United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical

Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol. 1

September 2004

Restoring Western

Ranges and Wildlands

Volume 1

Chapters 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 1-294

plus index.

This work, in three volumes, provides background on philosophy, processes, plant

materials selection, site preparation, and seed and seeding equipment for revegetating

disturbed rangelands, emphasizing use of native species. The 29 chapters include guidelines

for planning, conducting, and managing, and contain a compilation of rangeland revegetation

research conducted over the last several decades to aid practitioners in reestablishing healthy

communities and curbing the spread of invasive species. Volume 1 contains the first 17

chapters plus the index.

Keywords: rehabilitation, revegetation, plant ecology, seed, plant communities, wildlife

habitat, invasive species, equipment, plant materials, native plants

A

B

A—Reseeding on the Boise

River watershed, 1937.

B—Rangeland drill.

C—Elk on burned winter range.

D—Sampling soil, north-central

Nevada.

E—Aerial seeding.

Front covers on all three volumes:

Desert Experimental Range Utah.

Photo by John Kinney.
Restoring Western Ranges

and Wildlands

i

Compilers

Stephen B. Monsen

Richard Stevens

Nancy L. Shaw

D E

C

Volume 1

Chapters 1–17, index
The Compilers _____________________________________

Stephen B. Monsen(retired), Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah

Richard Stevens, Project Leader (retired), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Great Basin

Research Center, Ephraim, Utah

Nancy L. Shaw, Research Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho

The Authors _______________________________________

James N. Davis is Project Leader, Big Game Range Trend Program, Utah Division of Wildlife

Resources, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah.

Sherel K. Goodrich is Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ashley

National Forest, Vernal, Utah.

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

Division of Wildlife Resources, Ephraim, Utah.

Carlos F. Lopez was Soil Scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

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

E. Durant McArthur is Project Leader and Research Geneticist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 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 currently

a private natural resources consultant and volunteer worker for the Rocky Mountain Research

Station.

David L. Nelson was Plant Pathologist (retired), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, Utah. He

continues contractual and volunteer work for the Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Nancy L. Shaw is Research Botanist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Research Station, Boise, Idaho.

Richard Stevens was Project Leader (retired), Great Basin Research Center, Utah Division

of Wildlife Resources, Ephraim, Utah.

Arthur R. Tiedemann was Project Leader and Range Scientist (retired), U.S. Department of

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

John F. Vallentine was Professor (Emeritus), Department of Integrative Biology, Brigham

Young University, Provo, Utah.

Gordon A. Van Epps was Associate Professor (retired), Snow Field Station, Utah Agricultural

Experiment Station, Utah State University, Ephraim, Utah.

Bruce L. Welch is Plant Physiologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain

Research 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 of

Agriculture, 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 management for the Four Corner States (Arizona, Colorado, 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. Restoring 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 Station), 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 Restoration 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 Intermountain 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 accompanying software word processing systems. The preparation 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 compilation (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 Research 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 drawings of plant species that are on the chapter introductory 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 substantial 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 rehabilitation and restoration of degraded Western wildlands

for years into the future.

iv
v

Contents

Volume 1: Page

Foreword by E. Durant McArthur .............................................................................iii

1. History of Range and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the

Intermountain West .................................................................................. 1

2. The Intermountain Setting ............................................................................ 7

3. Research Background ................................................................................ 15

4. Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and

Restoration............................................................................................. 19

5. Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or

Artificial Treatments ............................................................................... 25

6. Climate and Terrain .................................................................................... 33

7. Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs ...................... 39

8. Controlling Plant Competition ..................................................................... 57

9. Mechanical Plant Control ........................................................................... 65

10. Herbicides for Plant Control ....................................................................... 89

11. Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning .................................... 101

12. Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices .......................................... 121

13. Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and

Rehabilitation Projects ......................................................................... 155

14. Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management ............................... 175

15. Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems ........... 187

16. Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites ................................... 193

17. Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal

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

Volume 2:

18. Grasses .................................................................................................... 295

19. Forbs for Seeding Range and Wildlife Habitats ....................................... 425

20. Chenopod Shrubs .................................................................................... 467

21. Composite Shrubs .................................................................................... 493

22. Rosaceous Shrubs ................................................................................... 539

23. Shrubs of Other Families ......................................................................... 597

Volume 3:

24. Seed Collection, Cleaning, and Storage .................................................. 699

25. Shrub and Forb Seed Production ............................................................. 717

26. Seed Germination .................................................................................... 723

27. Seed Testing Requirements and Regulatory Laws .................................. 733

28. Establishing Plants by Transplanting and Interseeding ........................... 739

29. Production and Use of Planting Stock ...................................................... 745

References ............................................................................................... 769

Appendix 1 Scientific/Common Names .................................................... 847

Appendix 2 Common/Scientific Names .................................................... 866

Index .................................................................................................. Index-1
You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your

mailing 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 rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing Address Publications Distribution

Rocky Mountain Research Station

240 West Prospect Road

Fort Collins, CO 80526

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not

imply 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 not

contain recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses

discussed here have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be

registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can

be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals,

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or

applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow

recommended practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and

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

Stephen B. Monsen

1

Chapter

Range, wildlife, watershed, and recreation research in the

Intermountain region is a relatively young science. Most early

research was initiated to rectify problems resulting from overgrazing that resulted in a deterioration of range and watershed

resources. Thus, restoration measures were closely aligned to

range and watershed disciplines.

Campbell and others (1944) characterized four broad periods

of range research: (1) The exploratory period prior to 1905;

(2) limited intensive studies, 1905 to 1909; (3) organized experiments undertaken throughout the mountainous West and the

Great Plains, 1910 to 1927; and (4) expanded research accompanying aggressive public action on range problems, 1928 to present.

History of Range

and Wildlife Habitat

Restoration in the

Intermountain 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 research

began in response to Federal management policy

for newly created Forest Reserves (later called the

National Forest System). Unfortunately, the development of range research lagged far behind the need,

and this lack of information has, in part, contributed

to serious problems that still exist in many areas.

Although some formal grazing studies were begun by

1910, comprehensive programs did not begin until

1935 (Campbell and others 1944).

The exploratory period described by Campbell and

others (1944) consisted of observational and investigative works. The first was the discovery, collection,

and description of many native plants (Nuttall 1818;

Torrey and Gray 1838-43; Vasey 1889) (fig. 1). This

work was aided by the creation of the Division of

Botany established in 1868 within the Department of

Agriculture. The assemblage of these collections ultimately lead to an understanding of plant distribution,

community associations, species abundance, and

ecotypic variation. A second area of work involved

notations of western pastures and range problems. A

third category consisted of exploratory investigations

by Department of Agriculture personnel in which

rangeland resources within the Forest Reserves were

described. These surveys identified research needs.

The range-livestock industry greatly expanded by

1880 and created extremely serious land administrative problems (fig. 2). Development and implementation of realistic husbandry was made possible through

the creation of Forest Reserves including the Cascade Range Forest Reserve developed in 1893, which

restricted grazing, driving, or herding of livestock

within any of the Reserves (Colville 1898). By 1905,

an administrative proposal was developed by Potter

Figure 1—Early plant exploration and classification surveys helped to identify plant species and

community types.

Figure 2—Livestock grazing seriously altered

plant communities, particularly on the high summer ranges of central Utah.

and Colville (1905) that served as a guide to land use

until passage of the Grazing Act of 1934.

In 1901, the Divisions of Agrostology and Botany

were consolidated within the Bureau of Plant Industry. 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 from

the Department of the Interior to the Department of

Agriculture and then combined with the Bureau of

Forests to form the Forest Service. Grazing problems

were so acute that authority was given to control

animal numbers, distribution, and grazing duration.

Detailed grazing studies were organized. Initial efforts were made to seed mountain rangelands with
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 3

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

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

In 1910, the Office of Grazing Studies in the Forest

Service was established, and formal range research

efforts were developed. Most studies dealt with range

surveys, grazing reconnaissance, natural revegetation, and the formulation of grazing practices to improve range and watershed conditions. Some State

Agricultural Experiment Stations were established

and developed supportive studies during this period

(Cotton 1905).

Watershed problems, including flooding and erosion, were critical issues, particularly within the Intermountain States. Consequently, a research facility, initially known as the Utah Experiment Station,

was established in central Utah on the Manti National

Forest (fig. 3). This center, later renamed the Great

Basin Experiment Station, initiated and conducted

studies of range management and revegetation.

The Bureau of Plant Industry conducted numerous

grazing studies that significantly influenced the selection and use of species for pasture grazing (Shantz

1911, 1924). Range research was transferred from the

Bureau of Plant Industry to the Forest Service in

1915. This consolidated and strengthened range research in desert regions when the Santa Rita and

Jornada Experimental Ranges, established in 1912,

were added to the Forest Service base.

In 1926, the Office of Grazing Studies was transferred from the administrative branch of grazing and

established as a division in the branch of research. The

subsequent passage of McSweeney-McNary Forest

Research Act of 1928 funded and expanded research in

timber, range, and watershed at various experiment

stations. The Act consolidated all Forest Service range

research into regional units and experiment stations.

It provided for increased cooperative research with

State Agricultural Experiment Stations. It also expanded research activities to include artificial range

Figure 3—The establishment of the Great Basin

Station in Ephraim Canyon, Utah, facilitated extensive range and watershed research activities.

revegetation, wildlife, and other land values. Artificial revegetation studies included the selection of

native species for future improvement and the adaption of native and introduced species for site improvement (Forsling and Dayton 1931; Price 1938; Stewart

and others 1939). The studies were primarily located

at the Intermountain and Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experiment Stations.

Establishment of the Great Basin Station quickly

generated range and watershed research within the

Intermountain region. The station’s location in the

Great Basin Province was representative of areas

including most of the western half of Utah, nearly all

of Nevada, California east of the summit of the Sierra

Nevada, a large area in southeastern Oregon, portions

of southeastern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming

(Keck 1972). Consequently, research efforts were expanded to coordinate with other field locations in

Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

By 1900, livestock grazing had seriously disrupted

vegetation in many plant communities within the

Great Basin. Extremely critical problems existed on

high summer ranges of the Wasatch Mountains and

Wasatch plateau. Serious flooding and erosion from

high mountain ranges were critical problems. Initial

research at the Great Basin Station dealt with

assessment of watershed problems and development

of measures to correct summer flooding. In 1913,

researchers turned their attention to restoring sites

by natural reestablishment of native species and direct seeding with natives and exotics. Field adaptability study sites were established in aspen and grassforb communities, and additional species and field

plantings were established in subsequent years. By

1930, considerable information had been accumulated

relating to species performance and site adaptability.

Many artificial seedings using both native and exotic

species were highly successful (Forsling and Dayton

1931).

Beginning in the early 1930s, scientists from the

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station united to acquire and field test an extensive

array of herbaceous and woody species for use on

range and watershed sites in Utah, Nevada, Idaho,

and Wyoming (fig. 4). Field testing centers were located at representative sites in the major plant communities in these States. Field plantings and evaluations were carefully maintained at most locations for

approximately 20 years. New selections and plant

materials were added to the program. Planting sites and

environmental conditions were monitored, and plant

performance was compared with growth response of

adjacent native communities (Frischknecht and

Plummer 1955; Pearse and others 1948; Plummer and

others 1955).
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

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

Field studies included the assessment of species and

the development of planting equipment, methods of

seeding, and seedbed preparation (Plummer and

others 1943; Stewart 1949). Various equipment and

planting practices were developed to treat steep, rough

terrain and rangelands (Pechanec and others 1965),

but most methods and implements were developed for

seeding grasses and broadleaf herbs (fig. 5).

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

Plant Materials Centers selected and tested herbaceous plants during this same period. Their efforts

resulted in the release and use of many important

cultivars (Hafenrichter and others 1949; Hanson 1965).

Various State Agricultural Experiment Stations and

universities were also conducting species selection

and field planting procedures (Cook and others 1967).

In 1954, the testing and development of grasses and

broadleaf herbs was transferred from the USDA Forest Service to the newly created USDA Agricultural

Research Service. This agency has released numerous

introduced, and more recently native cultivars and

germplasms.

Problems with big game ranges, particularly winter

ranges, became important issues during the 1940s

and 1950s. State Game and Fish Departments recognized that game herds and livestock grazing had

decimated many important game ranges in nearly

all Intermountain States. Scientists and research organizations previously affiliated with range research

were solicited for support. Big game habitat and improvement research was begun in Idaho, California,

and Utah by Forest Service scientists, but it was

funded in part by State agencies in Idaho, Oregon,

and Washington. Many herbs previously developed

for range purposes proved equally useful for wildlife,

but a shift in emphasis from herbs to shrubs took

place.

Cooperative shrub research between the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Intermountain Research Station began in 1957. This cooperative effort

expanded over time, resulting in the establishment of

the Forest Services’ Shrubland Biology and Restoration Project. The project has contributed to the selection of many useful shrubs and herbs, including development of cultural techniques required to rear and

plant these species.

The presence of testing sites, research facilities,

and experience with the culture of forage plants

developed by earlier researchers at the Great Basin

Station aided initial progress in shrub research. In

addition, considerable testing and culture of woody

plants for conservation plantings (George 1953;

Haynes and Garrison 1960; Horton 1949; Mirov and

Krabel 1939; Van Dersal 1938) and upland gamebird

habitat improvement (Miller and others 1948) provided

Figure 4—Three of the early species selection

plots established at the Great Basin Station. The

plots helped to identify plants for use in revegetation efforts.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 5

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

Figure 5—A major problem confronting range

and wildlife seeding has been the lack of equipment 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 others

1968).

Restoring wildlife habitat by artificial seeding of

shrubs and broadleaf herbs has been hindered because of the erratic germination characteristics of

various shrubs, the inability of shrub seedlings to

compete with herbs, and the lack of equipment capable

of operating on steep, mountainous terrain. Yet, considerable progress has been achieved in selecting and

developing useful shrub species, ecotypes, and cultivars for game and range seedings. Selections have

been advanced primarily through cooperative efforts

by the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research

Station and continue under the present Forest Service

structure of the Rocky Mountain Research Station;

USDA Soil Conservation Service; and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (McArthur and others 1985;

Monsen and Davis 1985; Stevens and others 1985c;

Stutz and Carlson 1985).

Numerous scientists, agencies, and universities have

expanded the scope of shrub research since the 1970s.

Although numerous studies have been completed,

requirements for establishing many native species

that have received little use in past seeding efforts

remain largely unknown. Many shrub-dominated

communities, particularly in semiarid and arid lands,

are difficult to restore using current practices. Consequently, the challenge to enhance rangelands

remains formidable.
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 1 History of Range and Wildlife Habitat Restoration in the Intermountain West
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 7

E. Durant McArthur

Sherel K. Goodrich

2

Chapter

This book is intended to assist range managers throughout the

Intermountain West (fig. 1). The areas of greatest applicability

are the Middle and Southern Rocky Mountains, Wyoming Basin,

Columbia and Colorado Plateaus, and much of the basin and

range physiographic provinces of Fenneman (1981) or about

14∞ latitude, from the Mohave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan deserts

to the northern Rocky Mountains, and 15∞ longitude, from the

Great Plains to the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Mountain axis. This

large area contains diverse landforms and several major vegetational communities. Nevertheless, landform and vegetative type

are 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 recognized vegetative types, but Küchler (1964), also working on a

continental scale, recognized at least 28 vegetative types.

Bailey’s treatment, for example, doesn’t map out the extensive

juniper-pinyon woodlands of the Great Basin, whereas

Küchler’s treatment does. Holmgren (1972) recognized four

floristic divisions, divided into 16 floristic sections, in an area coinciding approximately with the southwestern half of figure 1. As

The Intermountain

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

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Figure 1—The Interior West locations that are covered in this

book, 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 sagebrushsaltbush 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
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 9

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Table 1—Vegetation types of the Intermountain region.

Characterization of vegetative types

Geographic area Large Small Disturbed and depauperate

Valleys and lower

mountain 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; including

both mountain and valley

Riparian * *

a

Exclusive of alpine habitats.

smaller geographical areas or particular vegetation

types are examined more closely, additional vegetation types or subtypes become apparent. Foster (1968)

treated 23 major vegetation types in Utah. Passey and

others (1982) treated nine major and 27 subservient

vegetation types of sagebrush-dominated communities in western Wyoming, southern Idaho, northwestern Utah, and northeastern Nevada.

Our choice (table 1) is to (1) consider plant assemblages together that respond in a similar manner to

rehabilitation practices and (2) treat those assemblages

that are most in need of restoration (because of disturbance or low productivity) and that have the potential

for higher productivity. Some smaller vegetative communities within the area are not considered.

The Intermountain landscape varies widely. This

land of considerable topographic relief contains mountains, valleys, and plateaus that create complex patterns (fig. 2, 3, 4). Many mountain-building events

occurred in the relatively recent geologic past (Axelrod

1950; Fenneman 1981). Soil types are likewise complex, and soil conditions change rapidly over just a few

miles. Soils are often alkaline but may be neutral or

more rarely acidic depending on parent material

(Shelford 1963). Consequently, the vegetative communities form complex mosaics and islands in the

Intermountain area (Fenneman 1981; Passey and

others 1982; Tidwell 1972).

The landscape and present climatic patterns are

relatively new, and the flora and plant associations,

especially in lowland areas, have not been in place for

more than 10,000 years. Therefore, plants have been

quite active in evolving new forms and establishing

equilibria (Axelrod 1950). Plants in many cases have

not reached their maximum area of adaptation. The

current high mountains trap precipitation and cast

rain shadows. Examples of the role of topography

and attendant moisture trapping are illustrated in

figures 4 and 5. Formerly, the precipitation was more

evenly distributed and the tree species of the mountains were continuous over much of the area. The

woody Artemisia and Atriplex shrubs that dominate

much of the lowland landscape were either minor

fringe components of the vegetation or were substantially displaced from their area of present distribution.

We treat 13 vegetative types in this book (table 1).

The more widespread types cover much greater land

areas than the restricted types. Some of the listed

types are disclimax communities (lowland annual

weeds and cheatgrass-red brome grass) brought about

by human activities. Others have a substantially different vegetative makeup (for example, the big sagebrush communities) because of human actions such as

grazing programs. We have excluded consideration of

the creosotebush vegetative type, which occurs on the

southwestern periphery of the Intermountain area
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Figure 2—Topographical examples of the Intermountain area from Peterson (1981). (A) Mountainvalley 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

A V

A

P

I

B I
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 11

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Figure 3—Map locating positions of vegetative types shown in

topographic cross section in figure 4.

(fig. 1), because that area is essentially warm desert

(Holmgren 1972) and that ecosystem behaves radically differently from the cooler areas that are the

subject of this book.

The Intermountain region, with the notable exception of a few metropolitan areas, is sparsely settled.

Communities occupy a relatively small portion of the

land. Agriculture, other than grazing, is restricted by

water availability and rough topography, although

there are some notable agricultural tracts in several

Intermountain valleys and on the Snake River and

Columbia River plains. In Utah, for example, only

1,436,000 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 or

potentially arable (Wahlquist 1981).

The land provides habitat for many animal species

(Shelford 1963). In the sagebrush areas are three

important ungulates (elk, mule deer, pronghorn antelope), 13 carnivores (badger, coyote, bobcat, skunks,

weasels, foxes, and others), 50 small mammals (chipmunks, grasshopper mice, deer mice, pocket mice,

kangaroo mice and rats, woodrats, jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits, pocket gophers, voles, squirrels, prairie

dogs, marmot, porcupines, and others), four game

birds (grouse, dove, chukar, and quail), and 15 raptors

(McArthur 1983a). Numerous songbirds inhabit the

region. In a shadscale community in Utah’s Uinta

Basin, for example, 35 species of birds, many of them

songbirds, were observed over a 2-year study

(McArthur and others 1978b). Several of these species are managed for hunting and constitute a major
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 13

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

Figure 5—Elevation and site relationships among dominant plant species in the Great Basin of

southeastern Oregon. Plant symbols are:

 Plant Scientific Plant Scientific

symbol name symbol name

AGSP Agropyron spicatum ARAR Artemisia arbuscula

ARCA Artemisia cana ARLO Artemisia longiloba

ARNO Artemisia nova ARRI Artemisia rigida

ARSP Artemisia spinescens ARTR2 Artemisia tripartita

ARTRT A. tridentata ssp. tridentata ARTRV A. t. ssp. vaseyana

ATCO Atriplex confertifolia CARU Calamagrostis rubescens

CELE Cercocarpus ledifolius CEVE Ceanothus velutinus

DISTI Distichlis spp. ELCI Elymus cinereus

FEID Festuca idahoensis GRSP Grayia spinosa

JUOC Juniperus occidentalis MURI Muhlenbergia richardsonis

PIPO Pinus ponderosa POSE Poa secunda

POTR Populus tremuloides PREM Prunus emarginata

SAVE2 Sarcobatus vermiculatus SIHY Sitanion hystrix

SYOR Symphoricarpos oreophilus

(Diagram from Dealey and others 1981).

Figure 4—Cross sections of physiographic provinces showing elevation and topographic positioning of vegetative types located in

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

Chapter 2 The Intermountain Setting

recreational resource (Wallmo 1975). Other recreation includes camping, hiking, photography, nature

appreciation, and harvesting food such as berries or

roots.

Two additional major uses of Intermountain lands

are for grazing of domestic livestock and for mining.

The livestock industry in the Intermountain area was

historically, and is currently, a sustaining source of

regional income. Thomas (1973) gave a livestock

value of nearly $2 billion for over 16 million head of

livestock in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico,

Arizona, Utah, and Nevada. The mining industry was

important historically, as well as currently. The Interior West is endowed with vast deposits of fuels and

minerals. These resources are being exploited at an

increasingly rapid rate as the Nation’s mineral and

energy needs expand. Many of these fuel and mineral

resources are amenable to surface mining, which

disturbs large land areas. The most prominent resources currently surface-mined or with such potential are coal, oil shale, phosphate, and uranium. Other

mineral 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. Some

uses impact on other uses as, for example, mining

and livestock grazing on wildlife habitat. Virtually all

uses have some impact on the premier value of the

land as a stabilized productive watershed. Keeping

the land productive, useful, and stable should be a

universal goal, and to that end we dedicate the principles, procedures, and information you will discover

in this book.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 15

James N. Davis

3

Chapter

The rangeland in the Intermountain West urgently required

a scientific basis for its management, especially after the

great mid-1800’s livestock buildup, and then the plant die-off

following 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. Department of Agriculture, wrote that the perennial species were being

overgrazed and were disappearing and were being replaced by

weedy annuals. He maintained that no more livestock should

be put on an area than could safely be carried through a poor

season. Gaining public and livestock owners’ acceptance of this

concept has been a problem ever since (Stewart 1936).

The Associate Chief of the Forest Service in a Congressional

report (Clapp 1936) maintained that severe depletion on ranges

was universal and that most Western U.S. range types were in a

depleted condition (depleted at least 50 percent from their original condition). These generalized Western range types included

short grass, Pacific bunchgrass, semidesert grass, sagebrushgrass, southern desert shrub, salt-desert shrub, pinyon-juniper,

and mountainbrush. He also indicated that the depleted conditions had far-reaching negative effects on wildlife and recreation.

Research Background
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 3 Research Background

Formal range research began about 1910, but a

comprehensive range research program did not begin

until 1935. Land managers, livestock operations, and

the public needed research to be better informed on

how to incorporate multiple land use management

concepts and to take care of the irreplaceable land

resources.

Near the turn of the century, some 1,500 attempts

were made to improve the badly depleted Western

ranges. These attempts largely failed, resulting in low

enthusiasm and optimism for range seeding. The

failures were thought to be primarily caused by inadequately adapted seed sources (mostly cultivated varieties) and insufficient site preparation (Stoddart and

others 1975).

Establishment of the Great Basin Station (now

known as the Great Basin Experimental Range) in

1912 quickly generated a variety of range and watershed research within the Intermountain Region.

Early research at the Great Basin Station dealt with

watershed management, effects of grazing on vegetative cover, and the relationship of these to erosive

flooding from high intensity summer storms (Keck

1972).

Shortly after the project began in 1912, researchers

tried revegetation with shrub plantings. Cuttings of

many adapted shrubs were placed in the heads of

mountain streams with the object of helping revegetate these depleted areas to prevent flooding. A

short time later, shrub cuttings were placed in gullies

and stream channels. Plantings were also made on

depleted intervening ranges.

Research later looked at natural seeding by native

species and artificial seeding with native or introduced species. Permanent quadrats were established

to study the resulting changes in vegetative cover.

Experiments with different species, mostly native

(some exotics), were conducted to determine which

were adapted to areas needing revegetation.

In the 1930s, and broadening in the 1950s, research

was centered on plant species of value to wildlife. Still

ongoing, this research has emphasized species adaptation, methods of seedbed preparation and seedling,

optimum time for planting, and the effect of already

established vegetation on the establishment of seeded

species.

