glabra See sumac, Rocky Mountain smoothRibes aureum See currant, goldenRibes cereum See currant, wax

Ribes viscosissimum See currant, stickyricegrass, Indian 102, 132, 135, 138, 142, 182, 184,

196, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 285, 286–287, 291, 293–294, 308, 311, 393–396, 701,731

Nezpar 301, 396Paloma 301, 397Ribstone 397Rimrock 301, 397

riparian communities 9, 209–210, 212–213, 263–267,309, 601, 668

roads 172, 198rockspirea 565–566, 709Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station

3 See also Rocky Mountain Research StationRocky Mountain Research Station 5rodents 144roller chopper 83root cuttings 762root-plow 67, 73Rosa woodsii ultramontana See rose, Woodsrosaceous shrubs 539rose, Woods 143, 260, 262, 266–267, 270, 272, 278,

283, 288, 586–590, 603, 709, 741, 751Roundup 96row spacing 153Rubus leucodermis See raspberry, blackRubus parviflorus See thimbleberryrunners and stolons 762rush, Baltic 263rush, Drummond 263rush, longstyle 263rush, swordleaf 263rush, Torrey 263Russian olive 709rye, mountain 132, 135, 142, 196, 269, 273, 275, 277,

280, 282, 284, 286–287, 294, 309, 311, 724rye, winter 273, 275, 277, 727ryegrass, Italian 311ryegrass, meadow 311ryegrass, perennial 264, 265, 311

S

sacaton, alkali 196, 262, 264–265, 279, 286, 309, 311,413–414, 701

Salado 301, 414Saltalk 301, 414

sage, birdsfoot 495, 522sage, fringed 274, 495, 505–506, 604, 709, 725sage, longleaf 495, 522, 709sage, Louisiana 260–261, 264, 270–271, 278, 289,

426, 428, 430–431, 703, 741, 763Summit 431

sage, oldman See sandsage


sage, purple 709, 751sage, sand See sandsagesage, tarragon 278, 428sage-grouse 159, 166–168sagebrush 108, 236, 493, 494–496

sagebrush communities 115, 234–237 See also sitepreparation and seeding prescriptions

sagebrush, alkali 495, 506–507sagebrush, alkali communities 245sagebrush, big 132, 181–183, 185, 196, 232, 294,

495, 514–521, 709, 751big communities 9basin big 135, 138, 142–143, 195, 238, 266–267,

274, 276, 279, 281, 288, 292, 514–521, 604, 709,725, 727, 730, 741Hobble Creek 518

basin big communities 135, 238, 279, 280, 308–309,601

foothills big 272, 274, 276, 278, 279, 281, 283–284See also sagebrush, big: xeric big

mountain big 135, 138–139, 142, 195, 232, 260,266–267, 270, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288,514–521, 604, 709, 725, 730, 741Hobble Creek 518

mountain big communities 239–240, 282, 308–309,601

spicate big 503, 514 See also sagebrush, big:subalpine big

subalpine big 206, 290subalpine big communities 289, 308–309timberline big 244, 260, 289, 290, 520, 709 See also

sagebrush, big: spicate big; sagebrush, big:subalpine big

timberline big communities 289Wyoming big 135, 138, 142, 195, 250, 251, 274,

279, 281, 286, 288, 291, 514–521, 604, 725, 730,741Gordon Creek 519

Wyoming big communities 240–242, 279, 284,308–309, 601

xeric big 514, 517 See also sagebrush, big: foothillsbig

sagebrush, Bigelow 495, 500–501, 604, 709sagebrush, black 132, 142, 143, 185, 195, 196, 228,

242, 274, 276, 285, 286, 291, 293, 495, 508–509,604, 709, 725, 727, 730, 741, 751

black communities 243, 285sagebrush, budsage 604, 709 See also budsage

budsage communities 245sagebrush, coaltown 503, 522sagebrush, early 604 See sagebrush, alkalisagebrush, fringed See sage, fringedsagebrush, hotsprings 500sagebrush, longleaf See sage, longleafsagebrush, Louisiana See sage, Louisiana

sagebrush, low 206, 232, 279, 281, 283, 285, 495,499–500, 506, 604, 709

low communities 244, 286sagebrush, pygmy 495, 509–510, 604, 709sagebrush, Rothrock 520, 522sagebrush, sand 293, 709 See also sandsagesagebrush, scabland See sagebrush, stiffsagebrush, silver 232, 260, 266–267, 272, 283, 290,