Research has stressed the importance of selected

woody species, in combination with herbaceous species, for range and watershed in the Great Basin. This

was a significant departure from research being conducted on herbaceous species only. Such work was

done from the late 1920s through the mid-1930s on a

seeding within the oakbrush zone (Keck 1972). This

work was initiated because drought and heavy grazing within the oakbrush type had greatly reduced

understory production. To make the oakbrush more

productive, different species and seeding techniques

were tried. The research effort on seeding was expanded across the broad geographic area of the Intermountain region in 1935. The study areas were in all

life zones up to the much higher subalpine zone.

Since the late 1940s, State and Federal agencies and

Western universities have devoted considerable effort

in this area of research. In the latter years, the research has dealt with equipment development from

collecting to planting seed. New areas of research

include selection of races, strains, and varieties of

species with regard to vigor, growth rate, and growth

form; nutritional characteristics; drought tolerance;

cold tolerance; animal preference; adaption; resistance

to heavy repeated use; methods of reducing competition of naturally occurring plants; season to plant and

methods of planting; species mixture compatibility;

seeding rates and planting depths; and the broad

ecological effect of the resulting vegetative changes

(Plummer and others 1968).

Problems with big game ranges, particularly winter

ranges, became important issues during the 1940s

and 1950s. State Game and Fish Departments recognized the unrestricted livestock grazing and wildlife

use had devastated many critically important winter

game ranges. Scientists and research organizations

previously affiliated with range research were solicited for their support. Big game habitat improvement

and plant materials research began in earnest in

Washington (Brown and Martinsen 1959), Idaho

(Holmgren 1954; Holmgren and Basile 1959), California (Horton 1949; Sampson and Jespersen 1963), and

Utah (Plummer and others 1968).

A cooperative effort between the Utah State Division of Fish and Game and the Intermountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station of the USDA Forest

Service began formally in 1955. This enhanced effort

focused on pinyon-juniper woodlands and associated

sagebrush-grass communities in poor condition, where

there were heavy deer losses, especially during the

severe winter of 1948 to 1949. The aim stressed the

urgency of restoring forage production for both wildlife

and livestock and improving soil stability. Species

adaptation trial work has been done at more than

70 sites throughout Utah (including plant communities in the salt desert up to subalpine). Since 1955, the

project has evaluated 39 genera and 244 species of

grasses (2,000 accessions); 207 genera and 527 species

of forbs (1,800 accessions); and 90 genera and 270

species of shrubs (2,000 accessions). To date, this

project has evaluated more than 6,000 accessions of

plants.

As early as 1957, this cooperative project was offering

practical solutions to problems of inadequate production and suitable species to help relieve game range

problems (Plummer and others 1957). Beginning with
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 17

Chapter 3 Research Background

the first initial 1957 report, annual reports were

published through 1967 (Plummer and others 1966a).

The reports were culminated and summarized in a

book, Restoring Big Game Range in Utah, by Plummer

and others (1968). The reports began by identifying

site factors that limited the establishment of some of

the commonly planted species. Researchers studied

species adaptation to help determine desirable forage

plants that could be grown on the various vegetative

communities (emphasis was on pinyon-juniper sites)

throughout Utah. Work has continued on recognizing

suitable sites and determining how to identify potential production on sites. Research has also looked at

viability of native seeds and the environmental conditions favorable to their germination. Germination

requirements were determined for many grasses, forbs,

and shrubs, which helped develop better methods and

equipment for planting these species. Studies determined “onsite requirements” to prepare for seeding

and the basic practical methods for preparing wildland sites and for planting inaccessible areas.

Various equipment development centers and the

Range Seeding Equipment Committee helped develop

research on more effective equipment for collecting,

cleaning, storing, and planting wildland seed. Considerable effort has been put into design, construction,

testing, and field demonstrations. The demonstrations include use of some of the following equipment or

techniques: 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 of

seeds from shrubs, forbs, and grasses), and pipe harrows

(Larson 1982; Roundy and Call 1988; USDA Forest

Service 1992b).

Early efforts dealt with problems associated with

the depredation of seeds by rodents, rabbits, birds,

insects, and other biotic factors. Another major concern was the high population of grazing rabbits consuming mostly succulent forb species (Plummer and

others 1968). These biotic factors do not appear to be

as much a problem for range revegetation work as

they used to be because of the decline in rabbit populations and late fall planting and seeding of larger

areas. However, rodent depredation of shrub seeds

(primarily bitterbrush) is considered as major a problem today as it was in the 1950s (Brown and Martinsen

1959; Everett and Stevens 1981; Holmgren and Basile

1959). Long-range studies were established using

fourway exclosures to help determine compositional

development of seeded and native species after chaining juniper-pinyon woodlands and how protection from

grazing then affected deer, rabbits, and livestock.

Restoring wildlife habitat by artificial seeding of

shrubs and broadleaf herbs has been somewhat hindered because of erratic germination characteristics

of various species, the inability of shrub seedlings to

compete with herbs, and the lack of equipment capable

of operating on steep, mountainous, and undulating

terrain. Considerable progress has been made in

selecting and developing useful shrub and forb species, ecotypes, and cultivars for wildlife and range

seedings (Plummer and others 1968). Official releases

or cultivars come primarily through cooperative efforts of the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station (now called Rocky Mountain Research Station), the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and USDA Natural Resources Conservation

Service (McArthur and others 1985; Monsen and Davis

1985; Stevens and others 1985c; Stutz and Carlson

1985). Today, seed growers know more about seed

production and how to use marginal croplands to

produce quality seed from official releases, or how

cultivars of these selections could become more

widely available in larger quantities and also be less

expensive to use in wildland revegetation work.

Shrub research has been expanded significantly

since 1960 by numerous scientists, agencies, and

universities. But, although we have considerable

information, techniques of shrub plantings and longterm performance of shrub-herb seedings still have

not been thoroughly investigated. Current research is

trying to further refine basic principles and techniques for the conversion and successful establishment of selected species mixtures onto wildlands.

Some of these inquiries seek to understand the

fundamentals of successional trends for these rehabilitated communities and how management can alter

these trends for a longer lasting and productive conversion. Other work looks at species relationships

and how compatible the associations of seeded and

native species are during succession. Researchers seek

alternative methods to enhance critical wildlife habitats without damaging key species or plant associations that are in poor vigor and density because of

competition from unrealistically high densities of undesirable species.

This book is a compilation of research and experience acquired since the conception of the Great Basin

Station. It reflects decades of cooperative work between the Forest Service’s Intermountain Research

Station, the Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources,

and many other agencies and universities. The book is

our gift of knowledge and our wish for a productive

future for our Nation’s rangeland.
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 3 Research Background
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 19

Richard Stevens

4

Chapter

Plummer and others (1968) proposed 10 principles to follow

when planning and implementing rangeland revegetation programs. These principles—or basic considerations for rangeland

managers—are applicable to most sites in the Western United

States (Jordan 1981; Merkel and Herbal 1973), and many projects

in the Intermountain area have been conducted successfully by

following them. This chapter provides a discussion of each principle and refers the reader to the other chapters of this book

where more information may be found. These should be considered general guidelines and may require modification for local or

unusual situations.

Basic Considerations

for Range and

Wildland Revegetation

and Restoration
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration

Ten Principles of Rangeland

Revegetation

Principle 1: The proposed changes to the

plant community must be necessary and

ecologically attainable

See chapters 5, 6, and 7.

The general goal of most revegetation projects is to

change a plant community having undesirable characteristics to one with desirable characteristics. Land

managers must determine whether the proposed

changes are necessary or desirable and ecologically

sustainable (fig. 1). Revegetation normally involves

changes in community composition, plant cover and

density, and reduction in competition from undesirable species. If the results are to be sustainable, sites

targeted for revegetation must have the ecological

potential to support the proposed changes and to

initiate natural successional processes following treatment. The goal of many wildland revegetation projects

is to reestablish native species and restore natural

community functions. However, attempts to completely convert one native plant community to another or to a community of introduced species are

usually not recommended.

Areas that support a satisfactory number of native

species will normally recover with proper management if invasive species are not present. Reduction in

competition is best accomplished by selecting the most

reliable technique that will have the least impact on

existing desirable species. Controlled burning, application of selective herbicides, and various mechanical

techniques can be used to remove or reduce competition and permit recovery of understory species.

Principle 2: The terrain and soil must

support the desired changes

See chapters 6 and 7.

The potential productivity of a site must be considered when planning revegetation projects. The USDA

Natural Resources Conservation Service has completed soil classification surveys and soil descriptions

for most range sites in the Intermountain area. These

descriptions provide information that can be used to

estimate potential productivity of individual sites

and to select appropriate species for seeding them.

Stevens and others (1974) defined various site characteristics that significantly affect productivity of

semiarid juniper-pinyon and sagebrush/grass sites in

Utah. 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 communities must be a key priority for land management

throughout the West. Intact communities should not

be altered or disrupted.

Figure 2—Low elevation and arid sites commonly

occupied by annual weeds are extremely difficult

to revegetate. Remedial treatments are required

to curtail the spread of weeds.

• Occurrence and location of hardpans or restrictive layers in the soil profile.

Within these plant communities are areas having

coarse, rocky, shallow, alkaline, or saline soils. Restoring native vegetation on these sites may be quite risky

and will most likely require considerable investment

that may be difficult to justify. Justifications may

include controlling erosion, stabilizing disturbances,

containing weeds, reducing fire, or providing wildlife

habitat. Extremely large disturbances of such environments occur in the Intermountain region, and most

continue to degrade, usually through weed invasion.

These situations must be addressed, and more reliable

practices must be developed to better assure successful restoration (fig. 2).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 21

Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration

Species presence, age class distribution, and plant

vigor can provide an index of soil types and the productivity and potential of an area to support specific

species and communities. For example, sites with a

predominance of small, but older pinyon or juniper

trees generally have shallow soils. Likewise, relatively low-growing black sagebrush and winterfat occur on specific soil types. The presence or absence of

different species may provide indications of specific

physical or chemical properties of the soil. The presence of certain chenopods, for example, usually indicates basic and heavy soil textures.

In many cases, terrain and surface conditions determine whether a site can be treated and the techniques

and equipment that can be used. Treatment of steep

slopes is usually more costly than level areas, but

successful chaining has taken place on sites with up to

65 percent slopes. Plowing, disking, harrowing, bulldozing, interseeding, transplanting, and other intensive treatments are usually confined to sites with less

than 25 percent slopes.

Principle 3: Precipitation must be

adequate to assure establishment and

survival of indigenous and planted

species

Refer to chapters 6 and 7.

Water is often the most critical factor affecting

seedling survival and plant establishment in semiarid

and arid regions. Generally, revegetation efforts should

not be initiated in areas receiving less than 9 inches

(230 mm) of annual precipitation. Before selecting

species for a revegetation project, annual precipitation and seasonal distribution of precipitation should

be determined (Jordan 1983; Stevens and others 1974).

The most critical periods for soil moisture availability

are those preceding and during germination (Jordan

1983). Consideration of annual moisture availability

on the site must be a major factor in selecting species

for planting. Seedling establishment of some species

may only be successful during years with unusually

high rainfall during the critical periods. Some species

may be slow to establish even though they are common

or dominant species on low precipitation sites.

Principle 4. Competition must be

controlled to ensure that planted species

can 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 reduced in density to allow seedling establishment of the

planted species (fig. 3). Stands of juniper-pinyon,

cheatgrass, medusahead, red brome, cluster tarweed,

and various perennial weeds are some of the competitive species that must be reduced in density to better

assure establishment of seeded species. Methods developed to reduce competition include:

• application of selective herbicides

• anchor chaining or railing

• disking

• undercutting

• plowing and interseeding

• fire

Individual methods usually do not completely eliminate all plants but can sufficiently reduce competition

to allow seeds of the planted species to germinate and

establish. Treatments can often be difficult to select

and implement where retention of existing and desirable species is desired.

Principle 5: Plant and manage site

adapted species, subspecies, and

varieties

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 with

the selection of species that are adapted to the area

proposed for treatment. One must make certain that

Figure 3—Reducing competition from weedy

annuals is essential to increase the probability

that seeded species will establish.
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration

only adapted sources and strains are used. Generally,

seed from populations growing under climatic and

edaphic conditions that are similar to those of the

proposed treatment area are most likely to survive.

Materials selected for planting must be able to establish, persist, and reproduce on the site.

Care must be taken to prevent overseeding species

that may be aggressive and dominate the site. Rapidly

developing species are often included in seed mixtures

to provide ground cover and forage and to modify

microclimates while slower developing species become

established. Management should seek to maximize

establishment of all desired species, whether seeded

or present in the existing vegetation. Seeding the right

combination of plants is critical to the ultimate community diversity that develops over a number of years.

Principle 6: A multispecies seed mixture

should be planted

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.

Many early revegetation projects emphasized the

use of a limited number of species. For most wildland

revegetation projects today, however, there are many

reasons to seed mixtures rather than single species:

• Restoration of native plant communities usually

requires the reintroduction of a variety of species

to provide community structure and function.

• A combination of species is normally required to

initiate natural successional processes.

• A variety of species that are adapted to the

diverse microsites occurring within major

seedings should be seeded.

• Mixtures reverse the loss of plant diversity and

enhance natural recovery processes following

natural impacts from insects, disease organisms,

and adverse climatic events.

• Chances for successful seeding are often improved when mixtures are planted.

• Mixtures can provide improved ground cover and

watershed stability.

• Mixtures produce communities that provide

greater potential for reducing weed invasion and

for providing for a balance in the use of all

resources.

• Combinations of species can provide better quality habitat including cover and seasonal forage.

• Total forage production and seasonal succulence

can be increased with mixtures.

• Mixtures are generally more aesthetically pleasing and match natural conditions.

• Mixtures provide diverse habitats required to

sustain wildlife species.

Seeded mixtures should include the various growth

forms, that is: grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees that

existed prior to disturbance. Seeded and indigenous

species must be compatible and able to establish and

develop together. Successional changes must occur

that will result in the ultimate development of a

desirable plant community.

A few special situations such as providing immediate ground cover to stabilize erosion may occasionally

dictate the seeding of only one or a few species. Because some shrubs establish and grow much slower

than many herbs, planting individual woody species

with plants having similar establishment and growth

characteristics is recommended. Selectively planting

different species in separate rows or spots is sometimes required.

Principle 7: Sufficient seed of acceptable

purity and viability should be planted

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.

It is important to calculate seeding rates carefully.

Planting excessive seed is unnecessarily expensive

and increases competition among seedlings and indigenous species. Low seeding rates, on the other hand,

may jeopardize stand establishment.

It is essential that seeding rates be determined on a

pure live seed (PLS) basis. The number of pure live

seed (PLS) per unit of weight varies greatly among

species and seed lots (fig. 4). If an equal number of live

seeds of alfalfa, antelope bitterbrush, slender wheatgrass, 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 (1.7

kg) of slender wheatgrass for each pound (0.5 kg) of

fairway crested wheatgrass.

Seed must be tested for purity and germination and

properly tagged with the current results to enable the

buyer to calculate seeding rates. A certified seed laboratory should analyze all seed, including wildland

collections. Seed stored for an extended period should

Figure 4—Selecting and properly planting high quality

seed is critical to planting success.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 23

Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration

be retested before seeding. Care should be taken to

ensure that all species can be seeded at the expected

rate with the proposed seeding equipment, and that

the equipment can function properly over the entire

planting site.

Principle 8: Seed must be planted on a

well-prepared seedbed and covered

properly

Refer to chapters 12 and 17.

Proper seed coverage is essential for successful germination and seedling establishment. Depth of planting is generally determined by seed size. However, it

is also influenced by special requirements of individual species. As a general rule, seeds should not be

covered more than three times the thickness of the

cleaned seed. Seed of certain species including

winterfat, rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and asters are best

seeded on a disturbed surface with shallow soil coverage. Indian ricegrass on the other hand, should be

seeded 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.6 cm) deep. Soil type and

surface conditions also influence seeding depth. Most

species benefit from firm seedbeds, but some do well in

loose soils. Heavy soils may crust and prevent emergence. Light textured soils are less likely to crust or

become compact; however, they dry rapidly and, thus,

deeper planting depths are recommended.

Principle 9: Plant during the season that

provides the most favorable conditions

for establishment

Refer to chapters 12, 17, and 18.

Late fall and winter seedings have been most successful in the Intermountain West. Advantages of late

fall and winter seedings include:

• The inherent seed dormancy of many species is

released by overwinter stratification.

• Seeds are in place in early spring when soil

moisture is most likely to be available for germination, seedling emergence, and growth. Early

emerging seedlings are better able to resist high

summer temperatures and drought.

• Seed predation by small mammals and birds is

less likely to occur if seeds are planted when

these animals are less active.

Seeding too early in fall may result in precocious

germination following unseasonably warm periods

coupled with autumn rains. Seed losses to mammals

and birds also can be high during this period.

Transplanting should be completed in early spring

when the soil is wet and before active growth of the

transplant stock or the native vegetation has begun.

Fall transplanting is generally not recommended unless soils are moist and likely will remain moist until

they freeze.

Principle 10: Newly seeded areas must be

managed properly

Refer to chapter 16.

As a general rule, newly seeded areas should not be

grazed for at least two or three growing seasons

following planting. Poor sites and slow-growing species

may require a much longer period of nonuse. When

grazing does occur, it should be carefully regulated.
24 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 4 Basic Considerations for Range and Wildland Revegetation and Restoration
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 25

Stephen B. Monsen

5

Chapter

Introduction _____________________________________

Improvement of vegetative and edaphic conditions on some

wildland sites can be achieved through proper management as

well as by manipulative plantings (Vallentine 1980). Sites that

have 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 improvement program, land managers must first discern the resource

needs and suitability of an area for treatment (Plummer and

others 1968). Then appropriate methods and techniques can be

developed.

Proper management is the key to the improvement or maintenance of acceptable plant cover and soil stability (fig. 1). Successful revegetation may dramatically change plant and watershed conditions. Yet without appropriate management,

improvements can be lost (Vallentine 1980). Following are some

factors that influence decisions on whether to improve sites

Restoration or

Rehabilitation Through

Management or

Artificial Treatments
26 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

through management schemes, artificial measures, or

both. Factors that influence site improvement through

management are discussed first. Factors that are of

special concern when considering restoration or rehabilitation are presented next. Factors that influence

management decisions are also important considerations in developing planting programs.

Management Considerations ______

Status and Condition of Existing

Vegetation

Restoration or rehabilitation projects are not usually contemplated unless the native communities have

been severely disturbed, resulting in adverse watershed conditions and loss of desirable vegetation. If an

Figure 1—(A) A seeded area that has been properly grazed. (B) A poorly managed site where

shrubs are low in vigor and the understory is declining in diversity, density and vigor. Matchbrush and

cheatgrass are increasing on this site.

adequate composition of desirable species that is

capable of recovery and natural spread remains, artificial seeding is unnecessary (fig. 2). If properly managed, plants that have been weakened by excessive

grazing and browsing can normally recover and begin

producing seed within a few years. Plants growing in

arid environments may require longer to recover.

Protected areas in the blackbrush and Indian ricegrass

communities of southern Utah require many years to

recover following heavy grazing. Some disturbed areas within the Wyoming big sagebrush zone in southern Idaho have remained in almost a static condition

for more than 50 years with protection from grazing.

However, considerable improvement resulted following three unusually wet years. Woody species that

exist in mountain brush communities normally have

the capacity to recover and spread quickly when managed correctly. Woody species growing at lower elevations are usually usually exposed to more adverse

climatic conditions and many are less capable of natural spread. Thus, recovery in salt desert shrublands

and low sagebrush foothills is slow.

Many native communities are capable of self regeneration by natural seeding or sprouting. However,

replacing individuals that die naturally is an entirely different situation than repopulating a broad

area where most species have been depleted by grazing.

A disturbed site may still support some species but

not others. This is quite common on most overgrazed

rangelands. The more desirable forage plants are often

lost by selective grazing (fig. 1). Other remaining,

but less desirable species may be capable of recovery,

but the important forage species may not reappear

without some means of artificial seeding. Controlling

Figure 2—Natural recovery of native species

5 years following a prescribed fire in a pinyonjuniper community.

A

B
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 27

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

livestock grazing on important game ranges often

results in an increase in total herbage production.

However, the recovery of important broadleaf herbs

frequently does not occur. Species such as nineleaf

lomatium, sticky geranium, and bramble vetch usually occurring on specific microsites may not dominate

a community, but they are important as seasonal

forage. Unfortunately, these same species are often

eliminated by grazing and do not persist in sufficient

numbers to recover, even when protected for extended

periods. If desirable species are not present, improvement by natural means may be unattainable.

Natural recovery processes must be considered in

predicting secondary successional changes. Although

some desirable species may not be present on a disturbed site, their reentry may depend on factors other

than the adverse effects of grazing. For example,

some shade dependent plants are not able to survive

if overstory species are not present. The shade tolerant

species will not appear until overstory plants have

become established, assuming a viable seedbank

remains.

The recovery capabilities of individual species must

be correctly evaluated to decide on methods of improvement. Plants of big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and sulfur eriogonum spread well from seed,

even under stressful situations. By contrast, few seedlings of Saskatoon serviceberry, skunkbush sumac,

and true mountain mahogany (fig. 3) are encountered

even though abundant seed crops are produced most

years. Some species are site specific, existing as pure

stands but intermixed with other communities. Such

is the case with curlleaf mountain mahogany. If

these stands are eliminated or seriously diminished,

natural recovery is extremely slow (fig. 3). Recovery is

affected by limited seed sources, low plant density,

and poor distribution of parent plants.

Although more time may be required to achieve

natural recovery, this may be the most practical approach. However, land managers must understand

that during the period of recovery the vegetation may

not furnish desired forage and cover. Until a complete

recovery of all species is attained, all resource values

may not be provided.

Status of the Soil Conditions

Soil and watershed conditions are critical resources

that cannot be allowed to deteriorate. If disturbance

has progressed to the extent that soil loss is serious, rehabilitation measures must be implemented

(fig. 4). If adequate protection of the soil and watershed through management is not realized within a

satisfactory period, artificial revegetation measures

will be required.

Figure 3—Exclosure (left) established in the 1930s.

(A) True mountain mahogany extensively used outside (right) and recovering somewhat without use in

the exclosure (left) in 1954. (B) Even with removal of

cattle and significant reduction in deer numbers, the

condition of the true mountain mahogany outside the

exclosure has changed little by 1995. There is little

difference in the curlleaf mountain mahogany inside

or outside the exclosure between 1954 and 1995.

A long recovery can be accepted if the soil and

watershed resources do not deteriorate appreciably

during the initial stages of natural recovery. However,

both the physical and chemical condition of the soil

affect seedling establishment and growth. Soil surfaces must be conducive to seedling establishment if

the vegetation is to recover. An open, but stable,

surface may exist, but surface crusting (Army and

Hudspeth 1959) or freezing may prevent seedling

establishment (Hull 1966). In addition, lowering of the

water table through downcutting of the stream channel can and does influence areas adjacent to the

drainage. Wind erosion and lack of surface organic

A

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

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

matter (Welch and others 1962) are highly detrimental to seedbed conditions. These and other features

must be considered when assessing soil and watershed conditions.

Protecting the soil resource may be necessary before

attempts are made to improve habitat or forage conditions. This has been a major concern in many circumstances, particularly along the Wasatch Front, within

the Idaho Batholith, and in the Colorado River drainage. The vegetation in these areas can often recover

satisfactorily through protection, but eroding areas

may respond more slowly. In addition, the occurrence

of intense summer storms and other climatic events

can be expected and can have devastating and longlasting impacts.

Management Strategy

Wildland sites in good or fair condition are usually

able to recover through natural processes. However,

providing protection from human-induced changes is

often difficult. Big game wintering sites and spring

and fall ranges may constitute small, but important,

portions of a broad geographic area. Attempts to restrict use of the broad area for sufficient time to allow

recovery of these seasonal ranges may not be practical.

In addition, efforts to maintain high populations of

game animals, or continued livestock use on these

broad areas may not be compatible with natural

recovery. A well designed management system to

improve habitat conditions may require a long-term

commitment.

Management strategies must ensure that the following conditions are created: (1) the development of

suitable seedbanks, (2) the creation and protection of

adequate seedbeds, (3) the protection of plants for

sufficient time to provide an acceptable composition of

Figure 4—Soil erosion from an area depleted of

vegetation. Establishment of desired species on

severely eroding and unstable surfaces can be

difficult.

species, and (4) the recovery of all sites, especially the

most critical areas.

Impacts on Other Resources

Few areas can be managed to support one resource,

yet treatment practices are often developed to enhance

a single primary resource. In these cases attention must

be given to the expected impacts on other resources.

For example, the value and impact of management

schemes on wildlife populations must be determined

as these schemes influence recreation, livestock grazing, and other uses. In addition, management strategies that are used to regulate animal distribution,

population numbers, and seasonal use must be developed as part of the rehabilitation program.

The decision to artificially treat an area is normally

based on the value of numerous resources. For example, a site essential in maintaining a viable big game

herd that may also be an important watershed area

might receive treatment priority (fig. 5).

Figure 5—Important watershed and big game

winter range prior to and 6 years following

chaining and seeding.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 29

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

Immense Areas

Wildland ranges include extensive and diverse acreage throughout the Western States (McGinnies 1972),

The enormous size of this area simply precludes comprehensive treatment of all seriously depleted sites.

Many sites support a desirable vegetative cover, and

attempts to convert or replace native communities

should not be made. Some sites support less productive and undesirable weedy species and unsatisfactory

watershed conditions (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984).

However, the cost to of correcting these problems

may not always justify extensive artificial treatments.

Site improvement may be better attained through

careful management.

Numerous sites on steep, inaccessible slopes cannot

be treated with existing equipment. Topographic and

vegetative conditions are usually very diverse within

most areas, and site preparation and planting equipment are not always versatile enough to treat all

circumstances. Consequently, some areas cannot be

properly treated.

Climatic Conditions

Many arid or semiarid wildlands that occupy extensive areas within the Intermountain States cannot be

satisfactorily treated using current revegetation and

restoration measures (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984;

Bleak and others 1965). Arid conditions and irregular

moisture patterns may not be conducive to seedling

establishment. Large acreages are normally treated

and seeded only once. Uniform stands may not develop, yet replanting is costly and impracticable. Bleak

and others (1965) found sites in regions receiving less

than 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of annual precipitation are the most difficult to treat (fig. 6). Recent

studies have identified and developed promising species for semiarid sites (Asay and Knowles 1985a,b;

Rumbaugh and Townsend 1985; Stevens and others

1985c; Stutz and Carlson 1985), however, appropriate

planting techniques for successful planting of these

species may not be available. Many semiarid ranges,

including sites supporting shadscale, winterfat, Nevada

ephedra, and budsage need improvement, but

changes can often be more easily attained through

proper long-term management than through artificial revegetation.

Many species that occupy arid sites are extremely

valuable plants, and should be retained or enhanced.

However, these plants are not easily cultured and are

not well suited to artificial planting. Suitable substitute species that could be used in their place are not

known (Hull 1963b; Plummer 1966). Consequently,

many arid and semiarid sites must be carefully managed to minimize abuse and stimulate natural recovery.

Figure 6—It is difficult to revegetate desert regions

that receive less than 8 to 10 inches of annual

precipitation.

Artificial Revegetation

Considerations _________________

Similar factors must be considered in determining if

management or revegetation should be employed to

improve a wildland disturbance. However, certain

factors must be looked upon quite differently depending on which approach is used. For example, the size

of an area requiring restoration or rehabilitation is a

major factor to be considered. A large area may be

difficult to manage due to differences in topography,

access, or season of use. Consequently, improvements

may not be easily achieved by management. Similarly, the area may be so diverse that artificial revegetation may be difficult to achieve using a single

method or closely related methods of site preparation

and seeding.

Following are some factors to consider in determining the applicability or practicality of artificial revegetation. The list is not considered all-inclusive. Other

issues may also be important, particularly in specific

areas. However, the factors discussed below must be

considered before developing improvement measures.

Site Suitability

Plummer and others (1968) emphasized the importance of correctly discerning the capabilities of a site

prior to treatment. Too often, attempts are made to

convert a vegetative community to a complex of desirable but unadapted species. The site must be capable

of sustaining the selected species. In addition, species

included in the seed mixture must be compatible with

one another and with the existing native species.

Some attempts have been made to improve

shrublands by seeding grasses, or by introducing other
30 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

shrub species. Sites with low precipitation, shallow

soils, or both, that support black sagebrush, bud sagebrush, or shadscale have been plowed and seeded to

introduced grasses. In many cases treatments have

failed and less productive plants have invaded

(Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984). Failure to recognize

the suitability or capability of these sites has resulted

in the loss of the adapted native plants.

Sufficient information is available to determine the

adaptability 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 others

1985; Monsen and Davis 1985; Monsen and Shaw

1983b; Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1983a,

1987a; Stutz and Carlson 1985). Some species are

difficult to establish through artificial seeding, and

the desired complex of adapted species is difficult to

achieve. However, it is not advisable to seed or plant

substitute species that are marginally adapted but

easily established.

A site may be capable of sustaining a complex array

of species. However, initial attempts to reestablish

certain species may be unsuccessful (Jordan 1983).

Soil crusting and high salt content in the soil surface

often limit seedling establishment of species on sites

supporting black greasewood (Naphan 1966; Rollins

and others 1968; Roundy and others 1983). Rodent

foraging seriously limits seedling survival of curlleaf

mountain mahogany (Dealy l978), antelope bitterbrush (Giunta and others 1978), and Martin ceanothus.

Rabbits, livestock, and big game selectively graze

some species, particularly broadleaf herbs, limiting

their survival even when planted under favorable

climatic and soil conditions. Animals tend to concentrate on seeding projects if the adjacent wildlands are

void of an adequate forage cover. Weed infestation

(Eckert and Evans 1967) and slow or erratic seedling

growth (Jordan 1983) of many seeded species often

diminish their success. Artificial plantings or natural

seedings of black chokecherry, Woods rose (Monsen

and Davis 1985), skunkbush sumac, and green ephedra, (Monsen 1975) often are not successful, and attempts to restore large areas from a single planting

cannot always be achieved. These factors significantly

influence site suitability for improvement either by

management or artificial revegetation.

Community development and maturation must also

be considered when designing a revegetation program. Newly developed or introduced plant materials

must be able to establish, and persist and reproduce.

If they are unable to reproduce satisfactorily, stands

ultimately deteriorate. Fourwing saltbush, a highly

productive and palatable forage plant, has been successfully established on sites once dominated by

Wyoming big sagebrush, but it has been short-lived

and unable to reproduce by natural seeding.

Similarly, artificial seedings of antelope bitterbrush

and Stansbury cliffrose have established satisfactorily on cheatgrass ranges if the understory weeds are

reduced at the time of shrub planting. Natural seeding

by either shrub species has not occurred with competition from the understory weeds, and stands have

slowly disappeared.

Various introduced herbs and shrubs perform favorably from initial plantings on wildland sites. However,

some have failed to survive when infrequent insect

outbreaks and other unusual stress events occur.

Similar situations have been encountered when highly

desirable native species, such as blue elderberry, have

been planted on sites where the species normally does

not exist, even when such sites were quite similar to

the origin of collections. Blue elderberry persists when

planted on big sagebrush sites unless a series of

unusually dry years has occurred. Plants then become

weak and disappear. Many years may pass before

drought events cause blue elderberry plants to die.

Some ecotypes of a particular species demonstrate

specific site adaptability; unadapted ecotypes may

then be sorted out quite rapidly (Davis 1983a; McArthur

and others 1983b). Other ecotypes may be equally

sensitive, but climatic or biological events that affect

their survival may not occur frequently. Consequently,

these ecotypes may persist for an extended period

before being eliminated.

Perhaps the most critical issue to be considered in

revegetating semiarid and arid sites is the availability

of soil moisture for seedling establishment (Jordan

1983). Attempting to seed areas that receive erratic

amounts of moisture is extremely hazardous. Seeds of

many species require periods of cold-moist stratification to initiate germination. In addition, developing

seedlings must receive sufficient moisture to assure

establishment. Attempting to plant in areas dominated by weeds, or during periods when soil moisture

is unfavorable for growth, is ill-advised. Seeding species with different germination and growth characteristics can be successful if the moisture requirements of

all species are met (Shaw and Monsen 1983a). Problem sites may be capable of supporting a specific array

of species, but current planting techniques are not

satisfactory for planting many sites. Consequently,

the site must be suitable for: (1) maintaining the

planted species and (2) applying currently available

methods of treatment.

Status of Soil and Watershed Conditions

Sites that have been degraded and subjected to

erosion are normally the most critical areas requiring

artificial restoration. Protection must be provided for

onsite and downstream resources. However, barren

and eroding soil surfaces normally are not satisfactory

seedbeds (fig. 4). Recovery of natural revegetation is
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 31

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

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

often prevented because of unstable surface conditions and a limited soil seedbank. Artificial seeding,

including site preparation, is difficult and costly to

achieve on unstable watersheds. Areas should not be

allowed to deteriorate to the point that rehabilitation

or other costly measures are necessary to reestablish

a plant cover.

Soil conditions must be carefully surveyed to assure

that a satisfactory seedbed can be created. Too often

stands of juniper-pinyon have been allowed to fully

occupy steep hillsides, and woody and herbaceous

understory species have been lost. The change in plant

composition reduces soil protection. Tree competition

must be reduced to allow recovery of the understory

species that have been lost. However, control measures must provide soil protection during the period of

conversion. In addition, soil conditions must be improved to provide a suitable seedbed. Chaining provides soil protection by leaving both trees and litter on

site and a satisfactory seedbed is created. Burning can

be used to reduce tree competition, but this control

measure does not provide adequate soil protection or

create a seedbed.

Problem areas may be ranked depending upon their

values and the severity of the disturbance. The most

critical areas may then be selected for treatment. The

feasibility of treating the candidate sites must be

considered in developing rehabilitation plans.

Status of the Vegetation and Presence of

Weeds

Regardless of the disturbance, provisions must be

made to control existing weeds or prevent their entry

onto prepared seedbeds (Hull and Holmgren 1964).

Complete elimination of all weedy species is not essential to planting success. Weed control is necessary to

ensure seedling establishment; thereafter less desirable plants can be controlled by natural competition

(fig. 7). Control may be necessary to reduce the presence of undesirable weeds or diminish the density and

influence of desirable natives on establishing seedlings (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 dominance and prevent the natural establishment of more

desirable species. The weeds may be annuals such as

cheatgrass and Russian thistle, or perennials including

big sagebrush or Utah juniper. Plant density must be

significantly reduced to ensure establishment of seeded

species. In addition, control measures must be used to

prevent the immediate recurrence of weeds.

Cheatgrass is the most severe weed problem encountered on a wide spectrum of plant types within the

Intermountain Region (Klemmedson and Smith 1964;

Stewart and Hull 1949). Control is not easily achieved,

but unless competition is reduced to a low level, few

seeded species will establish.

Appraisal of Resource Values

Restoration or rehabilitation projects have been

completed on various sites to improve wildlife habitat

or forage production without carefully determining

the best specific locations where these resources are

located. Large acreages are often treated assuming

“the more acres treated, the more habitat or forage

provided.” This assumption is sometimes incorrect.

Chaining and seeding pinyon-juniper sites was done

to improve critical midwinter deer and elk habitat,

even though they were not midwintering areas. The

important midwinter sites may be exposed slopes and

ridgetops that may support a limited number of species (fig. 5). These small confined locations are the ones

that should receive special treatment.

Revegetation projects should be designed to provide

cover, forage, and protection on sites where the greatest

benefit can be derived. It is obvious that treatments

must be done efficiently. Consequently, when chaining or using massive equipment, large acreages can

often be treated cheaply. Large tracts of land can be

treated easier than isolated sites. However, treatments should be designed to accomplish the goals of

the project, and the needs of targeted animals.

Selective Treatment and Impacts on

Associated Areas

Artificial treatments can be designed to restore

critical areas indirectly. Artificial revegetation can

and does benefit both the treated area and adjacent

sites. Consequently, areas having good access and

highly productive soils can often be treated, leaving
32 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 5 Restoration or Rehabilitation Through Management or Artificial Treatments

adjacent sites to recover naturally. However, the untreated sites must be able to recover. Highly palatable

species, or plants that provide seasonal forage, can be

seeded onto specific sites to attract and hold grazing

animals on adjacent areas (Stevens 1987b). Treating

an area of sufficient size is necessary to disperse

animal use and allow the seeded species and untreated areas a chance to develop. Not all untreated

sites respond favorably. Areas that are nearly void of

desirable species or dominated by weedy plants do not

generally respond to a reduction of grazing.

Selective treatment, an important practice, can be

used to promote successional changes, and supplement improved habitat, seasonal availability of herbage, and forage quality (Wight and White 1974). Adding an appropriate shrub or herb to the existing

vegetation can enhance forage resources, restore specific species, and control weeds. Interseeding selected

species into existing stands is an important technique

to improve large areas without excessive costs.

Management and Control

Treated sites must be managed to retain species

composition, plant vigor, and productiveness. Treated

sites may require special protection that cannot be

provided. If this occurs, the value of the project is lost.

Treated areas must be of appropriate size to accommodate seasonal use during the time of plant establishment and over a long-term maintenance period.

Areas must be of sufficient sizes and diversity to

respond to climatic conditions and associated biotic

factors that influence plant succession. Some treated

areas may be heavily grazed to such an extent that

weeds are able to invade during stressful periods. The

treated sites must be able to accommodate all forms

of use, including somewhat abnormal events such as

insect attacks and drought.

Treated sites should be managed or used as initially

intended. Too often areas are seeded or treated to

provide big game habitat, but are then used as grazing

pastures for livestock, despite the fact that the areas

may not be designed to accommodate these high levels

of use. Treated sites regress if not properly managed.

Improper use, particularly during the period of seedling establishment, can eliminate certain species and

decrease the overall success of the project.

Availability of Adapted Plant Materials

Rehabilitating ranges to benefit wildlife usually

requires the inclusion of various native species in the

seeding (Stein and others 1986). Restoration projects

require seeding diverse mixtures of native species.

Seeds of many native species are not always available

and substitute species are frequently planted. The

lack of adapted ecotypes of many species limits many

plantings. The use of introduced grasses has facilitated many rehabilitation projects. However, the more

commonly available grasses and broadleaf herbs do

not satisfy all resource needs. Seed sources must be

developed to assure the use of desirable and adapted

native plants.

Site Improvement Costs

The costs incurred in restoration and rehabilitation

ultimately determine the site treatment and seeding

practices to be employed. However, it is difficult to

determine the value of stable plant communities;

wildlife habitat, including nongame animals; watershed protection; and recreational uses. Benefits cannot

be calculated wholly on the increased production of

forage. All benefits must be considered over the entire

life of the project.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 33

James N. Davis

6

Chapter

Our knowledge of the physical requirements of cultivated

plants is far advanced in contrast to that of the native and

introduced species used in range plantings. Cultivated plants are

usually grown as single varieties of a species under specific

controlled conditions to ensure maximum yields. Native and

introduced range plants often grow in species mixtures on sites

that are more variable than agricultural croplands. Our knowledge of the specific requirements of individual species or varieties

may not always apply with respect to interspecific competition or

to the widely varying wildlands now being reclaimed or rehabilitated. Data obtained by growing native and introduced species in

pure stands are only partially applicable to stand mixtures

because the requirements for a species in a pure stand often

differ from its needs when competing with other plant species.

At present, we understand little of the effects of competition, let

alone the complex interaction of climate, soil, and terrain upon

which our native plant species grow (Hansen and Churchill

1961).

Climate and Terrain
34 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

Any site under consideration for rehabilitation or

restoration will have its own peculiar combination of

environmental conditions that interact to form a distinctive environment, and thus a unique plant community. Ideally, the use and management of any

resource should be based on extensive knowledge and

understanding of that resource and its environment.

Knowledge of the nature of the potential plant community to be rehabilitated (table 1) is a prerequisite to an

evaluation of a site condition (Passey and Hugie 1962a).

Site potential cannot be determined unless one becomes familiar with the complexity of its environmental parameters.

It is not the purpose of this short review to thoroughly detail all the possible responses that plants

exhibit with respect to their environment. Rather, this

review is to help make a person, in a general way, more

Table 1—Climatic zones, showing major vegetational types and average annual

precipitation in inches.

Vegetational zone and Average annual

Climatic zone associated shrubs and herbs precipitation

Inches

Lower Sonoran Southern desert shrub: 10

Blackbrush, creosotebush,

Joshua tree, red brome, galleta grass

Upper Sonoran Juniper and pinyon pine: 13

Green ephedra, big sagebrush,

antelope bitterbrush, bluebunch

wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass

Northern desert shrub: 10

Big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush,

Nevada ephedra, bluebunch wheatgrass,

Indian ricegrass

Salt-desert shrub: 9

Black greasewood, shadscale,

Gardner saltbush, bottlebrush

squirreltail, alkali sacaton

Salt-desert grassland: 9

Inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton,

Nuttall alkaligrass, creeping wildrye

Transition Mountain brush-ponderosa pine: 16

Gambel oak, bigtooth maple,

black chokecherry, serviceberry

Canadian Aspen-fir (canopy and opening): 25

Mountain snowberry, slender wheatgrass,

mountain brome, sticky geranium

Hudsonian Subalpine herbland or spruce-fir: 34

Red elderberry, western yarrow,

letterman needlegrass, mountain brome

Alpine Alpine herbland (above timberline): 40

Cushion eriogonum, Scribner wheatgrass,

red elderberry

familiar with how complex environmental factors can

become and what their possible effects on a plant can

be. Billings (1952) felt that the complexity of the interrelationships between the plant and its environment

and between the various factors of the environment in

themselves was almost enough to discourage any attempt at a complete analysis and understanding. To

make it even more complex, there is, in many cases, an

apparent compensation of one environmental factor for

another. This will often occur near the boundaries of a

species’ range where it allows individuals of a species to

occur in areas that do not appear to be normal habitat

(Billings 1952). Since the environmental complex is so

complicated, it has been customary to break up the

environment into arbitrary factors and then study the

effect of each factor on the seeded and endemic species.

This approach is being used in my analysis herein.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 35

Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

Climate ________________________

Basically, climatic zones were first identified from

studies of the distribution of vegetation. Various climatic values were then selected from within these

vegetative types to determine if there were significant

relationships between any of these climatic values

and the represented plant community (Thornthwaite

1948). Daubenmire (1956) reviewed four of the most

popular climatic classification schemes (and as proposed by Thornthwaite [1931, 1948]) and concluded

that none of the four classifications proved adequate

to define what appeared to be climatically determined

vegetation zones located in eastern Washington and

northern Idaho. He found that each vegetative type

(or climatic zone) differed from its neighbors in the

degree of summer drought, except at the wet end of

the climatic gradient where lower summer temperatures became more influential. Therefore, it is generally thought that, within climatic regions or zones,

quantity and seasonal availability of soil moisture,

especially in the summer, are major limiting factors

for the geographic distribution of plant species

(Blaisdell 1958; Daubenmire 1974; Hansen and

Churchill 1961; Krebs 1972; Oosting 1956). Soil moisture availability for plant growth is modified by changes

in elevation, latitude, slope, or soil type. Thus, certain

vegetational zones occur at higher elevations on south

slopes or lower elevations on north slopes. These

vegetational zones also have higher elevational limits

on smaller mountains because they tend to intercept

less moisture than the larger mountain masses (West

and others 1975). Most dry or desert environments

share two characteristics with regard to precipitation:

it usually falls in one or two short seasons, and the

amount received is unpredictable from year to year

(Solbrig and Orians 1977).

Temperature

Temperature is one of the major factors limiting

the distribution of plants (Krebs 1972). Mean annual

temperatures are almost useless for ecological interpretations, for they do not indicate seasonal variation

and duration. It has been shown that mean maximum

and minimum values best describe the effects of temperature on plants (Oosting 1956). Temperature effects are modified by complex interactions among

elevation, slope, position on the slope, aspect, and precipitation. Plant injuries from temperature changes

are most often the result of freezing. Some species of

browse seedlings are especially susceptible to frost

damage. For example, this should be of concern if

bitterbrush is to be planted and late frosts are common

to the area being planted. Temperature variation

(extremes) also greatly influence which species can

best survive on a given site. For example, on some

dry desert ranges, soil surface temperatures during

the summer can range from 140 ∞F (60 ∞C) in the day

to 40 ∞F (4.4 ∞C) at night. We have found that plant

selections can be more easily moved from cool to warm

environments than from warm to cool environments.

To further illustrate the important effect that temperature has on some groups of plants, Hartley (1950)

analyzed the distribution of the grasses of the world

and concluded that temperature was much more important than rainfall in limiting species distribution.

He also suggested that winter temperatures were

especially critical.

Precipitation

Water alone, or in association with temperature,

is probably the most important physical factor affecting the distribution of plants and plant communities

(Krebs 1972) (table 1). Differences in rainfall patterns,

whether in seasonal distribution or annual total, are

reflected by differences in the naturally occurring

plant populations (Daubenmire 1956). The season of

precipitation, and the form in which precipitation is

received, are important characteristics to consider

when planning a wildland restoration or rehabilitation project. The vegetation in areas having significantly different precipitation patterns can be expected

to have only a few species in common (Daubenmire

1974; Weaver and Clements 1938). In the Intermountain Region, many areas receive most of the annual

precipitation as snow during the winter. Other areas

receive the bulk of their moisture as rain in the warm

season. In still other areas, precipitation is evenly

distributed between these two periods. Plants selected

for seeding should have a life cycle compatible with

the precipitation pattern of the planting area. Most

of the annual precipitation in cold deserts is received

when temperatures are too cold to permit growth

(Fetcher and Trlica 1980). Therefore, winter precipitation is believed to be most important for plant growth

the following year (Wein and West 1971). There,

adapted species must be able to complete their life

cycle before the winter moisture is depleted or enter

into a dormant state that is tolerant of severe drought.

Stevens and others (1974) have shown that May precipitation has a greater significant effect on forage

production than does precipitation in any other

months. When most of the precipitation comes during

the spring and summer, evaporative losses can be

larger. If the precipitation arrives in light, scattered

storms, little may remain available for plant growth.

When rain falls in high intensity downpours, heavy

runoff may result and leave little to wet the soil

(Weaver and Clements 1938).

Many researchers have shown that the amount of

precipitation has a direct effect on plant production

regardless of whether the community is dominated
36 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

by grasses, forbs, shrubs, or complex mixtures of

these life forms (Blaisdell 1958; Currie and Peterson

1966; Jordan 1983; Kindschy 1982; Martin and Cable

1974; Sneva 1977; Stevens and others 1974; Wein and

West 1971). Annual herbage production in arid rangelands can vary by several hundred percent as a result

of variation in precipitation (Hannay and Lacy 1931).

An introduced species that is long-lived and easy to

establish may not have a problem matching its life

cycle to the season in which precipitation is received.

Plummer and others (1968) determined that the average annual precipitation must be at least 9 inches

(228 mm) before artificial seedings can be expected to

be successful.

Soils __________________________

Under a given climatic regime, edaphic factors can

strongly influence the kind and amount of vegetation

produced (Gates and others 1956; Martin and Cable

1974; Passey and Hugie 1962a). To illustrate the

importance of soil in plant development, a series of

plants were moved to common gardens, where individuals of several species were grown on each soil type.

It was determined that the differences in soil could

affect plants in the following ways: germination success; growth, size; erectness of plants; plant vigor;

stem woodiness; root depth; amount of pubescence;

susceptibility to drought, frost and parasites; number

of flowers; and date of flower appearance (MarsdenJones and Turrill 1945). One could consult other

literature and probably extend the list indefinitely.

The concept to emphasize is that soil conditions can

and 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). Wagle

and Vlamis (1961) found that because bitterbrush

was able to fix nitrogen, soils low in nitrogen did not

appear to impair that plant’s performance, but soils

low in phosphorus and sulfur did. Therefore, properly

inoculated species capable of fixing nitrogen should

not need N-fertilizer in soils deficient in nitrogen.

Such species could also be of benefit to associated

species that do not fix nitrogen. Mineral uptake can be

expected to be affected not only by the chemical nature

of the soil, but by temperature, soil moisture, light,

and soil texture as well (Ames and Kitsuta 1933).

Under conditions of similar management and precipitation, fine textured soils characteristically support more perennial grasses and fewer shrubs than

do coarse soils (Martin and Cable 1974). Wyckoff

(1973) found that the primary factor limiting plant

species diversity in a desert grassland appeared to be

soil texture. He said the loamy soils consistently

supported more species than adjacent sandy soils

because of the probable increase in microenvironment

diversity 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 of

branching of roots (Weaver 1919).

With regard to soil texture and related soil moisture

availability for plant growth, sandy soils have the

most favorable regime in arid regions. For a given

amount of added free water, they are wetted more

deeply, release more of the absorbed water to plant

roots, lose less moisture to evaporation, and have less

surface runoff. Therefore, 80 percent of moisture infiltrating sand is available for transpiration of plants

(Daubenmire 1974).

High amounts of soluble salt in the soil reduce water

uptake and may inhibit uptake of magnesium (Mg),

potassium (K), and phosphorus (P). Nitrogen deficiency

symptoms may also appear (Kleinkopf and others

1975). Gates and others (1956) found that the major

significant difference between some Great Basin plant

community types was the amount of salt in the soil.

Plummer and others (1968) determined that soils with

more than 1 percent soluble salts are usually not

suitable for revegetation efforts.

The effective depth of the soil may be shallow, or

somewhat restricted by the presence of a hardpan.