495, 502–503, 604, 709, 741Bolander silver 503mountain silver 502, 503

mountail silver communities 244plains silver 503silver communities 289

sagebrush, stiff 495, 510–511, 604, 709sagebrush, tarragon See sage, tarragonsagebrush, threetip 232, 288, 495, 521–522, 604

tall threetip 266–267, 522, 709threetip communities 244, 287Wyoming threetip 522

sainfoin 132, 135, 138, 196, 261, 270, 272, 275, 278,283, 289, 453, 703, 724, 741

Eski 454Melrose 454Nova 454Onar 454Remont 454Runemex 454

sainfoin, common 142, 428Salix See willowSalix bebbiana See willow, BebbSalix boothii See willow, BoothSalix drummondiana See willow, DrummondSalix exigua See willow, coyoteSalix geyeriana See willow, GeyerSalix glauca See willow, grayleafSalix lasiandra caudata See willow, whiplashSalix lasiolepis See willow, arroyoSalix lutea See willow, yellowSalix planifolia See willow, plainleafSalix scouleriana See willow, ScoulerSalix wolfii See willow, Wolfsalsify, vegetable-oyster 428, 703, 724, 727, 741salt desert shrub communities 246 See also site

preparation and seeding prescriptionssaltbush 469saltbush, allscale 469, 482–483saltbush, Australian 469saltbush, big 469, 710saltbush, Bonneville 469, 710saltbush, broadscale 469, 472, 482–483, 710saltbush, Castle Valley clover 292, 469, 472, 480–481,

604, 710saltbush, cattle 469, 710saltbush, cuneate See saltbush, Castle Valley clover


saltbush, desert holly 469, 482–483, 710saltbush, falcate 469, 710saltbush, fourwing 129, 132, 135, 138, 142, 143, 182,

183, 185, 196, 251, 262, 266, 267, 274, 276, 278,279, 281, 283, 284, 286, 291, 292, 293, 469, 471–476, 604, 710, 725, 727, 730, 741, 751

fourwing communities 251–252, 279Marana 475, 476Rincon 475, 476Wytana 475, 476

saltbush, Gardner 209, 251, 262, 266–267, 279, 291–292,469–470, 481–482, 604, 710, 725, 752

saltbush, Gardner complex 470, 481–482saltbush, Garrett 710saltbush, mat 291, 469, 472, 479–480, 604, 710saltbush, Navajo 469, 710saltbush, quailbush 469, 482–483, 604

Casa 483saltbush, robust 469saltbush, shadscale 308, 604, 710, 752

shadscale communities 9, 248, 309, 601saltbush, trident 469, 472, 710saltbush, wingless 469saltgrass 199, 208–209, 212, 262, 264–265saltgrass, desert 763saltgrass, inland 195, 310, 371–373

inland communities 9, 208–209, 262, 308-309, 601Sambucus cerulea See elderberry, blueSambucus racemosa See elderberry, red See elder-

berry, redsand sage See sandsagesandsage 495, 504–505, 604Sanguisorba minor See burnet, smallSarcobatus vermiculatus See greasewood, blackscalebroom 534, 537scalper 84sedge, analogue 263sedge, beaked 263sedge, black alpine 263sedge, blackroot 263sedge, Douglas 263sedge, downy 263sedge, golden 263sedge, Hepburn 263sedge, hood 263sedge, Kellogg 263sedge, Nebraska 263sedge, ovalhead 259, 261, 289sedge, rock 263sedge, russet 263sedge, slim 263sedge, smallwing 263sedge, soft-leaved 263sedge, valley 263sedge, woolly 263sedges 208, 263

seedafterripening 700, 726certification 139, 719certified 137–138cleaning 699, 713–715collecting 699, 712, 718, 754dormancy 127, 726, 730field 721, 754germination 139, 205, 723, 724, 727–728, 730–732,

746inoculation 146longevity 731maturity 700noncertified 138orchard 718–719, 722, 754pathogens 146–147pelleting 76, 146pretreatment 145–146, 755production 719propagation 747–748purity 139, 700quality 137storage 700, 715, 731, 754–755stratification 700

seed certification 733 See also certification, seedseed, certified 22seed dribbler 79–80seed harvesters

vacuum-type 713seed mixture 22seed, noncertified 138seed production 601seed testing

requirements 733seedbed 23, 126, 134

conditions 63firmness 149, 150preparation 121

climatic conditions 124plant community indicators 124

soildivalent ions 125monovalent cations 125

seedbed preparation equipment 65 See also anchorchains; cables; disks; plows

drags 71herbicide 91land imprinter 67, 72pipe harrow 67, 71rails 71

seeders 65 See also drillsaerial broadcasting 77–78

fixed-wing aircraft 78helicopters 78–79

Brillion seeder 80broadcast 72, 76–77


hand broadcasting 76Hansen seed dribbler 79hydroseeder 82interseeder

fluted shaft seeder 81Truax single row seeder 81

land imprinter 72seed dribbler 79–80surface seeder 80surface seeders 80thimble seeder 79–80Truax Seed Slinger 76

seeding 216broadcast 141depth 76, 152–153ecotype 124mixed 201mixed seedings 130mixes 122, 129

forbs 140native species 126plant competition 21planting season 23precipitation 21pure live seed (PLS) 22rate 22, 78seed mixture 22seedbed 23site-adapted species and populations 21soil types 20

seeding practices 121rates 137, 139–141, 145requirements 135, 143separate row seeding 154single species seeding 130, 133species compatibility 133, 135spot 142

seeding rates 259, 261, 269, 271, 273, 279–280, 284–287, 289, 291–293

seeding requirementsrow spacing 153spot seeding 142

seedlingestablishment 133, 134growth rate 135vigor 135

selenium 52Senecio serra See groundsel, butterweedserviceberry, dwarf Saskatoon 541serviceberry, Saskatoon 132, 135, 142, 143, 196, 266,

267, 270, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 541–543, 604,710, 725, 727, 741, 752

serviceberry, Utah 272, 274, 276, 541, 543–544, 604,710, 725, 727, 752

shadscale 132, 135, 143, 195, 196, 228, 243, 245–247,248, 250–253, 257–258, 279, 291–292, 294, 469,476–478

sheep 176, 178–179, 515Shepherdia argentea See buffaloberry, silverShepherdia canadensis See buffaloberry, russetShepherdia rotundifolia See buffaloberry, roundleafShiras moose 164shoots 762shrub enhancement 235shrub-herb associations 134Shrubland Biology and Restoration Project 4shrubs 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185, 260, 597,

704silverberry 266–267, 604, 640–641Sitanion hystrix See squirreltail, bottlebrushsite access 61site improvement 122site preparation and seeding prescriptions

aspen communities 215, 309aspen openings 204–205aspen-conifer communities 9, 216, 601Bailey's (1978) 8blackbrush communities 9, 252–253, 293, 308, 601brome, red communities 9, 253–256, 294cheatgrass communities 9, 253–256, 294, 601greasewood, black communities 9, 249–250, 309,

601juniper woodlands 38medusahead communities 253–256, 294mountain brush communities 9, 219, 309, 601pine, ponderosa communities 222–223, 309, 601pinyon-juniper communities 9, 37, 223–224, 227–228,

273, 279, 308, 601, 638riparian communities 9, 209–210, 212–213, 263–267,

309, 601, 668sagebrush, alkali communities 245sagebrush, basin big communities 135, 238, 279,

280, 308–309, 601sagebrush, big communities 9sagebrush, mountain big communities 239–240,

282, 308–309, 601sagebrush, subalpine big communities 289, 308–309sagebrush, timberline big communities 289sagebrush, Wyoming big communities 240–242,