Hardpan can form from clay, calcium carbonate, calcium sulfate, oxides of iron, aluminum, or silicon.

Hardpans are common in soils of the drier areas of

the Intermountain area (Daubenmire 1974). Because

hardpans are essentially impervious to roots, they

often determine the effective soil depth and types of

plants that grow in a particular habitat. The growth

rate of trees tend to vary directly with the depth of

loose 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 each

1,000 ft (305 m) rise in elevation (Oosting 1956).

Elevation also has a direct effect on precipitation

received. Lull and Ellison (1950) determined that in

central Utah, one should expect to receive an additional nearly 5 inches (127 mm) of precipitation for

each 1,000 ft (305 m) rise in elevation.

When precipitation is received, slope, smoothness

of slope, position on slope, vegetation, and soils interact to control the amount of runoff and water infiltration, which in turn affect plant growth and survival.

Slope aspect and steepness also affect solar radiation

received and thus the temperature at and near the

ground surface (Farnes and Romme 1993).

Slope and exposure also influence amount and type

of soil accumulated. Southern slopes usually have

coarser soils with lower water-holding capacity than
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 37

Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

the finer textured northern slope soils (Krebs 1972).

For example, in two or more areas, essentially the

same in soil, cover, and precipitation, differences in

soil water content were directly determined by differences in slope (Krebs 1972; Oosting 1956). Consequently, topography affects vegetation indirectly by

modifying other factors of the environment (Oosting

1956). Different combinations of slope and exposure

have great effects on the temperature of arid soils.

The mountains will modify precipitation patterns,

airflow, and wind exposure. Local topography, with its

different slopes, bluffs, ridges (with different exposures), lowland drainage lines, and depressions produce different combinations of light, temperature, and

moisture that combine to produce local divergence of

plant life forms and species in the Intermountain

West.

Most wildland rehabilitation or improvement

projects have been undertaken on fairly flat terrain,

or on slopes of less than 30 percent. In recent years,

steeper, rocky slopes are being rehabilitated. Topographic variation complicates the formulation of

seeding mixtures and the prediction of composition of

the new plant cover.

Discussion _____________________

Many researchers have concluded that plant distribution is primarily controlled by varying combinations of climatic factors and secondarily by edaphic

factors (Billings 1951; Gates and others 1956; Mason

1936; Shantz 1938). Mason’s (1936) conclusion that

single factors or combinations of several factors could

restrict the range of a species must be considered by

revegetation scientists.

The effects of habitat on the plant, and of the plant

on the habitat, are mutually complementary and

often very complex (Weaver and Clements 1938). A

plant is at once affected by the amount of heat, light,

moisture, and nutrients available to it. Its life processes must go on under numerous and fluctuating

variations in the environment. Plants selected for

revegetation must be adapted to an ever-changing,

wide range of environmental conditions. Because

numerous factors operate on an organism simultaneously, each life function is a multiconditional process (Daubenmire 1974). With identical combinations

of environmental conditions repeated only at rare

and irregular intervals (Livingston 1934), a plant

must have broad tolerance limits to be consistently

competitive. The intensity of most environmental factors varies with the hour, day, and season; the rate of

change, duration, and intensity of extreme values are

all ecologically important aspects of the environment.

Competition undoubtedly is greatest between seedlings because of the restricted environment near the

soil surface. Seedlings are especially vulnerable to the

vagaries of environment. This is why many wildland

plants have evolved the characteristic of seed dormancy. Successful growth of container grown plants is

not a safe guide to success of seeding of these species

on the same site.

Normally, successful plant establishment in an area

depends on recognition of factors (climate, soil, and

terrain) critical for seedling establishment. Proper

composition of the species mixture sown will also

affect the success of revegetation at any site.

How can one determine if the environmental conditions are adequate for the species in question? With

an increase in altitude, there is an increase in precipitation and a decrease in temperature that is reflected

in the natural altitudinal zonation of native vegetation. There are also zones of vegetation that reflect

differential response to increasing concentrations of

soil salts as one goes from higher to lower elevations.

These two factors interact (elevation and salinity) and

generally parallel each other as one descends into any

one of the many closed basins within the Great Basin.

Branson and others (1967) also noted that in addition

to increased aridity and salinity with the descent into

each basin, soil-particle sizes tend to become smaller

as one approaches the playas. Fine textured soil can be

expected to produce more severe soil moisture stresses

(Branson and others 1967, 1976).

It is generally understood and has been demonstrated (Billings 1949; Fautin 1946) that shadscale is

usually indicative of climatically dry, as well as physiologically dry soils. Billings (1949) showed the relationship between the presence of big sagebrush and

higher available soil moisture. His data indicated that

from central Nevada to eastern California, the mean

annual precipitation for the shadscale zone was only

about 5 inches (127 mm), while the mean annual

precipitation for the sagebrush zones in northern and

western 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 determine

whether a site may warrant rehabilitation efforts?

First, and most important, the amount and timing of

precipitation in association with the occurrence of

indicator species are important guides to species that

may be successfully planted.

The presence of juniper and pinyon indicates the

availability of adequate moisture for most of the

commonly seeded species. Juniper-pinyon woodland

normally occurs from 4,500 to 5,000 ft (1,400 to

1,500 m) to 7,000 to 7,500 ft (2,100 to 2,300 m) elevation (Springfield 1976; Woodbury 1947). The extreme
38 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 6 Climate and Terrain

range can be as low as 2,500 to 3,200 ft (760 to 980 m)

(Franklin and Dyrness 1969; Johnsen 1962; Woodbury

1947), 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 below

the pinyon component (Lanner 1975). The lower elevational limits appear about where the precipitation

reaches the 10 inch (254 mm) point (Woodbury 1947).

Generally, the annual precipitation is about 12 to

13 inches (305 to 330 mm) (Phillips 1977; Plummer

and others 1968). The annual mean can range from

about 8 to 10 inches (203 to 254 mm) (Dealy and others

1978; Phillips 1977; West and others 1975) to 20

inches (518 mm) (Dealy and others 1978; West and

others 1975). The best developed woodlands occurs

between 12 and 18 inches (305 to 457 mm) of precipitation (West and others 1975). Sagebrush not only

occurs at elevations that juniper-pinyon occurs, but

usually at higher and lower elevations beyond its

normal limits (Woodbury 1947).

As the relative importance of pinyon increases, precipitation can usually be assumed to increase. Conversely, as the importance of pinyon decreases on

undisturbed sites, the amount of precipitation can also

be assumed to decrease.

The presence of appreciable numbers of shrubs

that normally occur in the mountain brush zone (this

could include Gambel oak, true mountain mahogany,

and mountain snowberry) usually indicates favorable

moisture conditions for most seeded species. Above or

within the mountain brush zone, moisture is not

usually a problem. At higher elevations the primary

problem is selection of species tolerant of the cooler

temperatures.

As one approaches the lower bounds of the juniper

woodland association, potential available moisture

can be predicted from the associated subspecies of big

sagebrush. Winward (1983) showed that the subspecies of big sagebrush can be used to indicate the degree

of droughtiness of a site. Wyoming big sagebrush is

the most xeric of the group, followed by basin big

sagebrush, and then mountain big sagebrush. The

presence of Wyoming big sagebrush also indicates

that the soils are relatively shallow and well drained

with conditions that are generally warmer than those

experienced by the other two subspecies. When black

sagebrush and Wyoming big sagebrush are found in

the same area, it indicates a more shallow or restricted

soil than would normally occur in the Wyoming big

sagebrush type only (Hironaka and others 1983). Basin

big sagebrush generally grows on deeper soils that

are well drained. If it is found growing adjacent to

stands of Wyoming big sagebrush, it will occupy the

more mesic sites. Mountain big sagebrush is found

throughout the upper foothill and mountain areas.

Some populations will grow on the lower foothill and

bench areas where soil moisture is available for most

of the summer. It is not uncommon to find 40 or more

plant species associated with mountain big sagebrush.

Where sagebrush is displaced by dwarfed salt-desert

shrubs, either shadscale or Gardner saltbush, the site

will probably be too dry to justify rehabilitation measures. Where available moisture is near the minimum

limit, species that can be seeded successfully are limited. At such sites, one should be cautious with selections

of species, site preparation, and seeding equipment.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 39

Arthur R. Tiedemann

Carlos F. Lopez

7

Chapter

Soil factors are an important consideration for successful

wildland range development or improvement programs. Even

though many soil improvement and amelioration practices are

not realistic for wildlands, their evaluation is an important step

in selection of adapted plant materials for revegetation. This

chapter presents information for wildland managers on: the

importance of soils physical, chemical, and nutrient considerations in wildland restoration and rehabilitation; the basis for

evaluating wildland soil suitability for plant growth; effects of

management activities on soil factors; assessment of soil nutrient deficiencies in terms of plant needs; development of a fertilizer prescription; and principles of fertilization of wildlands.

Assessing Soil

Factors in Wildland

Improvement

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

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

The Need for Soil Improvement and

Nutrient Amelioration ____________

The Resources Planning Act document (USDA

1980a) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act

(U.S. Laws and Statutes 1978) indicate that public

rangelands are producing less than their potential

and many are in unsatisfactory condition. These conditions pose a risk of soil loss, desertification, and

lowered productivity for large areas. Both the Resources Planning Act and Public Rangelands Improvement Act stress the need to correct the unsatisfactory

rangeland conditions through intensified management and improvement techniques. Accomplishing

the goals set forth in Resources Planning Act (USDA

1980a) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act

(U.S. Laws and Statutes 1978) will require rehabilitation of depleted wildlands and perhaps the development of marginally productive wildlands.

Intermountain wildlands—in particular rangelands—are no exception to the conclusions drawn by

these two laws regarding lands producing below

their potential. Managing for improvement of Intermountain wildlands, to date, has stressed: livestock

grazing strategies, manipulation or elimination of

shrubby species of vegetation to improve range productivity and wildlife habitat, and restoration of

watershed stability. Management of soil factors that

limit plant establishment and productivity has received little attention. Soil management has been

limited because of possible negative cost-benefit ratios.

Wildland soils, especially those where water is the

main limiting factor are not usually cultivated,

amended by fertilization, or treated to improve their

physical or chemical condition. Except for stabilization of human-degraded sites such as surface mined

areas, or areas where downstream values are threatened, soil management on unstable areas of inherent

low productivity has not been warranted because of

excessive costs.

Rehabilitation of sites impacted by surface mining

and the resultant spoils has required techniques such

as topsoil replacement, terracing, liming, organic soil

amendments, irrigation, and transplanting mature

plants with specialized equipment. Another problem

in the application of soil management technology to

wildlands has been the fact that most of the information has been developed for the more fertile, productive, arable lands.

Basic Factors Influencing Soil

Fertility, Productivity, and

Reclamation 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 formation as well as the history of land use (Klemmedson

and Tiedemann 1995a). Suitability of the soil for

plant growth is determined by those qualities and

properties of the natural soil that physically, chemically, and biologically provide the necessary water

and nutrients for growth and development of plants.

Assessment of the soil’s physical state will determine

if the soil is suitable for improvement efforts. On

eroded lands, for example, the loss of considerable

quantities of soluble organic and mineral matter and

nutrients accompanies the removal of surface soil

layers (Klemmedson and Tiedemann 1995a). In addition to a loss of nutrient capital, removal of the more

fertile surface soil layer may expose subsurface soils

having abnormal pH (high or low) that can adversely

affect nutrient availability.

Erosion also causes changes in productivity that

may be difficult to compensate by additional fertilizer

application. Such changes are caused by decreased

water infiltration, decreased water-holding capacity

of the soil, a less favorable root environment, and

changes in soil temperature due to a difference in

albedo and other factors. The quantitative effects of

such changes are not well known (Flach and Johannsen

1981). Thus, assessment of soil factors will determine

whether or not improvement would be beneficial or

even feasible.

Soil physical properties are related to depth, texture, structure, bulk density, permeability to water,

capacity to hold water, and depth to limiting layers.

Slope, although not a soil physical factor, is an important consideration in determining the suitability of a

site for revegetation and its productivity potential.

Chemical characteristics exert physiological stresses

on plants through their effects on plant water relations, nutrient availability and uptake, and toxicity

effects related to excess concentrations of certain chemical elements. Chemical characteristics that can be

used to determine soil suitability include pH, salinity,

and exchangeable sodium percentage. Concentrations

of total and available essential plant nutrients in the

soil are also an important determinant of soil fertility.

Measuring as many of these factors as possible will

assist the land manager in determining wildland soil

productivity potential and will provide the means to

assess possible success or failure of proposed management or improvement efforts. Although a site may

grade as “high” in all categories except one, positive

results will not necessarily be realized. In fact, the

one factor graded as “low” such as exchangeable

sodium percentage or acidity might very well impede

or prohibit all efforts to improve or rehabilitate a

particular site.

In situations where rehabilitation is mandated, as in

fire- or flood-ravaged watersheds, mined areas, or other

massive disturbances, table 1 defines soil chemical

and physical factors that must be considered if revegetation is to be successful. It will become apparent to
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 41

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

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

Level of suitability

Soil Low

property (essentially

or 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 Handbooks

2209.21 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.
42 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

the reader that many of the soil characteristics are not

feasible or practical to amend on wildlands despite the

fact that reclamation technology may be presently in

use in arable cropland settings.

Seeding or planting adapted species will be the

primary feasible means for restoring vegetation, and

hence soil stability, to most wildland sites. Despite our

inability to alter some of the soil or site conditions,

awareness and characterization of soil and site factors

is one of the first steps in selecting adapted species.

The importance of each of the various properties

that can be used to determine soil suitability (table 1)

are discussed.

Soil Texture

The percentages of sand, silt, and clay determine

the texture of the soil. Particle size and the percentage

composition affect the packing arrangement and the

amount of actual surface area per given unit volume of

soil (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979; Millar and others

1958). The amount of surface area varies inversely

with the size of soil particles.

Because most of the important chemical reactions in

soils take place at the surface of the soil particles

(Jenny 1980), the amount of surface area per unit

volume of soil is important in determining the interaction between plant roots and soils. The surface to

volume ratio increases with decreasing particle size

(Fairbridge and Finkl 1979; Millar and others 1958).

Texture also controls the rate at which water moves

into the soil and the amount of water that can be

stored in a given thickness of soil for plants to use.

Clay provides the highest surface area, but if clay

content is great enough to restrict air and water

movement, these critical variables may limit productivity. Soils in the pure sand range have high rates of

water infiltration but are low in productivity because

they do not retain water or nutrients. The ideal substrate is texturally balanced soil in the loam range.

Loam allows for a volume composition which leads to

adequate surface area for nutrient exchange sites

without compromising air and water space.

Texture can be measured qualitatively in the field

by feeling slightly moistened soil. With training, an

individual can learn to distinguish the major textural

grades by this method. However, the most accurate

procedure is to measure texture in the laboratory.

For appropriate laboratory methodology, the reader

is referred to Methods of Soil Analysis (Black and

others 1965a,b).

Soil Structure

Soil structure refers to the “aggregation of primary soil particles (sand, silt, clay) into compound

particles, or clusters of primary particles which are

separated from adjoining aggregates by surfaces of

weakness” (Millar and others 1965). The grouping or

arrangement of particles exerts considerable influence on overall soil productivity through effects on

water movement, heat transfer, aeration, bulk density, and porosity.

Variations in soil structure are: granular, crumb,

platy, blocky, prismatic, and columnar, with a range

of intergrades (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Structureless soils are either massive or single-grained.

Massive soils are more or less compacted, restricting

air or water movement. Single-grained soils, are generally excessively drained and low in nutrients. Soils

with weak structure are susceptible to raindrop action and are potentially more erosive than soils with

good aggregation.

Management considers structure to be one of the

most sensitive of the soil characteristics. Machinery

and grazing animals both have the potential to adversely affect the structure of the soil (Fairbridge and

Finkl 1979; Gifford and Hawkins 1978; Soane and

others 1981). In the case of soils high in clay, operating

heavy machinery or livestock trampling may puddle

the soil. When puddled soil dries, it may become

impermeable to moisture, resulting in increased erosion potential and reduced availability of moisture to

plants. Destroying structure of coarser soil materials

also leads to increased erosion potential.

When prescribed fire is used as a management tool

to eliminate residues, reduce competition, or eliminate unwanted vegetation, structure of the soil can

be affected if the heat of the fire is great enough to

remove litter and duff and expose the mineral soil to

puddling and baking of the surface (Wells and others

1979). Prior to initiation of prescribed burning, it

would be wise to conduct at least a field evaluation

of the soil to determine if it may be susceptible to

adverse changes in structure by fire management.

When structure is adversely affected by management, there are generally no economically feasible

techniques for correcting the damage except elimination of the cause of the damage and allowing time

for restoration of structure. Establishing vegetation

on denuded sites will aid in restoration of structure

(Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Soil structure problems

on small areas may be amenable to organic matter

amendments to improve structure (Fairbridge and

Finkl 1979).

Structure can be determined by trained personnel in

the field where the overall characteristics of arrangement and aggregation of the soil separates in a profile

can be assessed. But the most accurate assessment

is by laboratory analysis.

Bulk Density (Volume Weight)

An important land management concern is the possibility of reduced vegetation productivity due to soil

compaction (increased bulk density) by recreational
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 43

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

vehicles, machinery, and livestock. Studies have

shown the detrimental effects of soil compaction on

the establishment and growth of range plants

(Adams and others 1982; Lull 1959; Wilshire and

others 1978). Bulk density of fine textured soils under

heavy grazing use in Northeastern Colorado was

1.52 g/cm3 compared to 1.34 g/cm3 under light grazing

(Van Haveren 1983). On coarse-textured soils, there

was no difference between light and heavy grazing.

Willatt and Pullar (1984) observed a direct relationship between stocking rate and bulk density.

Effects of soil compaction on plant growth are due

to a complex interaction between many soil and plant

properties, but for many situations there seems to

be an upper limit or threshold bulk density value at

which resistance to root penetration is so high that

root growth is essentially stopped (O’Connell 1975).

Restricted root penetration and elongation also reduces the volume of soil that can be exploited by a

plant for essential nutrients and water, thereby

causing a reduction in total growth. The established

limits (table 1) are averages for intermediate textural

grades (Daddow and Warrington 1983; Russel 1973).

Bulk density threshold limits have been established

for the various textural grades. The reclamation specialist is referred to Daddow and Warrington (1983)

for limits based on specific soil textures.

Bulk density is easily measured in the field by

trained personnel. See Black and others (1965a) for

methodology. Laboratory procedures also determine

bulk density.

Permeability

Permeability expresses the rate at which water is

transmitted through the soil (Fairbridge and Finkl

1979). In the absence of precise values, soils may be

placed into relative permeability classes through

studies of bulk density, structure, texture, porosity,

cracking, and other characteristics of the horizons in

the soil profile in relation to local use experience. Soils

with excessively high (>15 cm/hr) or low (<0.5 cm/hr)

permeability are low in productive potential. High

permeability soils have low water and nutrient retention capacity. In soils with low permeability, water has

limited opportunity to enter the soil and the potential

for surface runoff and erosion could be increased.

Operation of machinery and trampling by livestock

have the potential to reduce permeability through

their effects on soil structure and bulk density (Gifford

and Hawkins 1978; Soane and others 1981). A review

by Gifford and Hawkins (1978) indicates that grazing in some situations causes a marked reduction in

infiltration rates of soils. Fire, in addition to altering

soil structure, may result in the formation of water

repellent layers that reduce infiltration and result in

increased surface runoff (Tiedemann and others 1979;

Wells and others 1979). In addition to increased erosion, reduced infiltration means less water available

for plant growth. Prior to the use of prescribed fire,

the potential for development of water repellency

and other soil permeability problems should be evaluated. This would necessitate determining the soil

texture to detect soils high in clay where soil sealing

and puddling problems may arise from elimination of

the litter and duff layers.

Permeability can be increased by mechanical treatments such as contour furrowing, terracing, pitting,

and water spreading (Vallentine 1971). Specialized

machinery such as the rangeland imprinter (Dixon

and Simanton 1977) has also been used to promote

increased water infiltration.

Permeability is best measured in the field with

infiltrometers. Infiltrometers are generally of two types:

double ring and rainfall simulators (Wisler and Brater

1959). The double ring infiltrometer is the easiest to

set up, use, and interpret.

Available Water-Holding Capacity

Available water is the portion of stored soil water

that can be absorbed by plant roots to sustain life. It

is that portion of the water that remains in soil after

excess water has drained away and the rate of downward movement has decreased materially (Veihmeyer

and Hendrickson 1950). Available water-holding capacity depends on bulk density, soil texture, and

coarse fragment content (Broadfoot and Burke 1958).

See tables in Broadfoot and Burke for specific information on available water-holding capacity with soils

of differing texture, bulk density, and percent coarse

fragments. Soils in low and moderate ranges are

inhibited from being highly productive simply because

of their inability to store water and retain nutrients for

plant use. Low water-holding capacity would be particularly restrictive to plant productivity in low to

moderate precipitation zones or zones with irregular

precipitation, especially when dry periods are long

and unpredictable in their occurrence. This is the case

in many areas throughout the Intermountain West.

Through effects on permeability, any management

practice that results in reduced infiltration will cause

an increase in surface runoff with the end result of

reduced soil water storage.

The determination of available water-holding capacity is a laboratory procedure requiring specialized

equipment.

Coarse Fragment Content

Coarse rock and gravel in soils include fragments

greater than 2 mm in diameter. The size and amounts

of coarse fragments in the soil influence nutrient

storage capacity, root growth, moisture storage, water
44 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

infiltration, and runoff, primarily through their dilution of the mass of active soil. The basis for the

arbitrary limits (sizes and percentages) have been

determined, taking into consideration interference

with agricultural machinery (table 1). Thus, limits

may not be as restrictive for seeding methods used to

reclaim some rocky or stony wildlands.

Coarse fragments are easily measured using sieving

screens of known dimensions.

Depth to Limiting Layer

The depth of soil available for root development

will have considerable influence on the forms and

types of plants that can inhabit a site (Jenny 1980;

Kramer 1969). Shallow soils with restrictive layers

near the surface generally can support only droughttolerant or drought-avoiding plants that normally

have shallow roots. A depth restriction may be bedrock, a hardpan or caliche layer, a high water table, a

marked textural change (such as loam over gravel), or

soil horizons having a limiting effect due to high bulk

density or toxicity, such as high salinity.

Physical barriers such as carbonate layers (caliche)

that develop in arid regions, and clay layers, can be

broken up by ripping or deep chiseling (Vallentine

1971).

Slope

Slope is an important variable in the ability of a

site to absorb and retain moisture. It follows that slope

is a major determinant of the erosivity of a site—as

slope increases, erosion potential increases. Also, as

slope increases, the ease with which vegetation is

established diminishes.

Slope steepness aggravates effects of management on soil characteristics. Changes in protective

soil cover, structure, permeability, and bulk density

that would not cause increased surface runoff and

erosion on gentle slopes (<10 percent) could pose a

serious threat to soil stability as slopes approach 30

percent. Effects of fire on physical soil characteristics

and erosion are also amplified by increasing slope

steepness (Tiedemann and others 1979; Wells and

others 1979; Wright and Bailey 1982).

Organic Matter

All materials of vegetable and animal origin formed

in or added to soil are collectively referred to as

organic matter (Fairbridge and Finkl 1979). Most of

the organic matter added to soils originates from dead

plant parts in the form of litter on the surface and

decomposition of roots below the surface (Fairbridge

and Finkl 1979). Cultivated soils contain only 1 to

5 percent organic matter and Intermountain Great

Basin semi-arid wildland soils would generally contain less than 3 percent (Foth 1978; Hagin and Tucker

1982). However, the small amount present can modify

the soil’s physical properties and can strongly affect

its chemical and biological properties.

Organic matter is responsible for desirable soil

structure. It increases soil porosity, improves water

and air relations, and reduces erosion by wind and

water. Chemically, organic matter is the soil storehouse and cycling center of most of the nitrogen (N),

5 to 60 percent of the phosphorus (P), and up to 90

percent of the sulfur (S) (Kowalenko 1978). Availability of nutrients, of course, depends on the rate at

which organic matter is decomposed and incorporated

into mineral soil. Also of importance is the capacity of

organic matter to hold nutrient elements such as

potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg),

similar to the way that clays hold these elements in

base exchange equilibria (Brady 1974). In addition,

organic matter, by release of acid humus, aids in the

extraction of elements from primary and secondary

minerals.

The ratio of carbon (C) to nitrogen is an important

determinant of nitrogen availability. The normal ratio

in 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 responsible for organic matter mineralization utilize the

available N. Nitrogen fertilization should be considered when this ratio exceeds 12:1.

Depletion of soil carbon by long-term cultivation

has been well documented for croplands (Jenny 1933).

However, the picture for carbon depletion associated

with grazing is not as definitive. Milchunas and

Lauenroth (1993) compared soil carbon in grazed

areas with that in ungrazed areas for 37 sites around

the world. Soil carbon in grazed sites was greater or

equal to that in ungrazed for about half of the sites.

Operation of machinery on wildland soils would be

expected to incorporate surface accumulations of organic matter in the form of litter and humus. Increased mineralization of this organic matter would

tend to create a wide C:N ratio, resulting in short-term

reductions in N availability. Thus, it may be necessary

to amend the soil with N fertilizer.

Intense fires have generally been shown to reduce

organic matter content of the soil surface to a depth of

2 cm, but light or moderate intensity fires cause no

change (Wells and others 1979).

There is presently no economically feasible or practical means for amending organic matter content of

wildlands on a large scale. Restoration of vegetative

cover by reducing grazing, or complete rest of heavily

grazed lands, will help restore the organic matter

level over time. Although untested on wildlands, nitrogen fertilization has proven effective in the cropland
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 45

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

setting for maintaining organic matter levels (Tisdale

and Nelson 1975). The potential for organic amendments to alter plant succession was demonstrated by

Klemmedson and Tiedemann (1994, 1998). They studied areas inside and outside an abandoned sheep

corral on degraded subalpine range of the Wasatch

plateau in Utah to determine the influence of 37 years

of use of the corral on soil and plant development. The

corral had been abandoned for 15 years at the time of

the study. Organic matter additions by animal dung

significantly increased storage of organic carbon in

vegetation, litter, and the 0 to 5 cm and 15 to 30 cm

soil layers. Cover of meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), a component of the predisturbance vegetation of the plateau was nearly 12 times greater inside

the corral than outside. On a larger scale, adding

sewage sludge to rangelands shows promise as a

means of increasing production and ameliorating organic carbon of the soil (Fresquez and others 1990).

Organic matter must be measured in the laboratory

by a qualified chemist or laboratory technician. It is

measured as organic carbon by combustion procedures. With soils high in pH, it is important to distinguish organic carbon (that associated with organic

materials) from the inorganic carbon associated with

carbonate salts.

Soil Reaction

The pH, or degree of acidity of the soil, is an indicator

of the chemical condition of the soil as it relates to

plant nutrition (Allaway 1957). The full impact of low

or high pH can be fully realized if it is understood that

it represents the negative log of the hydrogen ion

concentration. A pH of 4 has a 10-fold greater hydrogen ion concentration and acidity than pH 5. Optimal

pH for nutrient availability is between 5.0 and 7.5,

with greatest availability at about 6.5. High and low

pH have a significant effect on nutrient availability

(table 1). At low pH levels, mineralization of nitrogen

is decreased and limited primarily to the formation of

NH4-N as the only available N source (Dhaube and

Vassey 1973).

In strongly acid soils (pH <5.0) plant establishment

and growth may be adversely affected by toxic levels of

aluminum (Al), manganese (Mn), and iron (Fe), and by

deficiencies or low availability of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and molybdenum (Mo) (Donahue and

others 1977) (fig. 1). In highly alkaline situations (pH

8.0 and above) the availability of certain other nutrients is depressed.

From a soil nutrient amelioration standpoint, P

and iron (Fe) are likely to present more problems than

other nutrients that become limiting such as Mn, copper

(Cu), zinc (Zn), and boron (Bo) (Black 1957). The native

supply of the latter four nutrients is apparently adequate to offset effects of low pH on availability.

Nitrification is reduced at pH levels of 4.5 resulting in

reduced nitrogen availability (Stevenson 1965). Then,

too, at a higher pH unacceptable amounts of Mo will be

released (Blackbourn 1975).

Fire is the principal management practice that exerts an impact on soil pH. Soil acidity is reduced in

the surface soil by burning as a result of release of

basic cations by combustion of organic matter and

heating of minerals (Wells and others 1979).

The effect of pH on nutrient availability emphasizes

the importance of this factor. Whether or not a pH

adjustment can be accomplished practically may be

the deciding factor for reclamation of a depleted wildland site from a soil improvement perspective. Problems with excessively low pH (rare in Intermountain

rangelands) can be corrected by liming. For example, to increase the pH of a sandy loam from 5.0 to

6.5 would require approximately 3 metric tons/ha.

See Fairbridge and Finkl (1979) for liming rate

calculations.

More common to the Intermountain region are areas

of soils with high pH. Most practically, these soil types

are treated by selecting adapted species to seed or

plant. If it is determined that a high pH is unacceptable, soils can be treated by acid or acid-forming

compounds such as sulfur. Sulfur is slow but inexpensive and reasonably permanent. Alkaline soils are

often harder to correct than acid soils because they

may not only present problems due to the high pH, but

are often saline (Tinus 1980). The reclamation of

salt-affected soils may not be practical on arid wildlands since a large amount of water is required to

leach salts.

The pH of a soil can be measured in the field with a

colorimetric test kit or with a portable pH meter. It is

one of the easiest and least expensive field measurements of soil chemical characteristics that can be

made.

Salinity

The failure of plant establishment or depauperate,

patchy growth of plants on salty soils has been

recognized since man began to grow crops. Salts detrimentally influence plants by: limiting the availability of moisture (Miller and Doescher 1995), by

osmotic inhibition (Bernstein 1961, 1963; Slatyer

1961), and by specific toxic effects on metabolic processes (Miller and Doescher 1995; Richards 1954).

Availability of water is reduced because of the increase

in solute suction of the soil water as salinity increases.

Osmotic inhibition is thought to influence plant growth

because of an excess of salts taken up from soils high

in salinity (Bernstein 1961, 1963; Slatyer 1961). Specific toxicity is a detrimental effect on plant growth

because of excessive accumulation of certain ions.
46 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

Ions that are frequently found in high concentrations in saline soils include chloride, sulfate, and

bicarbonate. At excessive levels, the influence of these

ions on plant growth involves biochemical interferences and nutrient deficiency (Hagin and Tucker 1982;

Miller and Doescher 1995). The effect of salinity on

plant growth is scaled and based on agricultural crop

Figure 1—Effect of pH on nutrient availability. Modified after

University of Kentucky Agricultural Station Soils Staff (1970).

response to various levels of salts (table 1) (Richards

1954; Scofield 1940). This classification of plant

growth in relation to various salinity levels refers to

the salt status of the soil in the active root zone.

Surface layers may be highly contaminated by surface

incrustations of salt, which is not a problem to established plants as long as salts are not later translocated
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 47

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

to the root zone. Surface concentrations of salinity

may, however, inhibit seedling establishment(Levitt

1980).

In agricultural cropping systems, fertilization of

plants in saline soils may be beneficial by reducing

the yield-depressing effects of salts, as long as the

salinity level is within a low or medium range. In

general terms, when the salinity is high enough to

depress yield by 50 percent or more, fertilization will

yield low returns (Bernstein and others 1974). However, an overall negative effect may result if fertilizers are not carefully selected. The added fertilizers

may contribute to an increase in osmotic pressure of

the soil solution because of added salts (Champagnol

1979). In the wildland setting, salinity problems are

best solved by selecting plant materials that are

adapted to grow well in those environments (Miller

and Doescher 1995). Where there is a heavy crust of

surface salt, it may be necessary to use container or

bare-root planting stock since young plants developing from seed may be killed by high osmotic pressures. Soil tillage may also be used to incorporate

the highly saline surface layer into the lower layers

thereby diluting the osmotic effect and providing a

more acceptable surface layer for seeding.

Salinity can be readily measured in the field with a

portable solu-bridge test kit.

Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP)

ESP refers to the proportion of the adsorption complex of a soil occupied by sodium. It is expressed as

follows:

ESP = exchangeable sodium (milliequivalents/100 g

soil)/ cation exchange capacity (cec) (milliequivalents/

100 g soil) x 100

If a high proportion of the exchange sites are occupied by sodium ions, soils can become very alkaline

(pH 8.5 to 10.5). The effect on soil structure is disintegration and disbursement that can lead to slow rates

of infiltration or to impermeability. The exchangeable

sodium percentage at which soils disperse is correlated to clay type. An ESP of 15 is a good approximation of the level at which dispersion occurs for most

clays (Donahue and others 1977). Soils with ESP of

15 are referred to as sodic soils (formerly called black

alkali soils). Soils within intermediate levels (2 to 15

percent) are rated as fair in terms of suitability. Sodic

soils are the most difficult to reclaim and least likely

to be worth the cost (Thompson and Troeh 1978).

Therefore, selection of adapted plant species rather

than soil management becomes the most applicable

management tool. See USDA Agricultural Handbook

No. 60 (Richards 1954) for methods of reclamation.

Exchangeable sodium requires a laboratory procedure for measurement.

Other Factors that Influence

Reclamation Potential and Soil

Suitability ______________________

Other variables such as parent material and aspect influence potential site productivity and the

ease or difficulty of revegetation. Because there are

several variables that affect soil development (and

subsequent productivity), an individual variable

such as parent material is difficult to quantify. However, as a general ranking, we would suggest a productivity potential array as: pumice<sand and sandstone<limestone<granitic and gneiss<volcanic

ash<basalt.

Productivity potential by aspect (exposure) is also

a complex parameter to quantify because it depends

on the steepness of slope, latitude, and elevation.

Exposure influenced soil moisture, nitrogen, organic

carbon, and soil water retention in the Snake River

Plains of Idaho (Klemmedson 1964). Northerly exposures were more favorable for plant growth than

were southerly exposures as manifested in higher

contents of nitrogen and organic C and higher levels

of soil moisture and moisture retention. The interaction 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 be

more mesic and, therefore, more productive than the

southerly and westerly exposures. These exposures

should also be easier to revegetate. However, at

higher elevations such as the alpine and subalpine,

this trend may be reversed because the southerly and

westerly slopes receive more solar radiation resulting in a longer growing season than the north and

east aspects.

Certain soil types are generally associated with a

given vegetative complex. A detailed discussion of

the soil/vegetation community or habitat type relationship is beyond the objectives of our effort in this

chapter. 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 Plant

Growth ________________________

Plant growth requires an adequate supply of all

nutrients essential for the formation of tissue and for

the various processes related to photosynthesis, energy transformation, respiration, and reproduction.

Functions of the essential elements in plant metabolism are varied and complex with none having a

simple, single function in the economy of plant growth

and establishment. For example, nitrogen is a component of amino acids (proteins), vitamins, alkaloids,

and chlorophyll. Nitrogen also controls growth and
48 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

fruiting of most plants (Chapman 1966; Epstein 1972;

Russell 1973). The micronutrient, iron, is a component of enzymes, oxidases, and peroxidases; it acts as

a catalyst in the synthesis of chlorophyll; and it is an

activator of biochemical processes such as respiration, photosynthesis, and symbiotic N fixation (Holmes

and Brown 1957; Shaw and others 1975; Tisdale and

Nelson 1975).

Past Research on Fertilization _____

Fertilization has been the most extensively studied

of the soil management tools available to the land

manager. Soil fertility is one of the few factors inherent to a site that can be implemented on a large scale

as part of a wildland improvement program. However, fertilization of wildland sites on a large scale has

not been practiced to date. High cost-benefit ratios

are largely responsible for the limited use of fertilization on an operational basis. Herbage yield has

been the primary basis to date for determining costbenefit ratios. Other benefits have largely been overlooked. Consideration of other benefits may not bring

fertilization of wildlands into profitability but they

deserve consideration in decisions concerning the possibility of fertilization to improve productivity.

Fertilization may be helpful in emergence and survival of seeded species (Clary and Tiedemann 1984;

Klock and others 1975a), but results are highly variable among species and climatic regimes (Vallentine

1980). Other potential benefits should be considered:

• Increased soil protection because of enhanced

foliar cover and root mass (Carpenter and Williams

1972; Cook 1965; Tiedemann 1983)

• Enhancement of plant nutritional quality

(Carpenter and Williams 1972; Duncan and

Hylton 1970; Duvall 1970; Vallentine 1980)

• Improved plant vigor (Carpenter and Williams

1972)

• Desirable alterations of botanical composition

(Duncan and Hylton 1970)

• Aid in the management of use patterns and movement of livestock and wildlife through improved

nutritive value and palatability of forage (Brown

and Mandery 1962; Carpenter and Williams 1972;

Hanson and Smith 1970)

• Extension of the period of green forage (Hanson

and Smith 1970; Holt and Wilson 1961; Vallentine

1980)

Of the studies we reviewed, there was little in

common among them with respect to nutrient combinations, rates of application, test species, or length

of study. Nor was there consistency in assessment of

the soil nutrient status prior to treatment to determine the potential for obtaining a positive response.

Responses vary by site, soil, and climate. Impressive

responses in yield, forage quality, and plant vitality

were observed in field trials by Eckert and others

(1961a), Cook (1965), Bowns (1972), Baldwin and

others (1974), Carpenter (1979), and Tiedemann (1983).

Responses to fertilizers were positive in pot trial studies by Eckert and Bleak (1960), Hull (1962), Johnson

(1969), Klock and others (1971, 1975a), Tiedemann

(1972), and Tiedemann and Driver (1983). Carpenter

and Williams (1972) provided a comprehensive synopsis of fertilization of rangelands. Vallentine (1980) is

also an excellent source of information about range

fertilization.

The application of fertilizer to wildlands has not

consistently resulted in increased dry matter production. Some fertility studies have indicated negative

responses related to plant competition and moisture

availability. Depleted soil moisture reserves due to

rapid growth of annual species were reported by

Sneva (1978), Wilson and others (1966), and Kay and

Evans (1965). In these trials the applied N increased

competition between the annual grass, cheatgrass,

and native perennial species which resulted in retrogression of the native species and increases in annuals. McKell and others (1959) noted the necessity of

adequate soil moisture for plant growth on annual

ranges. Applications of nitrogen made early in the

growing season stimulated plant growth which in

turn led to a faster depletion of available soil moisture,

in fact, enough to retard the growth of summer growing plants. Addition of nitrogen to disturbed sagebrush steppe slowed the rate of succession and allowed

annual plants to dominate through the fifth year

(McLendon and Redente 1991).

Many of the fertility trials reviewed were undertaken without the benefit of soil nutrient concentration or availability assessments or characterization of

soil physical and chemical properties. The lack of

information on the status of nutrients other than those

being tested and physical and chemical characteristics

of the soil could lead to an unbalanced fertilization

prescription. Because N is often the nutrient most

limiting for plant growth in wildlands (James and

Jurinak 1978), attention should be directed to enhancing the N capital. In addition to N, other macronutrients P and K and a secondary nutrient S are likewise

important (Klock and others 1971, 1975). Fertilizers

are most generally applied for their content of these

four elements.

When single superphosphate is applied to amend

phosphorus deficiencies, sulfur in the form of calcium

sulfate is an accompanying, often overlooked, benefit.

Single superphosphate contains 12 percent S. Treble

superphosphate has only 1 percent S (Shaw and others

1975). In a series of field trials conducted by Cook

(1965) to determine the effect of fertilizers on yield

increase and forage quality, increases of the various

factors measured were attributed to the primary
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 49

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

nutrients. When complementary additions of N and

treble superphosphate were applied, differences in

some of the characteristics were striking: yield of

crested wheatgrass was 18 percent over the N-only

treatment, protein content 19 percent over the N-only

treatment, and total digestible nutrients 16 percent

over the N-only treatment. Smaller responses for the

N-only treatments suggest further increases were

deterred by lack of P or, perhaps, another limiting

nutrient. Synergistic effects in the multielement treatments were undoubtedly occurring, but because pretest levels of available nutrients were not assessed, it

is not known which nutrients were limiting. Actual

amounts of S applied in these trials ranged from 1.5 to

6 lbs/acre (treble super-phosphate is 1 percent S).

These amounts would be sufficient to amend low to

marginally low sulfur deficiencies in soils (Tiedemann

and Lopez 1983).

In a study by Bowns (1972) in which no soil nutrient

assessment was made, large amounts of sulfur were

added along with the primary nutrients, N and P, as

ammonium sulfate and treble super-phosphate. Increased biomass, gross energy, and crude protein were

attributed to N and P whereas S may well have been

as important as a limiting nutrient. In the interior

Pacific Northwest, sulfur has been shown to be almost

as limiting as N (Klemmedson and Ferguson 1973;

Klock and others 1971, 1975a; Tiedemann 1972).

One aspect of wildland fertilization that has received little emphasis is the differential nutrient requirements of various native plant species. Tiedemann

and Klemmedson (1973) noted differential responses

of four native grasses to deletion of individual nutrients in pot trials. In later trials, there were substantial

differences in responses of a native grass Arizona

cottontop and annual rye (Klemmedson and Tiedemann

1986). In pot trials with snow eriogonum, the only

response was to the addition of N in soils that were

severely deficient in both N and S (Tiedemann and

Driver 1983).

Determining the Adequacy of Soil

Nutrients ______________________

The complexity of soil chemistry and the necessity of

proper and judicious use of chemical fertilizers support the need for soil assessment. A complete assessment also allows for characterization of site potential

as it relates to specific plants and their range of

adaptability—essential for planning best management

practices to realize maximum sustained yield. Thus,

the chemical and physical inventory serves to characterize wildlands and delineate those having potential

for reclamation or improvement.

Ifthere is assurance that other soil and environmental factors discussed in Section II: Basic Considerations

are at reasonably optimal levels, the first step in

development of a fertilizer prescription is determination of the total concentrations or availabilities of

individual nutrients. Many fertilizer amendment

studies and operations proceed with little information

on concentrations of total or available soil nutrients.

The result may be an erroneous interpretation of

the results of such studies or operations. Liebig’s law

of the minimum and the Mitscherlich law (Stalfelt

1972) are often disregarded in decisions regarding

fertilization (Klemmedson and Tiedemann 1995). The

essence of these laws is that growth of a plant is

dependent upon the amount of nutrient presented to

it in minimum quantity (Odum 1959).

If more than a single nutrient is limiting in supply,

the addition of one alone may produce only small

increases in growth as compared to the addition of

all that are limiting (Dean 1957). The added individual nutrients are effective only until another becomes limiting. The combined addition may actually

produce a synergistic effect. A greenhouse pot study of

orchardgrass yields as a function of three increments

of N as urea, with and without addition of 57 ppm of

S (fig. 2) demonstrates Liebig’s law of the minimum

Figure 2—Cumulative yield of orchardgrass

in response to several levels of urea and urea

plus sulfur from Klock and others (1971).
50 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

(Klock and others 1971). All treatments received adequate P and K. Orchardgrass yields with additions of

N at 50, 100, and 200 ppm as urea were the same as

the control (check) treatment. When S, at 57 ppm, was

added with increments of 50, 100, and 200 ppm of

urea, there was a continuous increase in plant yields.

Similar results were obtained with bitterbrush on

granitic soils by Klemmedson and Ferguson (1973).

These studies highlight the importance of determining the supply of all soil nutrients prior to application of fertilizer amendments.

As with deficiencies, excesses of one or more elements, whether naturally occurring or induced, can

have deleterious or negating effects in the nutrition of

plants. Excessive application of fertilizers is avoided

by assessing the soil fertility status beforehand.

Soil nutrient analyses are usually made by State

Agricultural Extension Service Laboratories. These

laboratories will provide instructions on sampling

methodology, number of samples to collect, and preparation of samples for shipment. State Extension Agents

can assist in the determination of the nutrients that

need to be measured based on their experience. They

can also assist with the interpretation of the results

of soil analyses for nutrient content.

Total Nutrient Concentrations

Evaluation of total concentrations of soil nutrients

provides an estimate of the long-term nutrientsupplying capability of a given soil. The soil substrate

or parent material is the source of most elements

required for plant growth. Among these are phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), potassium (K), magnesium

(Mg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper

(Cu), and cobalt (Co). Decomposition and relative

amounts of individual nutrients released depend on

the nature of parent and soil material, climate, and the

presence of organisms important in decomposition

processes (Buol and others 1973; Hallsworth and

Crawford 1965).

Soil phosphorus and sulfur, in addition to their

important role in plant growth and physiological

function, are important in the accrual of organic

carbon and nitrogen (Walker and Adams 1958).

Nitrogen is unique in its accrual to the soil nutrient capital. Atmospheric nitrogen gas is the primary

source of nitrogen for the soil (Stevenson 1965). However, the major storehouse of N is soil organic matter

(Kowalenko 1978) and since organic matter is limited in semi-arid environments (Hagin and Tucker

1982; Klemmedson 1989), N is usually the major

limiting nutrient. Nitrogen accrual to the soil occurs

principally through the N-fixation process, whereby

N is converted from the gaseous form in the atmosphere to forms usable by higher plants. Blue-green

algae (Nostoc and Anabaena) in the surface soil,

free-living bacteria (Rhodospirillum, Clostridium, and

Azotobacter), legume symbiosis with Rhizobium, and

actinomycete nodulation of several genera of wildland plants are principally responsible for this source

of N accrual (Stevenson 1965). Klemmedson (1979)

indicates that N-fixation by actinomycete nodulation

occurs in species of eight western genera—alder,

ceanothus, mountain mahogany, dryas, elaegnus,

wax-myrtle, bitterbrush, and buffaloberry. Actinomycete nodulation and N-fixation also occurs in cliffrose

(Nelson 1983).

Precipitation appears to represent a minor part of

nitrogen accrual to agricultural soils—7 to 20 kg/ha/

year (Stevenson 1965)—but may be important for

wildland soils where N requirements are less. In some

parts of the United States, however, the input of N by

precipitation may be much lower—less than 2 kg/ha/

year in the interior Pacific Northwest (Tiedemann and

others 1978, 1980).

The atmosphere is an important source of sulfur

from burning of fossil fuels and geothermal discharge

(Strahler and Strahler 1973), with resultant deposition as dry fallout and precipitation.

While the normal ranges of total concentrations of

nutrients in agricultural soils of the United States is

readily available (table 2), such information is not

generally available for wildland soils. However, levels

would be expected to be at the lower end of the range

given for agricultural soils, with the exception of such

elements as Mg and Ca in arid land environments,

where large reserves are held in the soil storehouse

because of minimal leaching (Charley 1972). There

are also exceptions for total N. Tiedemann and

Furniss (1985) found N levels in excess of 0.7 percent

in surface soils of curlleaf mountain mahogany

stands. Tiedemann and Clary (1996) observed total

N concentrations in excess of 0.4 percent in the upper

12 inches (30 cm) of soil in Gambel oak stands in northcentral Utah.

Available Nutrient Concentrations

Of more immediate utility than total concentrations

of individual nutrients is the determination of the

available concentrations. Available nutrients normally represent only a minor proportion of the total

nutrient capital. Available N (nitrate- and ammonium-N), for example, may represent 1 to 2 percent of

the total organic N capital of the soil (Stevenson

1965). For available cations, the gap between total

and available concentrations are usually much greater.

Table 3 presents values of low, marginal, and high

availabilities for all of the soil nutrients essential for

plant growth. Values are also presented for unacceptable levels that may be toxic to plants or in excess of
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 51

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

Table 2—Normal range of total concentrations of nutrients occurring in agricultural soils and soil factors for determining

deficiency and excess (adapted from Tiedemann and Lopez 1983).

Soil type in which

Elementa 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 1966

than 0.5 percent in organic matter for total N is usually of little help in

in mineral soils determining immediate fertilizer

practices. Excessive N can result

in 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 others

percent 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 significantly

correlated (p = 0.05) with either

plant yields or S uptake.

Ca 0.1-2.0 percent Humid, sandy Soils vary widely in content. Chapman 1966;

in soils free of Millar 1955

Ca carbonate;

1-25 percent in

calcareous soils

B 2-100 ppm B excesses occur in soils derived Bradford 1966;

from marine sediments and in Krauskopf 1972

arid 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 others

between total Mg and a soil’s 1947; Reichle 1970

crop-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 and

Edgington 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 1955

low Si/Mg ratio

a

B = Boron; Ca = Calcium; Cu = Copper; Fe = Iron; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; Mn = Manganese; Mo = Molybdenum; N = Nitrogen;

P = Phosphorus; S = Sulphur; Zn = Zinc.
52 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

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

Unacceptable

levels of

Availability selected Extraction

Nutrientb 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 1976

or 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 and

others 1979

a

Selected trace elements should be analyzed from this list if they are a demonstrated regional problem. Many quantitative limits shown in this

section are not supported by research findings. b

B = 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 of

pH problems and can be moderated with liming amendments to adjust pH to acceptable levels. To determine

the available supply of an element, concentration (ppm)

must be converted to the decimal value by multiplying

by 1 x 10–6. This value is then multiplied by the weight

of the surface 15 cm of soil, which is estimated at 2.2 x

106 kg/ha. For available N (from nitrate), a high level

of supply would equal 18 ppm (table 3). Multiplying

18 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 in

plant tissue, this level of nitrate-N is adequate for

production of about 2,000 kg/ha of forage.

Other procedures assess the adequacy of soil nutrients, but a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of

this text. These other methods are briefly described

below.

Visual Symptoms—Certain visual symptoms in

plants are indicative of nutritional deficiencies.