279, 284, 308–309, 601sagebrush, black communities 243, 285sagebrush, budsage communities 245sagebrush communities 235–237sagebrush, low communities 244, 286sagebrush, silver communities 289sagebrush, mountain silver communities 244sagebrush, threetip communities 244, 287saltbush, fourwing communities 251–252, 279


saltbush, shadscale 246–247, 291saltbush, shadscale communities 9, 248, 309, 601saltgrass, inland communities 9, 208, 209, 262, 308,

309, 601subalpine communities 601subalpine herblands 9, 204, 205weeds, annual communities 308, 601weeds, annual lowland communities 9, 257, 258wet and semiwet meadows 9, 168, 207, 208, 308,

601winterfat communities 251

site-adapted species and populations 21skunk cabbage 204snakeweed 534, 536snakeweed, broom 495, 536snowberry 103snowberry, common 266–267, 604, 627, 710, 752snowberry, desert 627–628snowberry, longflower 278, 604, 710, 752snowberry, longleaf 272snowberry, mountain 143, 206, 260, 266, 267, 270,

272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 290, 604, 629–630, 710,727, 741, 752

snowberry, western 266, 267, 604, 628–629snowberry, white See snowberry, commonsnowmold 517snowmold disease 516soapberry See buffaloberry, russetsoftwood cuttings 761–762soil 40, 125–126

carbon 44condition 27–28, 30conditions 125erosion 28, 40fertility 40, 52fertilization 48improvement 40moisture 148–149nitrogen 136nutrient 40, 47, 48, 49, 50

boron 51–52calcium 51concentrations 51copper 51–52iron 51–52magnesium 51–52manganese 51–52molybdenum 51–52nitrogen 50–52phosphorus 50–52potassium 51–52selenium 52sulfur 50–51sulphate-sulphur 52zinc 51–52

pH 45

reclamation potential 40aspect 47parent material 47

texture 152soil application 92soil carbon 44soil conditions 36, 39–53, 41

bulk density 41, 42carbon 44coarse fragment content 41, 43depth to limiting layer 41, 44exchangeable sodium 41, 47organic matter 41, 44permeability 41, 43pH 41, 46salinity 41, 45, 46slope 41, 44structure 41–42texture 41–42water-holding capacity 41, 43

soil factors See soil conditionssoil injection 92soil reaction See soil, pHsoil surface placement 92soil types 9, 20Solidago canadensis See goldenrod, CanadaSolomon plume, fat 260, 428Solomon-seal, western 264Sorbus scopulina See mountain ash, Greene’sSorbus sitchensis See mountain ash, Sitkaspecies selection

climatic conditions 124–125cold tolerance 128compatibility 122, 133cultivars 129, 137drought tolerance 127–128growth rate 135native species 126–128palatability 128persistence 129seed dormancy 127soils 125–126

Sphaeralcea coccinea See globemallow, scarletSphaeralcea grossulariifolia See globemallow,

gooseberryleafspikerush, common 263spiraea 594Spiraea betulifolia See spiraea, bridal wreathspiraea, birchleaf See spiraea, bridal wreathspiraea, bridal wreath 594–595, 604Spiraea densiflora See spiraea, subalpinespiraea, Douglas 596, 711, 752Spiraea douglasii See spiraea, Douglasspiraea, subalpine 596spiraea, white 594, 595spirea, rock 266–267, 288, 751 See also rockspirea


spirea, rock spray 565Sporobolus airoides See sacaton, alkaliSporobolus cryptandrus See dropseed, sandsprigger 763squirrels 178squirreltail See squirreltail, bottlebrushsquirreltail, big 411

Sand Hollow 301, 412squirreltail, bottlebrush 102, 135, 182–184, 196, 264,

265, 271, 273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284–287,291–294, 309, 311, 410–412, 701, 724, 728