Some of these are easily diagnosed such as change
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 53

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

in leaf color, leaf scorching, or leaf deformation. Because they have similar nutrient requirements, deficiency symptoms within a specific plant family are

generally quite similar. Plants of the goosefoot and

mustard families, for example, have a high requirement for boron; members of the legume family are

very sensitive to a deficiency of potassium (Donahue

and others 1977). Pictorial descriptions of deficiency

symptoms in plants for the essential elements are

well documented; see Chapman (1966).

Tissue Analysis—For established plantings, tissue analysis may be used in conjunction with soils

tests to develop a fertilizer prescription. Interpretation of tissue analysis results is more complicated

than for concentrations of total and available soil

nutrients. Also, information on nutrient concentrations in wildland plants and the relationships to

soil nutrient status (sufficiency or deficiency) is negligible. Concentrations in tissue vary widely among

species, plant part, and season. Interpretation may

also be confounded by luxury consumption of certain

elements. See Ulrich (1952) and Walsh and Beaton

(1973) for more detailed information on tissue analyses and interpretations.

Greenhouse Bioassy—Another procedure for determining nutrient availability is greenhouse bioassy,

such as the technique of Jenny and others (1950),

commonly referred to as a pot trial study. This procedure is a practical way of determining nutrient needs

for individual plant species using actual field soil

samples. Although particularly applicable for study of

macronutrient availabilities, it can also be used to

assess micronutrients. This test involves determining

biomass yield of a test species in response to deletion

of individual nutrients from a full nutrient treatment.

A control treatment (no added nutrients) is also

established. Bioassay nutrient availability trials have

the advantage that quantitative fertilizer prescriptions can be tailored to a particular species or mix of

species being considered for revegetation purposes. A

limitation of this method is that the effect of soil

physical characteristics is not taken into account (such

as permeability, bulk density). It also does not account for moisture limitations and the moisture/nutrient interactions that are encountered in the wildland

setting. For a detailed discussion on methods and

assessment of results for this technique, see Tiedemann

and Lopez (1983).

Field Trials—Field experiments are a means of

determining nutrient needs by actual on-site trials.

Calibrating nutrient requirements to yields can be

accomplished by carefully planned and executed

outplantings. However, it should be kept in mind that

recommendations based on field trials are site specific

for the plant species tested. Standard guides to investigations of this type are available; see Hauser (1970)

and Mukerjee (1960).

Development of a Fertilizer

Prescription ____________________

The simplest procedure for developing fertilizer

amendment needs is to match soil test results with

the values presented in table 3. The amount of each

element that needs to be supplied for low, marginal,

and high levels of nutrient availability have been developed (table 4). To convert these values to actual

rates of fertilizer application, the decimal value of the

elemental concentration of a particular nutrient in the

fertilizer is divided into the desired application rate of

that element. For example, with N at low availability, there is a need to supply 56 kg/ha (table 4). The

amount of ammonium nitrate fertilizer that must be

applied is 56/0.32 = 172 kg/ha of actual fertilizer.

If more than one element is at a low level of availability, it will be desirable to apply a single fertilizer

that contains as many of the limiting nutrients as

possible. It should be noted that rates of more than one

element cannot be controlled. We suggest keying application rate of other nutrients to the needed rate of

application of N, P, or K to assure adequate amendment of these macronutrients. For example, in a situation where both N and S are at low availability, if the

rate of ammonium sulfate application were based

on sulfur needed (6 kg/ha), it would be equivalent to

25 kg/ha of fertilizer. Since this fertilizer contains

21 percent N (table 5), the rate of N application would

only be 5 kg/ha—a 90 percent reduction from actual

needs of 56 kg/ha. Ammonium nitrate could be used

(in addition to ammonium sulfate) to achieve the

proper level of N fertilization.

One important point to highlight in application of

fertilizers is the need to maintain a balance of fertility. Application of an excess of one element will

likely result in rapid depletion and limited availability

of other elements. Voisin (1964) proposed a “law of

correction of soil imbalances” that states that “any

imbalance of available mineral elements existing or

appearing in the soil because of the nature of the

latter, as a result of removal in harvested crops,

because of fertilizer application or for any other cause,

must be corrected by application of the necessary

fertilizing elements so that optimum balance among

the soil elements is restored, producing high biological quality in the plant and the maximum yield compatible therewith.” In essence, any nutrient that is

exhausted must be replenished and imbalances must

be corrected.
54 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

Table 4—Fertilizer recommendations based on inherent status (table 3) (kg/ha) to be applied based on average soil bulk

density (= 1.35 g/cm3

) (adapted from Tiedemann and Lopez 1983).

Nutrienta Low Marginal High Notes References

N 56 17-22 0 Amburgey 1964; Massee

and Painter 1978

P 29 22 15 To convert from P to P205 Amburgey 1964

multiply by 2.25.

K 32 16 0 To convert from K to K20 White 1979

multiply 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 1966

for neutral soils—FeHEEDTA

or 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 1972

6 3 5 deficiency can

pH >7.0 pH >7.0 be corrected

11 5 by acidification.

Mo 0.11 0.03 Murphy and Walsh 1976

Zn 11 6 0 Murphy and Walsh 1976

a

B = 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 1979

Ammonium phosphate 11.0 48 3 Sulphur Institute 1982

Ammonium sulphate 21.0 24 Sulphur Institute 1982

Ammonium

phosphate-sulfate 16.0 20 15.4 Sulphur Institute 1982

Calcium nitrate 15.5 1.5 19.3 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Copper sulphate 11.8 Sulphur Institute 1982

Phosphoric acid

(liquid) 23-24 0.2 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Potash

(potassium-chloride) 52 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Potassium magnesium

sulphate 15-18 18-23 11 Donahue and others 1977

Potassium sulphate 44 18 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Single super phosphate 8-9 12 13-15 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Trebel super phosphate 18-20 1 9-13 Fairbridge and Finkl 1979

Urea 42-46 Sulphur Institute 1982

Zinc sulphate 13-18 Sulphur Institute 1982

a

Ca = Calcium; K = Potassium; Mg = Magnesium; N = Nitrogen; P = Phosphorus; S = Sulphur.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 55

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

Application of Fertilizers on

Wildland Soils __________________

Plant nutrients differ in the way they may be

applied most effectively as fertilizers because of differences in their chemical properties, amounts required

by plants, chemical and biological activity in the soil,

and solubility, which varies according to their formula and physical condition (Cook and Hulbert 1957).

The emphasis on proper application of fertilizers

should be considered equally critical to the selection of

fertilizers. Four reasons for this emphasis are elaborated upon here:

First, optimum time of fertilizer placement should

coincide with adequate moisture availability. Nutrients

are ineffective in dry soil. If leaching by water will not

be the means by which nutrients are translocated to

the root zone, fertilizers should be placed where roots

have access to the nutrients (Cook and Hulbert 1957).

For the Intermountain West, surface applications of

fertilizers are most effective if applied in late fall after

some precipitation has been received. This allows

ample time for microbial transformations of fertilizer

compounds such as urea and assures movement of

mobile ions into the rooting zone.

Second, mobility of fertilizer elements and nutrient

absorbing characteristics of the vegetation must be

considered. For example, surface applications of

phosphorus (an immobile nutrient) are likely to be

more effective with shallow, fibrous-rooted species

such as perennial grasses than plants with taproots

such as forbs and shrubs. For fertilizer compounds

with nitrate-N and sulfate-S, two relatively mobile

nutrients, surface applications would be effective for

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Third, in fertilizer placement, a plant’s demand for

various nutrients at different stages of growth should

be taken into account. Maximum demand for nutrients occurs in the young plant and early growth stages

of perennials. Rapid growth can only take place

when adequate enzymes are present and, therefore,

only after the plant has absorbed a sufficient quantity

of the minerals necessary for correct enzymatic function. However, the demand never ceases completely.

Should some of the minerals become limiting at a later

stage, damage and eventual plant death may occur.

Seedlings should have ready access to nutrients for

early growth yet direct contact with fertilizer could be

detrimental because of the osmotic effect of salts

depriving the seedling of water.

Fourth, application with regard to physical and

chemical soil factors must be considered. The effect of

pH on nutrient availabilities illustrates the importance of considering soil chemical properties. Fertilizers applied to soils with pH less than 5.1 or greater

than 8.4 will not likely be effective in promoting plant

growth because nutrients will become unavailable.

Soil physical properties can also affect fertilizer effectiveness. A soil with a very slow infiltration rate, for

example, may impede overall nutrient availability to

plants, because little of the fertilizer will be transmitted to the root zone and will be vulnerable to

removal by surface runoff.

Much of what we know about fertilizers and fertilization is based on agricultural practices that may

not be suited to the wildland situation. Nevertheless,

the basic concepts of plant-soil relationships are

applicable. If it is decided that a fertilization program

will be done, proper application is essential.

A number of application methods are available to

the land manager. However, many of these are not

practical in wildland settings. Broadcasting on the

soil surface has been the most widely used method of

applying granular fertilizer (Vallentine 1980). Where

chaining, or other vegetation-clearing, soil-disturbing

practices is employed, the prescribed fertilizers

could be spread prior to clearing, thus allowing for

some incorporation caused by the soil disturbance.

The same recommendation would be appropriate for

areas to be reseeded by drilling. Soil incorporation is

particularly important for phosphorus fertilizers.

On annual grassland in California, helicopter application was considered fast and practical on rangeland too steep for ground application (Duncan and

Reppert 1966). Spreading of granular and foliar fertilizer by airplane has likewise been a practical means

of fertilizing wildlands, and at a much lower cost

than with helicopters.

Foliar application of micronutrients and secondary

nutrients in a wildland setting may be a practical and

logical method for improving impoverished areas

with identified deficiency symptoms. Foliar application may be particularly beneficial where nutrient

uptake through the plant roots is restricted or where

soil incorporation is prohibitive. Also, foliar application is the fastest way to correct deficiencies of micronutrients. Attempts to supply the major nutrient requirements such as N, P, and K by foliar application

may not be successful because of the required high

rates and repeated applications causing foliage scorching and increased expense (Hagin and Tucker 1982).

The addition of specific secondary nutrients or

micronutrients to amend specific needs requires

careful planning in their application because of the

high cost involved and adverse consequences of

toxicity due to excessive, uneven application. These

minor and secondary elements are applied most economically at the same time as macroelements. The

amounts needed (table 4) are generally so small that

separate applications are difficult. One word of caution: the addition of specific micro- and secondary

elements to take care of specific needs is applicable
56 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 7 Assessing Soil Factors in Wildland Improvement Programs

only in areas where soils are known to be severely

deficient. The consequences of improper application

can be devastating and protracted.

Some plant nutrients have been successfully applied by seed coating (Murphy and Walsh 1972). A

number of benefits are realized: (1) even distribution

of nutrients over treated areas; (2) nutrients readily

available for a more even emergence and survival of

seedlings; (3) assurance of more uniform stand establishment, often with less seed per acre; (4) most efficient in terms of labor and other application costs.

One disadvantage is that seed coating cannot be used

to build soil nutrient reserves. It is used primarily for

early emergence and survival.

Conclusions____________________

The foregoing information was given to provide an

overview of the soil factors that affect the potential

success of wildland rehabilitation efforts. It is obvious

that it is not economically feasible to correct some soil

conditions on wildlands. Even though there may be no

economically feasible treatments for overcoming adverse soil conditions, it is important for rehabilitation

specialists to be able to recognize these problems, and

in some cases be able to quantify their magnitude.

Although fertilization is a readily available technique

for amending soil nutrients, it is considered to be a

“high input” option (Marschner 1986). “The low input

option, and perhaps the most feasible means of managing nutrient stress is to encourage the development

of species that are either adapted to or can tolerate low

nutrient levels, or those that can ameliorate N limitations by symbiotic N fixation” (Klemmedson and

Tiedemann 1995).

There is a rapidly emerging understanding of the

morphological and physiological features of plants that

are adapted to grow and survive in nutrient-limited

environments. Consideration of these adaptations in

the process of selecting plants for revegetation should

greatly improve chances for success in revegetation of

nutrient-limited sites. Most species of a stress tolerant

strategy tend to be small in stature (Grime and Hunt

1975) 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, species

from soils of low fertility status maximize nutrient

acquisition by maintaining a large root biomass, and

high root:shoot ratios (Chapin 1980; Marschner 1986),

increased length (Marschner 1986) and branching

(Troughton 1980) of roots, strongly developed mycorrhizal associations (Mosse 1973), and greater root

longevity (Chapin 1980).

Plants that fix N by symbiosis such as those of the

legume family hold promise as a natural means of

providing N to wildland plantings (Blackbourn 1975;

Rumbaugh 1983). Several genera of native shrubs

such as alder, ceanothus, bitterbrush, cliffrose, and

buffaloberry are also known for their ability to fix

atmospheric N (Klemmedson 1979; Nelson 1983;

Righetti and others 1983). Although research on the

effectiveness of these plants in improving the N supply

of wildland sites is in its infancy, these plants hold

promise of reducing or perhaps even eliminating

fertilizer N amendment needs on wildlands in the

future. Several herbaceous species of legumes such as

alfalfa, yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, sainfoin,

and sulla sweetvetch are already in use for this purpose (Rumbaugh 1983).

Other chapters in this book address the issue of

species adapted to vegetation zones and specific site

conditions. The reader is also referred to Aldon and

Oaks (1982), Monsen and Shaw (1983b), Tiedemann

and Johnson (1983), and Tiedemann and others

(1984b).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 57

Stephen B. Monsen

8

Chapter

Selecting Methods and Procedures for

Plant Control ____________________________________

Generally, range or wildlife habitat improvement projects seek

to achieve desirable plants through the elimination or replacement of undesirable species or both. Control measures are thus

designed to: (1) reduce the competitive effects of existing species

(Evans and Young 1987a,b; Robertson and Pearse 1945), (2) allow

the establishment of seeded species (Harper and Benton 1966;

Toole and others 1956), and (3) facilitate reestablishment, or

improve the vigor of, desirable native plants (Plummer and

others 1970a; Stevens 1987b).

Although control measures are often needed to reduce weedy

competition, wholesale elimination of a species is not always

necessary. Some practices, including chaining or burning

(Plummer and others 1968), are used to reduce the density of

target species and promote changes in the composition of the

existing community.

Controlling Plant

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

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

Chaining and burning have been used to stimulate

regrowth of decadent stands of antelope bitterbrush

(Edgerton 1983; Martin 1983), mountain mahogany,

cliffrose, and aspen. These processes improve availability of Gambel oak (Plummer and others 1968), and

the forage production of big sagebrush (Young and

Evans 1978b) sites.

Control measures are often sought that will eliminate all existing species, particularly on sites dominated by cheatgrass (Young and others 1976b),

medusahead, or cluster tarweed (Carnahan and Hull

1962; Hull and Cox 1968). Disking, plowing, or use of

chemicals are most effective where complete control

measures are required (Eckert and Evans 1967; Haas

and others 1962). Remnant native plants are useful

and should be retained on most range or wildlife sites.

However, control measures are seldom so refined that

individual species can be retained when others are

destroyed.

If seeding is to be successful, the existing competition must be sufficiently reduced to allow establishment of new plants (Evans and Young 1978). If a mixed

array of plants are seeded, the period of establishment

may be prolonged by 2 to 5 years.

Consequently, to be effective, considerable reduction in the presence of existing plants is often necessary (Monsen and McArthur 1985; Stevens 1987b). In

addition, the control measures used must also prevent

the recovery of targeted species for sufficient time to

allow seeded species to fully establish (Fulbright 1987;

Hutton and Porter 1937).

Methods of Plant Control _________

Mechanical Control

Various techniques and implements are available to

mechanically treat rangelands (Abernathy and Herbel

1973; Anderson and others 1953; Herbel and others

1973). Many implements used in conventional agriculture have been adapted for use on wildlands. Trained

personnel are normally available to operate, modify as

necessary, and maintain the machinery. Consequently,

many range and wildlife habitat improvement projects

rely on the use of modified farm equipment. Numerous

equipment items have also been developed specifically

for range and wildland sites (Larson 1980). The functions, capabilities, and uses of equipment used in

wildlands are described in chapter 9.

Mechanical control measures may be more or less

effective in reducing unwanted plants than burning

or herbicide treatments. However, some aspects of

mechanical control provide advantages to overall

rehabilitation and restoration programs. Attributes of

mechanical treatments are summarized as follows:

1. Different types of equipment are available to

treat specific circumstances.

2. Treatments can be selectively used to remove

target species.

3. Mechanical control can be effective in the removal

of live plants and seeds.

4. Treatments can be conducted at different seasons

to retain or lessen impacts on key species.

5. Treatments are not always restricted to a specific

season or period as is burning or chemical control.

6. Control measures usually aid in creating a seedbed, and in seeding.

7. If necessary, litter and surface protection can be

provided to lessen runoff and erosion.

Fire and Herbicide Control

Fire and herbicides are viable methods of controlling

plants. Both techniques have specific limitations and

advantages (Hyder and others 1962; Pechanec and

Stewart 1944; Young and Evans 1978b). Either are

applicable measures if weedy species can be selectively controlled and desirable plants can be retained

or are able to recover. Both methods can be used to

eliminate competition prior to seeding (Young and

Evans 1978b; Young and others 1976a,b). Descriptions and use of herbicides and fire are discussed in

detail in chapters 10 and 11.

A considerable amount of plant residue and surface

litter is often left in place following herbicide treatments. This debris may enhance the seedbed (Evans

and Young 1984). However, neither burning nor herbicide treatment provides a suitable seedbed for most

species. Some means of mechanical seeding or seed

coverage is required to plant an area following burning

or spraying (Evans and Young 1984). In contrast,

mechanical plant control measures, chaining, disking

railing, and so forth not only remove weedy competition but simultaneously aid in seeding.

Biological Control

More than one approach is usually feasible for reducing the density of undesirable plants. Land managers have some latitude in selecting treatments for

most rehabilitation projects. Sometimes, biological

control measures are quite effective. Regulating grazing intensity, seasonal use, and selective foraging can

improve the vigor and density of certain plants

(Hubbard and Sanderson 1961; Vallentine 1989).

Unregulated grazing can harm and even destroy well

planned projects. Grazing of range and wildlands is
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 59

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

considered a biological control measure, as foraging

impacts by domestic livestock, wildlife, and insects

can, in part, be regulated. Grazing also impacts other

biological systems affecting plant communities.

Improvements achieved through controlled grazing

and seeding (Shown and others 1969) are usually most

noticeable on mesic sites. Blaisdell and Holmgren

(1984) reported that the composition of desert

shrublands, including certain salt desert shrublands,

will respond favorably to grazing management, although changes may require many years of careful

treatment. Improvement in vegetative conditions is

often a cumulative response. Plant density may increase as plant vigor improves and more seed is produced to facilitate seedling establishment. These

changes often occur over a long period of careful

management.

Grazing can be used to reduce the presence of

some weedy or less desirable plants. Cattle grazing

has been effective in reducing seed production and

stand density of cheatgrass, but has not been effective

in elimination of the annual grass. Plummer and

others (1968) reported that grazing of burned stands

of Gambel oak by livestock and deer aided in suppressing shrub regrowth. However, species not eagerly eaten

by grazing animals are difficult to control without

excessive damage to other plants.

Regulating livestock grazing has been an effective

means of improving the vigor and density of selected

existing plants (Astroth and Frischknecht 1984). Broadleaf herbs and some grasses that are sought by grazing

animals may not recover even though a significant

reduction in grazing occurs. Species such as alfalfa

(Rosenstock and others 1989), small burnet, arrowleaf

balsamroot (Plummer and others 1968), and bluebells

continue to be selectively used even when livestock or

game numbers are reduced. Changing the grazing

season is most beneficial to species of herbs highly

preferred by grazing animals (Frischknecht 1978).

Elimination of livestock grazing of some preferred

shrubs including Stansbury cliffrose, Martin ceanothus, curlleaf mountain mahogany, and antelope bitterbrush has resulted in improved plant vigor. However, if heavily browsed, these shrubs may require 3 to

5 years to respond. Forage yields and seed production

may respond dramatically, yet recruitment of new

seedlings may be prevented by understory weeds.

Thus, many shrublands disrupted by grazing and

infested with annual weeds may not recover satisfactorily as a result of simply eliminating grazing.

Regulating game use of seriously depleted rangelands has been achieved by seeding selected portions

of the habitat. Revegetating segments of some big

game winter ranges has succeeded in concentrating

game use on the seeded areas. This has lessened

grazing of adjacent ranges and allowed for natural

recovery. This practice is particularly successful if

highly palatable species are planted to attract grazing

animals and change seasonal use. Orchardgrass, small

burnet, penstemon, black sagebrush, fourwing saltbush (Nichlos and Johnson 1969), sainfoin, and alfalfa

can be seeded in areas where they are adapted to

attract and regulate animal use. Other plants, particularly Lewis flax, mutton bluegrass, wild buckwheat, prickly lettuce, salisfy, showy goldeneye,

redstem ceanothus, and creeping barberry are species

that demonstrate similar usefulness. These species

often recover quickly following restoration treatments.

Not all provide a major part of the diet for game or

livestock, but they are selectively grazed and attract

animals.

Livestock grazing is often recommended as a method

of dispersing and planting seed by trampling. Eckert

and others (1987) report soil relief is important to seed

entrapment, germination, and seedling establishment.

Moderate trampling favors emergence of perennial

grasses; heavy trampling is detrimental to the emergence of perennial grasses and forbs. Moderate trampling can be both beneficial or detrimental to seedling

establishment depending upon the position in the soil

where seeds germinate. Surface germinators are enhanced by moderate trampling, but species requiring

more soil coverage are not.

Grazing systems are not always effective measures

for controlling weedy plants or enhancing the establishment and increase of desirable species. Once weeds

such as juniper and pinyon, broom snakeweed, halogeton, red brome, or cheatgrass gain dominance, their

density may not be diminished by changing grazing

practices. Other more desirable plants are not likely

to increase unless the weedy competition is reduced.

Consequently, seriously depleted plant communities

recover very slowly or not at all with grazing management. Unless a number of desirable remnant plants

exist, the change may be too slow and ineffective to be

regarded as a viable alternative.

Successional Changes

Other means of biological control can be employed to

bring about changes in plant composition. Natural

changes in plant succession following logging or wildfires can affect large areas. Many sites cannot be

revegetated by artificial plantings, but significant

improvement can be achieved by protection and natural changes. Slight shifts in plant composition on

extensive areas can significantly influence forage or

habitat resources. Natural changes in the density of

broadleaf herbs, particularly Utah sweetvetch,

arrowleaf balsamroot, or nineleaf lomatium can occur

as a result of fire in sagebrush or bunchgrass communities. A slight increase can be beneficial to spring and
60 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

summer foraging by game and wildlife. Similarly, an

increase of wild buckwheat or black sagebrush, on

harsh, exposed winter ranges can significantly enhance winter forage conditions for some big game

animals. Fluctuations in density and herbage production of certain shrubs including big sagebrush, low

rabbitbrush, and antelope bitterbrush occur as the

composition of understory weeds is reduced. Redstem

ceanothus and western chokecherry increase rapidly

as overstory trees are removed. Rather dramatic differences can occur within a short time. The natural

shift in species presence, density, and vigor can substantially change the seasonal forage base and habitat

conditions.

Both logging and burning are commonly used to

improve wildlife habitat conditions in many forest

communities (Steele and Geier-Hayes 1987). The approach of altering successional change normally requires a long period, but is a well-accepted management technique. Other considerations such as

maintenance and economic costs are easily justified.

Natural recovery of depleted arid and semiarid rangelands does not occur quickly, and artificial rehabilitation is often recommended. Nevertheless, sites can be

managed to facilitate improvement through natural

succession.

Differences in annual precipitation and other climatic conditions have long-term effects on plant

communities (Bleak and others 1965; Plummer and

others 1955). Drought conditions can eliminate or

weaken certain species. Contrasting “wet years” can

enhance establishment and increase plant density.

Implementing revegetation measures during favorable years or periods is advisable, but predicting “good

years” is not always possible. Delaying or implementing control measures until years when favorable moisture appears likely to occur can be justified.

Improvements in plant communities are not restricted to years or periods of high precipitation. During the drought period of 1987 to 1990, cheatgrass and

other annual weeds produced extremely low seed

crops. Seed production of native perennial grasses was

more favorable, and considerable spread of the perennials occurred.

Delaying plans for control measures until mid or

late winter when buildup of winter moisture occurs is

possible in many circumstances. Coordinating plans

for artificial control treatments to coincide with expected natural community changes should be carefully considered.

Insect and disease outbreaks (Nelson and others

1990) (see chapter 15), wildfires, winter injury (Nelson

and Tiernan 1983), and other factors can result in extensive plant dieoff. Contingency plans should be developed to capitalize on these situations.

Factors Influencing the Selection of

Methods and Equipment _________

Primary Objectives

Land rehabilitation or restoration measures are

developed to satisfy certain objectives. Most often,

range and wildlife habitat rehabilitation and restoration programs are designed to: (1) improve forage

quantity and quality, (2) enhance vegetative cover for

wildlife, (3) control weeds and their management

problems, (4) improve or maintain esthetic and recreational values, (5) correct watershed problems, and

(6) enhance the succession and natural development

of native communities.