Fish Creek 412Toe Jam Creek 412

State Agricultural Experiment Stations 3, 4steep-slope scarifier and seeder 87stem application 92stem cuttings 760stem layers 762Stipa columbiana See needlegrass, subalpineStipa comata See needle-and-threadStipa lettermanii See needlegrass, LettermanStipa occidentalis See needlegrass, westernStipa thurberiana See needlegrass, ThurberStipa viridula See needlegrass, greenstork’s bill See alfileriaSuaeda torreyana See desert blite; sumpbush, desertsubalpine communities 601subalpine herblands 9, 201–202, 204–205, 259succession, plant 114successional changes 131suckers 762sulfate-sulphur 52sulphur 51, 54sumac, Rocky Mountain smooth 272, 276, 278, 283,

604, 611–613, 711, 741, 752sumac, skunkbush 135, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 604,

608–611, 711, 741, 752Bighorn 611

sumac, smooth 143summercypress, Belvedere 262sumpbush, desert 469, 491sunflower 287sunflower, annual 701surface seeder 80sweetanise 196, 216, 260–261, 270, 289, 426, 428,

454, 704, 724, 728, 731, 741sweetclover, white 429sweetclover, yellow 135, 138, 196, 262, 264, 272–273,

275, 278–280, 283–284, 286, 429, 451–452, 704,724, 728

Goldtop 452Madrid 452Yukon 452

sweetroot, spreading 270, 429sweetvetch, northern See sweetvetch, Utah

sweetvetch, Utah 132, 135, 142, 196, 272, 275, 278,280, 283, 287, 426, 429, 439–440, 704, 724, 727–728, 741, 763

Timp 440Symphoricarpos albus See snowberry, commonSymphoricarpos longiflorus See snowberry, desertSymphoricarpos occidentalis See snowberry, westernSymphoricarpos oreophilus See snowberry, mountainsyringa See mockorange, Lewissyringa, Lewis See mockorange, Lewis

T

tarweed, cluster 203temperature 35tephritid flies 526teratorch 85terrain 20–21, 36, 37Tetradymia See horsebrushTetradymia canescens See horsebrush, grayTetradymia glabrata See horsebrush, littleleafTetradymia nuttallii See horsebrush, NuttallTetradymia spinosa See horsebrush, spinythimble seeder 79–80thimbleberry 266–267, 591–592, 601, 605Thinopyrum intermedium See wheatgrass, intermedi-

ateThinopyrum ponticum 320 See also wheatgrass, tallthreeawn complex 349threeawn, fendler 310threeawn, purple 309–310, 349threeawn, red See threeawn, purpletimothy 132, 135, 142, 196, 205–206, 208, 215–216,

259, 261, 264–265, 269, 271, 289, 309, 311, 399–401, 701

Clair 401Climax 302, 400Drummond 302varieties 401

timothy, alpine 259, 269, 289, 309, 311, 398–399, 701,763

timothy, mountain See timothy, alpinetissue analysis 53topography 9, 10, 11, 12, 13toxicant 97transplanter 82, 83, 740, 742transplanting 23, 262, 739

equipment 764, 765treatment of propagative material 190treatments

costs 64economic benefits 64impacts on resources 64visual impacts 64

trefoil, birdsfoot 272, 283trencher 84


Trifolium See cloverTrifolium fragiferum See clover, strawberryTrifolium hybridum See clover, alsikeTrifolium pratense See clover, redTrifolium repens See clover, whitetrisetum, spike 309, 311Truax drill 74, 75Truax Seed Slinger 76Truax single row seeder 81turkey 178, 179Tye drill 75

U

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)Agricultural Research Service 4Bureau of Plant Industry 2, 3Division of Botany 2Forest Reserves 2Forest Service 17

Great Basin Experimental Range 16Great Basin Station 3–4, 16, 17Intermountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation 3, 16Intermountain Research Station 4–5, 17Office of Grazing Studies 3Rocky Mountain Research Station 5Shrubland Biology and Restoration Project 4

Natural Resources Conservation Service 5, 17Plant Materials Centers 4

urea 54Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 4, 17Utah State Division of Fish and Game 16