If improvement of forage production is a principal

objective, measures required to create a managed

pasture situation may be justified (Astroth and

Frischknecht 1984; Cook 1966). Seeding or treating to

support a single species, or grazing at a specific period

may justify extensive conversion treatments (Cook

1966). Thus, disking, plowing, or herbicide spraying

would likely be required to eliminate competition and

successfully seed a specific crop. If year-long foraging

is desired or needed to sustain wildlife and livestock,

a complex of species would be needed (Monsen 1987).

Treatment practices would be used that would facilitate the introduction of some species without the

complete elimination of others (Monsen and Shaw

1983c).

Attempting to minimize the impacts of treatments

upon esthetics or selectively reducing certain species

while retaining others are complex actions that must

be contemplated in selecting appropriate equipment.

In most cases, the selection of equipment or treatment

practices is ultimately based on the need to control

weedy plants. Other factors, although important, generally do not dictate restoration measures. If plant

competition cannot be controlled, treatment procedures should not be implemented.

Plant control measures are usually closely aligned

with seeding or planting. Techniques that reduce competition, provide a good seedbed, and permit planting

in one operation are preferred (Schumacher 1964).

However, not all of these objectives can usually be

achieved in one procedure. The effectiveness of rehabilitation or restoration programs is determined by

the control measures and seeding procedures used. A

land manager must select the appropriate equipment

and treatments that will modify the vegetation in the

manner desired.

Sites that provide the greatest potential for forage

production (Anderson and others 1953) or for improved wildlife habitat values normally justify the

greatest investment. Complete renovation and seeding can be justified on areas that yield high returns.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 61

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

However, attempting to evaluate the importance of a

site based upon forage production is often unwise.

Sites that furnish midwinter forage, especially during

adverse winter conditions, are extremely valuable

locations. They furnish critically needed forage and

cover, although production may not be comparable

with other sites. Attempting to restore those areas

using costly and extensive procedures may be well

justified. For example, planting or enhancing the

status of wild buckwheat, green ephedra, or smooth

sumac on small restricted sites can significantly improve the midwinter range condition of many critical

game ranges.

Various criteria have been developed to identify

range sites that should or should not be treated (Cook

1966; Plummer and others 1968). Some recommendations do not advise treating steep slopes or shallow

soils when an increase in herbage production would

not occur. However, these sites are usually an integral

part of the habitat for game animals and watershed

resources. Forage productivity may not be as important as animal concealment or watershed protection.

Rehabilitation or restoration measures must be

compatible with circumstances at the planting site.

Treatments must be conducted in a manner that will

yield the greatest return. Sites should be evaluated

to determine their productive capabilities. Improvement measures should be designed to assure that

adapted plants and techniques are used to achieve

plant establishment and survival.

Most ranges, and particularly game ranges, are

diverse sites. Usually only one method is used to treat

an entire area. However, several different measures

are often justified to revegetate individual portions of

an area being treated.

Site Access

Topography and surface conditions influence the

operability of equipment used in rehabilitation and

restoration. Many range and wildland sites include

some steep or poorly accessible areas. Getting equipment onto a site and furnishing support and maintenance during the operation is essential. Aerial seeding

and anchor chaining are perhaps the most versatile

techniques currently available for treating mountainous terrain (Skousen and others 1986). Equipment of

this type is expensive to transport, consequently, it is

not economical to treat small areas or fragmented

tracts that require numerous moves and frequent

“setup.”

Rough, irregular sites limit the use of most conventional machinery. Rocky soil conditions and dense

woody vegetation interfere with equipment operation

and cause considerable breakage.

Topography also influences seasonal access and

operating efficiency and effectiveness. Uprooting and

breakage of woody plants is best accomplished when

soils are partially frozen and plants are cold and

brittle. Late fall and early winter access is necessary

to treat many shrublands. Treatment of riparian sites

is best accomplished during periods of low runoff and

when soils are dry. This often requires late fall and

winter access.

Soil surface conditions may differ considerably on

irregular sites. Soils may be moist and frozen on

certain aspects, yet dry and friable on adjacent sites.

Differences can be great enough to reduce the success

of plant control measures. Yet, delaying treatment

until all sites are open and accessible may not be

practical. Consequently, the period when sites can be

effectively treated may be very short for some rather

large areas.

Status of Existing Vegetation______

Plant Competition

Usually only one or two species of undesirable plants

are of primary concern. However, mixed stands can

and do support different growth forms (shrubs and

grasses) that require different control measures.

Most perennial herbs cannot be eliminated by surface

scarification resulting from railing or chaining (Barney

and Frischknecht 1974; Tausch and Tueller 1977).

These plants must be uprooted by disking or plowing

(Cook 1966; Drawe 1977), or eliminated by chemical

spraying, or in some cases, burning (Robertson and

Cords 1957). Annual herbs, particularly those that

produce a buildup of seed in the soil, must be treated

in a manner that kills existing plants and prevents or

reduces establishment by seed (Evans and Young

1987b; Young and others 1969). Deep plowing or

scalping to sidecast surface soil and weed seeds away

from planting furrows are appropriate techniques

(Schumacher 1964). Herbicide spraying can also be

used to prevent floral or seed development (Evans and

others 1976). Weeds can also be consumed by fire if

burning is done before seeds drop from the plant

(Plummer and others 1968).

Large woody plants and rough rocky sites are not

conducive to soil tillage such as plowing or disking.

These areas can be burned if sufficient fuel is available

to carry a fire. Mechanical control measures are usually limited to railing, chaining, or other techniques

that uproot or crush the vegetation. These practices

usually create a good seedbed. Chemical spraying

can also be effective on trees and large shrubs, although selective herbicides are recommended in order

to prevent damage to desirable species that may be

present.

In most instances, a combination of treatments is

needed to gain control over sites dominated by more
62 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

than one weedy species. For example, chaining or

burning juniper-pinyon woodlands may successfully

control the trees, but cheatgrass would not be affected.

Plant Tolerance and Response

Many resprouting species recover following cutting,

burning, pruning, or chemical defoliation (Vallentine

1989). Repeated treatments may be necessary to eliminate these species. Treating at the appropriate season

can increase vegetative kill. In addition, the establishment of seeded species and the recovery or release of

other existing natives can result in further suppression of the targeted plants (Wight and White 1974).

Undesirable species that recover by root sprouting,

stem layering, or other means of vegetative propagation must be uprooted (Allison and Rechenthin 1956)

or chemically treated. Repeated treatments or a combination of treatments may be necessary to eliminate

particularly persistent or noxious weeds (Vallentine

1989). Such retreatments may be justified on highly

productive ranges, meadows, and riparian areas. However, complete control may not be practical on most

sites.

Complete elimination of resistant herbs is not always warranted. If density or recovery of weedy plants

does not interfere with the establishment of seeded

species or the recovery of desirable natives, extensive

control is not necessary (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990).

Spot treatment or treating narrow strips or bands may

be sufficient to interseed weedy sites (Schumacher

1964; Stevens and others 1981b; Wight and White

1974). Clearings must be large enough to allow seedling establishment and normal plant growth (Giunta

and others 1975). Treated sites should remain free of

weeds for 1 to 3 years to allow establishment of seeded

plants.

Control of annual weeds usually requires the elimination of live plants and new seedlings (Davis and

Harper 1990; McArthur and others 1990a). Most annuals, particularly cheatgrass, medusahead, Russian

thistle, and Belvedere summer cypress, recover quickly

following treatment if soil-borne seeds are allowed to

germinate (Evans and Young 1984). Removal of the

live plants is not sufficient to assure successful seeding. New weed seedlings can appear quickly enough to

suppress seeded species.

Mechanical or chemical fallowing is used to reduce

newly germinating weed seedlings, although present

restrictions limit the use of some herbicides. Deep

furrow drilling (Young and McKenzie 1982), disk chaining (Wiedemann 1985), anchor chaining (Davis and

Harper 1990) using the Dixie (Jensen 1983) or Ely

chain, pipe harrowing, or other soil tillage treatments can be successful in eliminating weed seedlings. Soils are not completely plowed or turned with

these implements, but sufficient tillage occurs to uproot and kill enough weeds to allow establishment

of planted seedlings. Soil surfaces must be overturned

3 to 5 inches (8 to 13 cm) by disking to bury most weed

seeds deep enough to prevent emergence.

The Extent and Duration of Weed

Control ________________________

The foremost issue in most restoration or rehabilitation projects is the establishment of seeded species.

Weeds must be eliminated during this period to assure

seedling establishment and survival (Samuel and

DePuit 1987). Many grasses and broadleaf herbs seeded

on rangelands establish quickly and grow rapidly

(Houston and Adams 1971). Once these species achieve

initial establishment, they are sufficiently competitive to resist extensive competition. In contrast, many

shrub seedlings establish much slower and are vulnerable to competition for a number of years (Giunta and

others 1975).

Weeds must be controlled for extended periods to

allow slow-growing species time to establish. Many

introduced weeds have unusual regenerative capabilities and can suppress seedling establishment of many

natives, particularly some shrubs. Young stands of

shrubs such as Stansbury cliffrose, green ephedra,

serviceberry, skunkbush sumac, curlleaf mountain

mahogany, blackbrush, and Martin ceanothus can be

severely decimated if cheatgrass, red brome, or

medusahead are allowed to reestablish 3 to 5 years

after the shrubs are seeded (Plummer and others

1968). Seedlings of these shrubs are vulnerable to

excessive herbaceous competition for many years following seeding. Even though the shrub seedling may

survive 1 to 3 years, their ultimate survival is still

tenuous.

Seeding companion species is a viable and recommended method of reducing the early reentry of weeds

(Vallentine 1989). Some perennials are sufficiently

competitive to prevent recruitment of weeds, yet

allow the establishment of slower growing seeded

species. Timothy, orchardgrass, mountain rye, alfalfa,

western yarrow, and Sandberg bluegrass are frequently seeded in alternate rows with shrubs or

slower developing herbs to control the rapid entry of

weeds. Manipulating row spacing, seeding rates, and

planting at different dates are methods useful in

attaining establishment of slow-growing species

(DePuit and others 1980; Samuel and DePuit 1987).

Seeding nurse crops or companion species under arid

conditions must be done carefully to prevent unnecessary competition.

Most woody plants, including stands of juniperpinyon, big sagebrush, matchbrush, rabbitbrush, black
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 63

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

greasewood, or snowbrush ceanothus do not need to be

completely eliminated to allow the establishment of

seeded species (Plummer and others 1968). The presence of some remaining plants may actually be helpful. These species may be partially thinned or damaged by railing, chaining, or burning. Their recovery,

either through new growth or by reproduction, is

usually not rapid enough to prevent establishment of

the seeded species.

Thinning, suppression, or partial elimination of some

plants are often required to release other associated

species. In many projects the recovery of certain native

herbs and shrubs is of primary importance. Partial

control of the dominating weedy species is often sufficient to release the remnant plants (Aro 1971). The

released plants recover quickly and are able to provide

considerable competition within 1 to 2 years. Favorable recovery of Woods rose, blue elderberry, black

sagebrush, low rabbitbrush, black chokecherry,

fourwing saltbush, spiny hopsage, antelope bitterbrush, desert bitterbrush, squawapple, Apache plume,

and many other shrubs has occurred following control

of associated plants.

Plant control must have a long-term effect (Hull

and Stewart 1948). Some plants recover and reoccupy

the site if only a few plants are left following treatment. Big sagebrush, Sandberg bluegrass, and black

greasewood are examples of plants that recover rapidly and may reduce recovery of other desirable species (Johnson and Payne 1968).

Effects of Control Measures on Seedbed

Conditions

Range sites that do not harbor desired plants usually must be seeded to achieve a more desirable vegetative composition (Eckert and Evans 1967). Regardless of whether sites require seeding or will recover

naturally, a suitable seedbed is necessary (Eckert and

others 1987). Seeding is usually programmed to coincide with weed control or site preparation treatments. Seedings are usually more successful if conducted soon after weedy competition is removed (Young

and others 1969) to take advantage of the seedbed

conditions created by disking, railing, and chaining

(Plummer and others 1968). It is important that plant

control methods create or improve the seedbed. Generally, mechanical treatments overturn or disrupt the

soil surface. Disrupting the soil surface by deep plowing or other drastic measures can destroy favorable

seedbed conditions. Tillage provided by chaining, pipe

harrowing, or railing is usually sufficient to adequately

cover seed and compact the seedbed, but is less disruptive to the soil surface than plowing or disking.

If plant control measures are also used to facilitate

seeding, the work should be conducted at the optimum

time for seed germination and seedling establishment

(Bleak and Miller 1955). This may or may not coincide

with the optimum period for plant control. Seeding is

sometimes done during inappropriate periods to take

advantage of loose soil conditions or soil sloughing.

Seeding is often done immediately after a burn in loose

ash and flocculated soils. Seeding is not recommended

in midsummer or when seeds may germinate prematurely. If plant control measures are relied upon to

cover the seed, the operation should be done when soils

are tillable and proper planting depths are attainable.

Chaining sites when soils are dry and loose results in

deep planting and a very loose seedbed. These conditions are not conducive to seedling establishment.

In contrast, chaining areas in early winter when

soils are wet and slightly frozen prevents deep seeding and results in a firm seedbed. Broadcast seeding

on top of snow over disturbed soil can be a successful

seeding practice.

In general, mechanical plant control favors seeding

as soil disturbances and tillage create a useful seedbed. Burning or spraying may leave some surface

residue 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 of

equipment and techniques to treat wildlands, the

availability and operative experience of existing personnel is a primary consideration. Most implements

used on wildlands are costly and are not widely available. In addition, these implements are often used on

steep, inaccessible sites that require highly skilled

operators. A large support staff, spare equipment, and

repair facilities may be required to sustain a major

rehabilitation project. Without this contingent of personnel and equipment, rehabilitation procedures may

not be effective. However, using the wrong piece of

equipment cannot be justified simply because of poor

preparation and planning.

Treatment procedures are usually as effective as the

equipment operator. Chaining, railing, or plowing

results differ considerably among operators. Field

personnel and equipment operators should be advised

of their role and responsibility in rehabilitation projects.

Although methods used on steep slopes should be

designed to lessen water runoff, equipment operators

must be given flexibility to safely and efficiently operate the machinery. Chaining or railing up and down

steep slopes does not always create rills or generate

damaging runoff. Sufficient litter and surface debris

usually remains in place to control erosion when

juniper-pinyon or brush fields are treated.

Equipment operators should be directed to map or

plot travel routes ahead of time to allow efficient
64 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 8 Controlling Plant Competition

operation of all equipment. Procedures used in

monitoring fire suppression activities should be adopted

to assist revegetation when aircraft or large equipment are used.

Economic Benefits and Treatment

Costs _________________________

Attempting to project and quantify operation costs

and resulting benefits is difficult for range and wildlife projects. Equipment operation costs including

transportation, setup, maintenance, operations, and

depreciation are identifiable expenses. However, equating returns based solely upon herbage production is

not indicative of all benefit values. For example, attaching an accurate value to the establishment of

certain secondary species that provide seasonal forage

or protective cover for wildlife is difficult. Also, attempting to place a value on the habitat resources of

a changing plant community is equally difficult. The

long-term values of rehabilitation projects, particularly watershed protection, stability of wildlife populations, esthetics, and recreational uses are important

considerations in most improvement projects. In addition, the continued degradation and loss of resource

values, and the increased rehabilitation costs of deteriorated sites that are left untreated is of major consideration. All treatment benefits should be recognized in order to select appropriate plant control

measures.

Treatment Impacts on Associated

Resources _____________________

Converting the vegetative composition from one

plant type to another (for example, trees to herbs)

creates a dramatic change in scenery. Also, removing

existing mature plants and establishing other species

that have the same life form will still create a significant change in appearance for a number of years

following treatment. Young plantings provide differences in ground cover, animal concealment, esthetics,

forage production, and so forth. However, some benefits are registered quickly including improvement of

ground cover and forage production.

Visual impacts are most noticeable immediately

after treatment (burning, chaining, plowing). However, these effects are usually short lived. Natural

changes usually occur rapidly and mask initial impacts. Foregoing appropriate restoration measures

because of the initial impacts to esthetics is not

justified. Plant communities that support weedy

species are usually esthetically unpleasant as well,

and the conversion process should be viewed as an

improvement.

Plant manipulation procedures are a part of the

improvement process. Sites dominated by weedy annuals or supporting unwarranted numbers of woody

species should be regarded as disclimax conditions.

Restoration of these areas will ultimately enhance

all resources.

Certain steps may be taken to limit visual impacts,

particularly when extensive changes are proposed.

Treatments can be used that retain some plants in

appropriate areas. Treatments can be laid out in a

mosaic design to lessen visual impact. Treatments

that result in straight lines and square corners are not

recommended. Treatments can also be conducted over

a period of years to stagger the number of acres treated

at one time, and allow some sites to recover satisfactorily before further treatment is initiated.

Sites located on similar aspects can be treated at the

same time leaving areas on different aspects for later

treatment. If this is done, areas treated at any one

time should be large enough to support the increased

use that is normally imposed on new seedings. In

addition, restoration measures should be confined to

the areas needing treatment. Attempts to appease

esthetic concerns should not result in inappropriate

areas being treated simply because they are less visible, and problem areas left untreated because of high

visibility.

A variety of herbaceous and woody species can and

should be seeded in most areas to provide initial cover

and herbage. Many native herbs and some shrubs that

are released when weeds are removed will recover

quickly. In almost all situations, the recovery of desirable natives can be encouraged to effectively enhance

the initial cover. Chaining, railing, and burning can

be used to stimulate regrowth and improve vigor of

certain species through the removal of weedy competition. Antelope bitterbrush, snowbrush ceanothus,

blue elderberry, chokecherry, Gambel oak, and Rocky

Mountain maple are but a few of the shrubs that

respond quickly. Quick recovery under more arid

circumstances is often more difficult to achieve, but

seedings of big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, winterfat, and

fourwing saltbush grow quickly and can be used to

lessen initial visual impacts.

Site renovation programs are often conducted to rectify and protect highly valuable onsite and associated

offsite resources. Important watersheds often require

treatment to maintain downstream values. Wildlife

habitat projects may be required to stabilize game

herd productivity, reduce heavy animal losses that

occur during harsh winters, and prevent trespass

damage to agricultural crops. The related resource

values of most range and wildland projects are important, and few restoration projects are developed to

satisfy or benefit one resource.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 65

Richard Stevens

Steven B. Monsen

9

Chapter

When planning a restoration or rehabilitation project, proper

equipment selection should be a high priority. Equipment should

be selected that is adapted to the treatment site, and that when

properly used, will fulfill and add to the objectives of the treatment. Equipment should be economical and ecologically sound.

Basic equipment available and commonly used in range and

wildland restoration is described in this chapter along with

primary functions and principal areas of use. For the convenience of the reader, equipment has been grouped into three

categories.

Mechanical Plant

Control

1. Seedbed preparation equipment

Disks and plows

Chains and cables

Pipe harrows, rails, and drags

Land imprinters

Root plows

2. Seeding equipment

Drills

Broadcast seeders, ground

broadcasting, aerial broadcasting,

fixed-wing, helicopters

Seed dribblers

Brillion seeder

Surface seeder

Interseeders

Hydro seeders

3. Special use equipment

Transplanters

Roller choppers

Dozers and blades

Trenchers, scalpers, gougers

Fire igniters

Herbicide sprayers

Steep-slope scarifier seeders
66 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Seedbed Preparation Equipment___

Disks and Plows

Disks and plows are designed to turn over soil and

surface debris, kill existing vegetation, and prepare a

seedbed (table 1).

Moldboard Plow—Plows with large curved bottoms (moldboards) with blades or shears and large

curved wings above. Each moldboard can be independently spring-loaded to enable each bottom to rise

when obstructions are encountered.

Disk Plow—Consists of a single gang of a few to

several disks on a frame supported by wheels. Each

disk is slanted at an angle to the vertical, with a

separate bearing and frame attachment.

Brushland Plow—A specially designed rangeland

disk. The brushland plow consists of seven pairs of

opposite, opposing disks attached to spring-loaded

arms that are connected to a heavy duty frame supported by three wheels. Each pair of disks is independently suspended (fig. 1) (Larson 1982).

Off-Set Disk—Two rows or gangs of disks are set at

an angle to each other (fig. 2) (Brown 1977; Larson

1982). Angles are adjustable. Disks cut in two directions, turning over soil and vegetation both ways.

Disks can be smooth or cutout (table 1).

Disk-Chain—An anchor chain, with cutout disks

connected to every other link (fig. 3). Varying lengths

of disk-chains are connected to either end of a double

roller bar, forming an “A” with the apex forward and

the roller bar back. A spreader bar is connected from

the center of the roller bar to the apex. The length of

the spreader bar determines the angle of the chains

and disks. Chains are connected to each other; the

roller 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 and

disks mounted on a frame. free soil. Controls deep rooted plants. large debris-free sites. Slow speed.

Large amount of power required

to 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. Operational

loaded 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 with

at an angle to each other. vegetation. Second gang turns large rocks and on slopes over

soil and vegetation in opposite 30 percent. Fairly slow operational

directions. Vegetation is cut up speed.

and broken. Controls most grasses,

forbs, and small nonsprouting

shrubs. 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. Will

either 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, grasses

and 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 understory

and throughout. covering seed. Can be operated on vegetation.

rough, rocky terrain. Cost to operate

is moderate. (con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 67

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Dixie sager Anchor chain weighing 40 to Uproots and breaks off trees and shrubs. Does not work well in full pinyon160 lb per link, 90 to 350 ft long, Releases understory vegetation. Does juniper stands. Trees are hooked

with railroad rail welded to each an excellent job of uprooting and killing by the railroad rail and are dragged

side of each link horizontal to big sagebrush, scattering smaller pinyon along. This lifts the chain off the

the link. Crown of rail welded and juniper, and scarifying the soil. Covers ground and results in poor sagebrush

next 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 with

100 to 550 ft long, with swivels soil surface and cover seed. Can be smooth, Ely, or Dixie-sager anchor

at both ends and throughout. used on rocky, uneven terrain. Cost chains. Soil is poorly scarified.

of operation is low. Ideal for removing

scattered large trees and releasing

understory shrubs.

Pipe harrow Spiked pipes trailed behind a Scarifies soil surface, removes small Does not control plants other than

spreader bar. Pipes are attached brittle shrubs, covers seed. Ideal for brittle shrubs. Soil scarification is

to 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. Cost

of operation is low. Seeding can occur

concurrently.

Land imprinter Cylinder or drums with various Operation on rough, rocky, and brush Does not work well in dense shrubs or

configurations, sizes, and shapes covered terrain on most soil types. grass communities or on compacted

of angle iron welded to the drum Creates small depressions. Seeds and rocky soil.

surface. Seed dispensers may are deposited into depressions in a

be attached to frame-tow bar firm seedbed. Cost of operation is

combination. 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 sprouting

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

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Only one tractor is required to operate a disk-chain.

Seeding and disking can occur simultaneously. Broadcast seeders can be connected to the roller bar on a

trailing trailer. Seed boxes have been placed over the

roller bars.

Principal Areas of Use—Disks are designed to

kill plants by turning over sod, vegetation, and debris;

and for preparing a seedbed. Disk plowing has the

advantage of leaving plant material at or near the soil

surface. Offset disks and moldboard plows are well

adapted to fairly deep soils with few large rocks and

debris. Offset disks are fairly effective on moderately

rocky soils taking out small and medium shrubs, but

not effective when worked in large shrubs and trees

that have large woody stems and heavy roots.

The brushland plow was developed specifically for

range and wildlands. It is well suited to rocky, rough,

and uneven terrain. This plow does a good job of

killing low growing nonsprouting shrubs. Each set of

disks, being independently suspended, will lift up

and go over rocks and debris leaving the other sets in

the ground.

The disk-chain is designed for use on smooth, rough,

uneven, and rocky terrain in all vegetative types

ranging from grass communities to large shrubs and

sparse stands of small trees. Width of treatment is

determined by width of the roller bar. Roller bars vary

from 24 to 46 ft (7.3 to 14 m) wide. Width of roller bars

and length of chain determine disk angle and distances between disk cutting points. If complete disturbance and vegetation turnover is desired, spreader

bar or chain length is increased, causing the angle of

the chain to the roller bar to be readjusted. When it

is desirable to have some area undisturbed

(interseeded), spreader bar or chain length is decreased. Care must be taken in extending the spreader

bars too far. If the angle between the spreader bars

and the chain exceeds 30∞, excessive wear to the

components will result. Broadcast seeding can occur

simultaneously with disk chaining from a broadcaster

mounted on a trailing trailer (fig. 3A) that throws the

seed forward behind the disks and ahead of the roller

bars that covers the seed. Drill boxes can be mounted

directly over the roller bars that deposit the seed

directly onto the roller bar, and subsequently in front

of the roller bar that cover the seed and turns up the

seedbed (fig. 3B). The disk-chain is an ideal piece of

equipment for large sites, strips, and localized site

seeding in sparse trees and shrub stands. The diskchain does an excellent job in reducing the density of

cheatgrass and perennial species.