V

vacuum-type seed harvesters 713valerian, edible 260–261, 264, 429vegetation condition 26vegetation status 61vegetation types 7, 9, 11, 13, 34, 36–38, 308, 601 See

also communities, plantvegetative propagation 748, 759–763vetch, American 182–183, 260, 270, 429vetch, bramble 429Vicia americana See vetch, AmericanViguiera miltiflora nevadensis See goldeneye, NevadaViguiera multiflora multiflora See goldeneye, showyviolet, Nuttall 260virginsbower, western 605, 654–656, 711, 752vitamin A 179

W

water 171–172water developments 171watershed 131weed control 62–63, 131, 147

weeds, annual communities 308, 601weeds, annual lowland communities 9, 257–258weeds, noxious 211wet and semiwet meadow communities 9, 168,

206–208, 261, 308, 601wet meadows 262wheatgrass, beardless 310, 701 See also wheatgrass,

bluebunchWhitmar 302

wheatgrass, bluebunch 132, 135, 139, 142, 182–184,196, 271, 273, 275, 277, 280, 282, 284, 286–287,294, 309–310, 337–342, 724, 728, 763

Anatone 302, 341Goldar 341Goldlar 302NewHy 302, 341P-7 302, 341Whitmar 342

wheatgrass, bluebunch bearded 310, 701wheatgrass, crested 182, 312, 316 See wheatgrass,

fairway crestedwheatgrass, desert 182–184, 196 See wheatgrass,

standard crestedwheatgrass, fairway crested 132, 135, 138, 142,

183–184, 196, 262, 271, 273, 275, 277, 279–280,282, 284–287, 293, 294, 297, 297–318, 309, 310,315, 316, 701, 728

Douglas 302, 316Ephraim 302, 316–317, 724Fairway 302, 317Nordan 316Parkway 302, 317Ruff 302, 317

wheatgrass, hybridCD-II 316Hycrest 316–317NewHy 262SL-1 342SL1 302

wheatgrass, hybrid crestedCDII 303Hycrest 294, 303Kirk 303

wheatgrass, intermediate 132, 135, 138, 142, 182,196, 221, 237, 255–256, 259, 269, 271, 273, 275,277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 286, 287, 293–294, 309–310, 327–331, 701, 724, 727–728

Amur 303, 330Chief 303, 330Clarke 303, 330Greenar 330Greenbar 303Greenleaf 304, 331Luna 304, 331, 724Oahe 303, 330Ree 330


Reliant 303, 330Rush 303, 330Slate 303, 330Tegmar 303, 331Topar 304, 331

wheatgrass, pubescent 309 See also wheatgrass,intermediate

wheatgrass, Siberian crested 142, 196, 246, 273, 275,279–280, 284, 286–287, 291–293, 309–310, 314,332–334, 701

P27 304Vavilov 304

wheatgrass, slender 142, 196, 259, 264–265, 269,271, 277, 282, 287, 289, 309–310, 342, 701

Adanac 304, 344Primar 304, 344Pryor 304, 345Revenue 304, 345San Luis 304, 345

wheatgrass, Snake River 309, 338Secar 304, 338, 341, 342

wheatgrass, standard crested 132, 135, 138, 142, 271,273, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284–287, 291–294,309–310, 313, 320–324, 724

Nordan 304, 324Summit 304, 326

wheatgrass, streambank 209, 220, 228, 262, 271, 273,275, 277, 279–280, 282, 284–287, 291–292, 294,310, 320, 701, 763 See also wheatgrass,thickspike

wheatgrass, tall 132, 135, 142, 196, 255, 261, 262,264, 265, 271, 280, 292, 309, 310, 325–327, 702,724, 731

Alkar 305, 326Jose 305, 327Largo 305, 327Orbit 305, 327Platte 305, 327

wheatgrass, thickspike 228, 237, 271, 275, 277, 279,280, 282, 284, 286–287, 294, 305, 309–310, 318–320, 702, 763

Bannock 305, 319Critana 305Schwendimar 305, 320Sodar 305Soday 320

wheatgrass, western 135, 139, 142, 182–184, 220,228, 242, 255, 264–265, 271, 273, 275, 277, 280,282, 284–285, 287, 291–294, 309–310, 334–337,701, 763

Arriba 305, 336Barton 305, 336Flintlock 305, 336Rodan 305, 336Rosana 305, 336, 337Walsh 305, 337

wheatgreass, crested 297whortleberry 711wilding stock 739–740, 742, 759wildlife habitat 109–110, 112, 131, 155, 539

cover 110, 131, 157edges, vegetative 111security 162thermal 161

improvement 156management 113

wildrye, alkali 309, 311, 382 See also wildrye, lowcreeping

wildrye, Altai 309–310Eejay 306Pearl 306Prairieland 306

wildrye, beardless 311 See wildrye, creepingwildrye, blue 269, 309–310, 377–379

Arlington 306, 378–379wildrye, Canada 309–310, 373–374

Mandan 306, 374wildrye, creeping 264, 265, 311, 383–384

Rio 384Shoshone 384

wildrye, DahurianArthur 306James 306

wildrye, Great Basin 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 246,261, 264–265, 275, 277, 279, 280, 282, 284, 287,292, 309–310, 374–377, 702, 728

Magnar 306, 376–377, 724Trailhead 306, 377

wildrye, low creeping See wildrye, alkaliwildrye, mammoth 264, 265, 309–310, 702

Volga 306wildrye, purple 310wildrye, Russian 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 262, 264,

273, 275, 279–280, 284–287, 291–293, 309, 310,379–380, 702, 724, 728

Bozoisky-select 307, 380Cabree 307, 380Mankota 307, 380Mayak 307, 381Swift 307, 381Tetracan 307, 381Vinall 307, 381

wildrye, Salina 262, 291, 309–310, 381–382wildrye, yellow 310willow 206, 208, 210–11, 213, 262, 266–268, 668–670willow, arroyo 268, 680–681

Rogue 681willow, barrenground 268willow, Bebb 268, 670–672

Wilson 672willow, Booth 268, 605, 672–673willow, coyote 605, 676, 752


willow, Drummond 268, 605, 673–675Curlew 674

willow, Geyer 268, 676–677willow, grayleaf 268, 677–678willow, Pacific 268willow, peachleaf 268willow, plainleaf 683–684willow, purpleosier 262, 605, 752willow, sandbar 268 See also willow, coyotewillow, Scouler 268, 605, 684–686, 752willow, whiplash 605, 679–680

Nehalem 680Roland 680

willow, Wolf 268, 686–687willow, yellow 681–683winterfat 132, 135, 138, 142–143, 182–183, 185, 196,

201, 209, 228, 236–237, 242, 245–247, 250–251,253, 274, 276, 278–279, 281, 284–285, 291–293,469, 470, 472, 484–486, 605, 711, 725, 727, 730,741, 752

winterfat communities 251

Hatch 484, 488winterfat, foothills 486winterfat, Pamirian 469, 486, 488wipe-on applicators 92, 93wormwood 495 See sage, Louisianawormwood, common 498wormwood, dwarf 498wormwood, oldman 495, 497–498, 605, 711, 741, 753wortleberry, big 753

Y

yarrow, western 260–261, 264, 270, 272–273, 275,279–280, 283, 287, 289, 291, 294, 426, 429, 430,704, 741, 763

yellowbrush See rabbitbrush

Z

zinc 51–52, 54zuckia, Arizona 469Zuckia brandegei See hopsage, spineless

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all itsprograms and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Notall prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requirealternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voiceand TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equalopportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific informa-tion and technology to improve management, protection, and use ofthe forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needsof National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public andprivate organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land recla-mation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insectsand diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applicationsmay be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, NevadaFort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New MexicoBoise, Idaho Rapid City, South DakotaMoscow, Idaho Logan, UtahBozeman, Montana Ogden, UtahMissoula, Montana Provo, UtahLincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, Natural Resources Research Center,2150 Centre Avenue, Building A, Fort Collins, CO 80526

Federal Recycling Program Printed on Recycled Paper

RMRSROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

Shadscale—bottlebrush squirreltail plant community Photo by Bob Moseley

volume 1 chapters 1–17, index - university of...

Documents