Chains and Cables

Cables and anchor chains and modified anchor chains

are generally pulled between two crawler tractors for

the purpose of removing or thinning trees, shrubs, and

grasses and for covering seed (table 1).

Figure 3—Disk-chain. (A) Seed broadcast with

electric powered cyclone seeder. (B) Disk-chain

with seed boxes mounted above roller bar.

A

B

Cables—The steel cable is 1.5 to 2 inches (3.8 to

5 cm) thick and 100 to 550 ft (30.5 to 168 m) long.

Swivels are required at both ends and are sometimes

installed in the center of the cable. They are necessary

so that the cable does not unwind, and to permit the

cable to rotate and keep itself relatively free of trash

and debris.

Anchor Chain—A destroyer or cruiser-type anchor

chain, 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 ends

and are recommended additionally, at least in the

middle of the chain.

Ely Chain—This device consists of anchor chains

with steel bars (fig. 5). Hard surfaced railroad rails are

I-beam (fig. 5 and 6) welded crossways to every link,

every other link, or every third link (Larson 1980). Bar

length will vary with link size but should extend 4 to

6 inches (10 to 15 cm) beyond both sides of the link.

Swivels are required on both ends of the chain and

intermediately throughout the chain. Chain length
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 69

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

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 to

15 lead links at either end of the chain are left smooth

because this part of the chain is not in contact with

the ground.

Dixie Sager—An anchor chain with a railroad rail

welded to each side of each link, horizontal to the link

(fig. 7) (Larson 1982). Length of rails depends on link

length. The rail should be approximately one-half the

total length of the link. Rails are welded with the

crown of the rail next to the link, and base of rail out.

Swivels are required on both ends of the chain and

intermediately throughout the chain. Chain length

varies from 90 to 350 ft (27 to 107 m). Ten to 15 smooth

lead 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 cables

are primarily used to uproot trees and shrubs, to

create seedbeds, to top and prune large shrubs, and to

cover seed (table 1). Some grasses and forbs can also be

uprooted. Use is also limited due to concerns for

protection of archaeological sites, damage to nontarget vegetation, and aesthetic and hydrologic impacts.

Anchor chains and cables are pulled behind two

crawler tractors traveling parallel to each other. To

Figure 7—Dixie Sager. Anchor chain with

railroad rails welded horizontally to both sides

of each link.

Figure 6—Ely chain. Anchor chain with railroad

rails welded crossways on every other link.
70 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

be effective, chains and cables should not be dragged

or stretched taut, but must be dragged in a loose,

J-shaped (fig. 8), U-shaped, or half circle pattern. The

half-circle configuration provides the greatest swath

width, lowest percentage kill, and should only be used

in mature, even-age tree stands. Kill and disturbance

increases as the width of the J- or U-shaped pattern

decreases. Chain length to swath width ratio of 2:1 to

3:1 are commonly used. As the proportion of young

trees and shrubs increase, chaining width should

decrease in order to achieve the greatest amount of

kill. Individual chain link weight varies from 40 to

160 lb (18 to 72.6 kg). The heavier the link, the better

the chain stays on the ground, and the higher the

percentage kill.

Chaining commonly occurs on slopes of up to 50 percent grade (Vallentine 1980). Chaining can occur up

and down or across the slope without adversely affecting watershed values.

Success in removing trees and shrubs varies with

species composition, age structure, density, and rooting

habit. Trees in mature, even-age stands can be killed

more effectively and efficiently than in uneven-age

stands. Young trees less than 48 inches (1.2 m) tall

may not be killed with single or double chaining

because the chain may ride over them. Small junipers

can be uprooted and killed more effectively than

small pinyons that tend to be more flexible than

junipers. Sprouting trees and shrubs may resprout

following chaining. Anchor chains can be used to

improve esthetics and livestock movement in burned

tree and shrub stands, particularly those with a large

number of standing dead trees and shrubs.

Chaining generally does not increase runoff or erosion. The opposite generally happens; runoff and

Figure 8—Uprooting pinyon and juniper with

an anchor chain. For maximum results chain

should be dragged in a loose J-shape as is

being done.

erosion are decreased through increased retention

and detention of surface water. This is the result of the

large amounts of debris, trash, shrubs, litter, and trees

that are deposited and left on the soil surface and the

establishment of seeded vegetation. Downed trees,

shrubs, and plants increase ground cover and protect

the soil from wind and water erosion. In addition, they

provide favorable microenvironments for plant establishment, growth, and protection. Live standing trees

provide only canopy cover, very little ground cover,

and little, if any, retention and detention of surface

water.

Percent kill and amount of soil disturbance increases with link size. Ely chains do a good job of

scarifying soil and preparing a desirable seedbed. The

Ely chain has a tendency to roll downed trees and

shrubs to the center of the chain. Tree and shrub kill

is improved with an Ely chain over a smooth chain.

The Dixie sager was designed to uproot big sagebrush. It does an excellent job of uprooting sagebrush

and scattered pinyon and juniper. The Dixie chain will

do a better job than a smooth chain of soil scarification,

and of sagebrush, small juniper, and pinyon kill. The

Dixie sager does not work well in full pinyon-juniper

stands since the railroad rails tend to hook trees and

carry them along; this lifts the chain off the ground

and reduces soil scarification and the number of trees

and shrubs killed. Smooth chains are preferred when

the objective is to release and open up tree and shrub

communities such as big sagebrush, aspen, mahogany,

serviceberry, Gambel oak, chokecherry, bitterbrush,

cliffrose, winterfat, and shrubby eriogonum. When

removing trees and most shrubs, twice-over chaining

is necessary. The first chaining completely uproots

some trees; however, many trees are not completely

uprooted and are laid down in the direction of chaining. The second chaining should occur in the opposite

direction, this generally uproots and tips the downed

trees over. Most shrubs that come in contact with the

chain are uprooted or broken off near ground level.

Twice-over chaining increases percent kill and topping of shrubs. Seeding should occur between chainings,

as the second chaining covers the seed. If single chaining occurs, seeding should take place prior to chaining.

First and second chainings can follow each other in

the fall, with seeding occurring between chainings.

Another technique is to chain once during the summer

months. Uprooted and partially uprooted trees are

allowed to dry before seeding and the second chaining

is done in the fall. The dry trees and limbs break up

easily and are fairly well scattered over the areas with

the second chaining. Trees, limbs, and dry foliage

create excellent microclimates for seedling establishment. Once-over chaining may be adequate when

sufficient understory remains, trees are mature, and

seeding is not planned. Cabling is less effective than

chaining in removing trees; however, cables disturb
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 71

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

the understory less. Use of a cable of lighter link chain

is satisfactory where it is desirous to leave some trees

or shrubs or to remove dead material from old shrubs

and stimulate new growth.

It is generally advantageous to leave downed trees

in place and not pile or burn them. Some advantages

to leaving trees in place include: (1) increased amount

of infiltration by increased retention and detention of

surface water; (2) increased ground cover; (3) decreased erosion; (4) cover maintained for wildlife;

(5) big game and livestock movement onto the treated

area is encouraged, resulting in more even distribution and use; (6) provides shade for livestock and big

game; (7) decreased livestock trailing; (8) seedling

establishment is improved, especially of shrubs, and

(9) cost of piling and burning is eliminated. Some

advantages to removing trees are: (1) improved vehicular access; (2) enhanced access to all forage by

grazing animals; (3) lower rodent density; (4) reduction in fire potential, and (5) improved esthetics.

Pipe Harrows, Rails, and Drags

Pipe harrows, rails, and drags are used to scarify

soil surfaces, prepare seedbeds, cover seed, thin or

reduce shrub density, and to release shrubs by removing top growth (table 1).

A pipe harrow consists of a spreader bar (usually

railroad rails) and trailing spiked pipes (fig. 9). The

spiked pipes are attached at equal distances along

the spreader bar with swivels (Larson 1980, 1982).

Cables or chains connect the spreader bar to a

Figure 9—Pipe harrow consisting of spreaderbar and trailing spiked pipes.

Figure 10—A drag consisting of an I-beam Ely

chain combination being used to thin sagebrush

and cover seed.

tractor. Rails come in various configurations. An Arail is a rigid frame with the apex forward (Larson

1980, 1982). Rails consist of any number of tiers of rails

connected with chains or cables that are dragged at

right angles to the direction of travel. Drags consists of

chain link fence, trees and shrubs drags, and combinations of rails and chains (fig. 10).

Principal Areas of Use—A pipe harrow can be

used to uproot, break off, or thin shrubs; scarify soil;

and cover seed (fig. 11). A pipe harrow can be very

useful for preparing a seedbed and interseeding desirable species into sparse grass, forb, shrub, and tree

stands, and for removing and thinning plants and

seeding rocky and otherwise inaccessible areas.

Weight of pipe harrows can be increased by filling the

Figure 11—Pipe harrow and Hansen seed

dribbler being used to seed shrubs and

cover herb seeds to improve interspaces

between pinyon and juniper trees and

Gambel oak. Herbs were broadcast seeded

prior to treatment.
72 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

spiked pipes with cement; increasing weight increases

scarification. Rails are used for removing shrubs and

covering seed. Rails are less effective than pipe harrows. Chain link fence, trees or shrubs drags are used

to prepare a seedbed and to cover seed. Broadcast

seeding can take place simultaneously with pipe harrowing, railing, and with drags.

Land Imprinter

The land imprinter (fig. 12) was developed by

USDA Agricultural Research Service for covering

broadcast seeds and creating microdepressions in

the soil to improve moisture collection and infiltration (Dixon 1980). The equipment was designed to

operate on untilled surfaces, and can be used to treat

burns, or other disturbances where remnant vegetation should be retained (table 1).

The land imprinter consists of cylinders or rollers

mounted on a single axle. The axle is attached to a steel

tubular or pipe frame with a tongue for pulling. Cylinder surfaces have various configurations, and sizes,

and shapes of angle iron welded to the surface of each

drum. Angle irons make indentations or imprints in

the soil (Larson 1980). Cylinders or rollers can be

constructed from discarded asphalt rollers or similar

items (Johnson 1982). The cylinders can be filled with

water to increase weight and allow for deeper imprints. Broadcast seeders can be mounted on the

frame assembly to dispense seed over the imprints;

or a grain box can be mounted in front of the rollers

with seed being distributed on the surface and impacted into the soil by the imprinter. The imprinter

is commonly about 10 ft (3 m) wide, with individual

angle irons 6 to 10 inches (15 to 25 cm) deep with

vertical lengths between 3 to 4 ft (0.9 to 1.2 m) long. A

60 to 125 hp tractor is required to tow most land

imprinters.

Figure 12—Land imprinter equipped with an

electric broadcast seeder.

Principal Areas of Use—The land imprinter is

designed to be towed over burned and low stature

brush and herbaceous vegetation where other control

measures are not used. The weighted cylinders are

able to crush and compact standing vegetation, providing litter and surface protection. However,

Haferkamp and others (1985) reported that both

regular drill seeding and deep furrow drill seeding

were more successful than imprint seeding on an

unprepared Wyoming big sagebrush and Thurber

needlegrass site. Imprint seeding is practical on sites

where weed competition is low, and excessive debris

does not interfere with seed placement.

The imprinter is well suited for seeding on loose,

unstable seedbeds and barren surfaces left after a fire

or light disking. Impressions can be created in the soil

to reduce soil movement and deterioration of the

seedbed. However, imprinting cannot eliminate soil

erosion on all sites for extended periods. The V-shaped

furrows or inverted pyramids are effective in collecting moisture and creating variable seedbed conditions that extend the germination period, and often

tend to favor seedling success. The various surface

configurations result in small furrows aligned at different directions, creating different microsites that may

benefit the establishment of multispecies seedings.

Haferkamp and others (1985) found that seedling

establishment on loose soil was greatest from broadcast seeding followed by imprinting, and that imprinting prior to seeding was not as effective. These investigators found imprint seeding more successful than

drill seeding of areas disked prior to seeding. These

results may not be universally applicable.

Placement of most seeds into a firm seedbed usually

improves seedling establishment. Small seeds generally benefit from shallow seeding. The land imprinter

lends itself to this type of seedings.

The imprinter appears useful on heavy textured

soils where surface crusting can be expected, such as

areas where black greasewood dominates. The machine can be used to retain and incorporate litter into

the soil surface, reducing the potential for crusting.

However, the machine should not be operated when

soils are moist, or during periods when excessive

compaction may occur. The machine is suited to seeding mine and roadway disturbance where loose, rough

surfaces are created following ripping of spoil piles,

dump sites, and temporary roads.

The imprinter can operate on most rough sites that

are free of large rocks or obstructions. It can treat

slopes up to 45 percent (Larson 1980), but it is not well

suited to extremely irregular terrain. The land imprinter is not able to treat dense, erect shrubs with

stems having a diameter greater than 3 to 4 inches (7.6

to 10 cm). Larson (1980) reports the imprinter is

capable of production rates of over 4 acres (1.6 ha) per

hour, which is somewhat less than conventional
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 73

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

drill seeding. However, equipment breakdown and

maintenance is generally less for imprinters. Imprint

seeding can be used in conjunction with herbicide

treatments. Spraying often leaves standing litter and

dead plants that interfere with most conventional

drill seeding, but not with an imprinter.

The imprinter may also be used to aid in site improvement by natural seeding. Imprinting of seed

formed within the treated area can often be achieved

if a sufficient seed reservoir is present and treatment

is 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 attached

to two shanks (Larson 1980, 1982). Shanks are attached to a trailing draft arm or towbar, which are

attached to the rear of a crawler or rubber tired

tractor. Shanks can be attached to dozer blades, dozer

frames, or as a front-end tractor attachment. Fins

may be attached to the top of the blade.

Primary Areas of Use—Shearing blades are pulled

or literally pushed through the subsoil at desirable

depths, cutting off and uprooting most vegetation to

the cutting depth. Fins attached to the top of the

cutting blade provide some vertical cutting action and

can move severed roots and root crowns to the surface.

Plants with severed roots generally die from lack of

water, and plants whose roots are exposed die of

desiccation. Hot dry periods are the ideal time to root

plow. Rate of kill is generally higher in loose soils.

More power is required to root plow in hard, dry soil

than in damp soils. Plants are, however, less likely to

reestablish in dry soils (Larson 1980).

Root plowing kills most desirable and undesirable

shrubs and nonrhizomatous grasses and forbs. Seeding is generally required following root plowing.

Broadcast seeding can be accomplished simultaneously. Root plowing is limited to deep soils that are

fairly free of rocks and obstructions.

Seeding Equipment______________

Drills

Drills dispense and place various types of seed

in the most ideal situations for germination and

establishment. Drills adapted to range conditions require most or all of the following characteristics:

1. Minimum drill breakage and maintenance under

rough, rocky, and brushy conditions.

2. High clearance.

3. Heavy duty frame.

4. Individually suspended planters that can adjust

independently 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 seed

metering 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 are

used.

Seeding multiple species with varying sizes,

shapes, and surface characteristic requires multiple

seed boxes, each with differing seed metering devices

and rates. Seeding depth requirements also vary between species. Some modifications to, and incorporation of equipment to facilitate these requirements

have occurred. A variety of drills are available; however, all have some but very few possess all of the

above required characteristics.

Primary Areas of Use—The Rangeland drill

(fig. 13) was designed by the Forest Service specifically for rangeland use (Larson 1982; Roby and Green

1976; USDA Forest Service 1967; Young and McKenzie

1982). This drill possesses many desirable characteristics. It is well adapted to seeding rough, rocky terrain; however, breakage and down time can result in

areas with heavy brush and trash. Some of the many

improvements and modifications made to the Rangeland drill (Young and McKenzie 1982) have resulted in

Figure 13—Three Rangeland drills with drag

pipes and depth bands.
74 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

the development of the deep furrow drill. Special

adaptations are available to seed fluffy and trashy

seed (Laird 1980). Depth bands (fig. 14) are fairly

effective in regulating seeding depth except in loose

soils. The deep furrow Rangeland drill is especially

effective in creating water catchment impressions.

Rangeland drills come in a number of models and

sizes. Service, parts (USDA Agricultural Research

Service 1967), and operation (USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1976) manuals are available.

The Truax drill seeder (fig. 15) incorporates many

desirable characteristics plus all the features of the

Rangeland drill with the exception of high clearance.

It is designed to seed rangeland sites and rough

terrain where dense litter has not accumulated. The

wheels and disks are positioned for planting using

hydraulic cylinders. The drill has been designed to

transfer weight from the machine to the ground engagement planters through elastometer torsion knuckles,

unlike units using mechanical linkage. This has reduced breakage and eliminated regular repairs.

The Truax drill has three different seed boxes designed to accommodate seeds of different sizes and

Figure 14—Individually suspended arm on a

Rangeland drill. Disk furrow openers are

equipped with depth bands and a drag chain.

shapes. Seed metering is independently regulated for

each seed box. A front mounted seed box is designed to

plant small hard seeds. A second box is used to plant

fluffy or trashy, lightweight seeds, and the third seed

box is used to plant larger grain-size seeds. Seeds are

metered through the small seed box and the grain-size

seed box using a fluted feed regulator. Fluffy seeds are

removed from the seed box by picker wheels, which

remove and deposit a specific amount of seed. The

picker wheel is driven by a chain and sprocket system

that is attached to a ground wheel. Seeding rates are

controlled by changes in the sprockets, through use of

a bicycle-type derailer. The fluffy seed box contains an

auger type agitator to assure uniformity in seeding

rates. Pin agitators are mounted over the seed gate

within the large seed box to provide uniform movement of seed. Under harsh conditions the machine

requires 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 leading

concave, notched, no-till disk that is mounted on a

slight angle. Seeds are directly placed in the soil, and

compacted with a press wheel. A V-shaped cast iron

press wheel is available and is used in hard soils to

break up clods. A more universal type pneumatic press

wheel is also available, and is better suited for wet or

moist sites as mud does not accumulate on the wheels.

Depth bands are available and can be mounted or

removed from each disk with four nuts. Different

depth bands can be used to regulate planting depths

ranging between 0.25 to 2.0 inches (0.6 to 5 cm).

The Truax drill is an improvement over the Rangeland drill as it provides three different seed boxes that

can be independently regulated to meter seeds of

different shape and condition. Bridging of seed in the

seed tubes has been eliminated. Depth bands are

much easier to remove or exchange, and better control

Figure 15—Truax drill with three seed boxes

and three sets of drops that can seed three

different seed mixes or species at the same

time at different rates and depths.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 75

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

of planting depths is maintained. The press wheels

provide a better, firm, and compacted seedbed. Repair

and operation costs are much less due to a new design

of the supporting weight of the unit.

A number of reclamation and no till drills have been

developed in the past 10 years. Each has their own

characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages. Drills

that have shown application on various range and

wildland conditions include: Oregon press drill, Horizon (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 to

seeding areas that have been cleared of trees and

shrubs or burned. These drills have the capacity to

seed many rangeland species out of one to three seed

or fertilizer boxes or both (fig. 19).

Figure 16—Horizon drill with four press wheels

down and 10 press wheels in the up position.

Press wheels can aid in seedling establishment of

some species. Species are separated in seed

boxes according to seeding requirements.

Figure 18—Amazon no-till drill.

Figure 17—Tye drill with four seed boxes and

drops. Individual species or groups of species

can be seeded at differing depths and rates and

with or without press wheels.

Figure 19—Mixture of grasses, forbs, and fourwing

saltbush seeded with the Rangeland drill. Fourwing

saltbush was seeded through separate drops, independent of grasses and forbs.

The inability to regulate seeding depth, especially

in loose soils on undulating topography, and with

surface and shallow seeded species, is a major problem

with the Rangeland drill. Seeding depth, especially

shallow seeding, cannot be properly regulated. Seeds

are deposited and covered in the bottom of furrows

created by the disk-furrow opener. In loose soils the

furrow generally fills in with soil, covering the seed

even deeper. Drills being pulled uphill will generally

seed deeper than when pulled on the level, and shallower when going down hill. Many wildland species

require surface seeding or very minimal seed coverage

(fig. 20). Most species are, however, ideally seeded 1⁄4 to

3⁄8 inches (0.6 to 0.9 cm) deep. Most drills do not have

the capacity to seed at these shallow depths. The

Truax drill, however, does provide precise seeding

depth and rate of seeding capacity. Drop tubes on

many drills can be pulled from between and placed

behind the furrow openers, so the seed will be deposited on disturbed soil.

Seeding rate adjustments on most drills are rated

for small grains. Care must be taken to ensure that

proper seeding rates occurs. Many wildland species

have small seed, and when seeded singly may require
76 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

being mixed with a carrier such as rice hulls. Individual species or mixtures can be seeded down one

drop or a group of seed drops by partitioning seed

boxes according to needs.

Stumps, downed trees, tree limbs, large shrubs,

trash, large rocks, gullies, and moderately steep slopes

can limit the use of many drills. Multiple hitches

that accommodate two or three Rangeland drills

have been developed (fig. 20) (Larson 1980).

Most no till and reclamation drills have heavy duty

frames, individually suspended planters that adjust

independently, multiple seed boxes, precise seeding

range and depth adjustments, the ability to handle

fluffy, plumed, and smooth seed of many sizes, and

press wheels. They do not have sufficient clearance to

operate on rocky sites, or sites with downed trees and

other debris, or in gullies.

Prepared sites and semiwet and irrigated pastures

can be effectively seeded and interseeded with many

no-till drills (Bauder and others 1985).

Conventional grain drills are not well adapted to

most range and wildland conditions. They are generally too lightly built; planters are not individually

suspended, and many rangeland species will not flow

evenly through their metering devices. In addition,

the seeding depth regulators may be inadequate, and

many species will be seeded too deep.

Broadcast Seeders

These devices broadcast seed by means of a blower

or rotary spreader. There are two basic types of broadcasters, those that employ a blower or air source, and

those that employ some type of rotary wheel to distribute seed.

Principal Areas of Use—Broadcast seeding can

be an economical means of seeding large, as well as

small areas and inaccessible sites where other equipment cannot function. Consequently many extensive

Figure 20—Rangeland drills followed by

sagebrush seeders and chain drags. Species

requiring seed coverage are put through

Rangeland drills. Species that require surface

or near-surface seeding are run through the

sagebrush seeders.

and vital wildlands can only be seeded by broadcast

seeding.

Broadcasting is an effective means of uniformly

distributing seed; however, scarification is required in

most cases to incorporate seed into the soil. In only a

few instances can seed be broadcast planted and

expected to establish well on an unprepared seedbed.

Broadcasting onto a tilled or roughened surface can be

successful if natural soil sloughing occurs enough to

bury the seed. For some species a firm seedbed is

normally required to reduce surface evaporation and

provide good seed-soil contact. Broadcast seeding alone

normally does not achieve these results.

Aerial or ground broadcast seeding normally requires more seed than drilling. Approximately 33 to

50 percent more seed is recommended for broadcast

planting. With proper seed coverage, most grasses,

broadleaf herbs, and some shrubs can be successfully

broadcast seeded. Where costly and scarce seeds are

being used, they should be planted only where they

have the best chance to establish.

Small seeded species are often planted too deep with

drill seeding. Soil compaction and crusting that can

occur with drill seeding is generally not a problem with

broadcast planting. In addition, broadcast seeding,

when compared to drill seeding, does not dislodge or

impair existing plants and allows for quick recovery of

native and onsite species. Rodent seed predation and

insect damage is generally less with broadcast seedings.

Drill seeding occurs in rows, which rodents tend to

follow.

Seeds have been pelletized or coated in an attempt

to increase planting success and to eliminate the need

of soil scarification. To date, these treatments have not

proven effective.

Ground Broadcasting

This is a method for uniformly broadcasting seed

from handheld or vehicular mounted seeders. Seed is

generally distributed by means of a rotary wheel. An

airstream has been employed in a few ground seeders

(McKenzie and others 1981).

Ground broadcasters can be operated manually by a

tractor’s track or by hydraulic, gasoline, or electric

motors (fig. 21). They can be mounted on trucks,

trailers, or tractors and other prime movers, and

attached to various types of seedbed preparation equipment. A new concept in hand broadcast seeders has

been developed by Truax Equipment Company called

the Truax Seed Slinger. This unit is similar to older,

conventional handheld broadcast seeders, however, it

consists of a rigid plastic seed box that is partitioned

into two compartments. Having two independent

metering systems, seeds of different size, density, and

condition can be uniformly distributed across rough

terrain. It is designed to simultaneously distribute
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 77

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Figure 21—Two electric broadcast seeders

mounted on a crawler tractor that is pulling a pipe

harrow.

fluffy seed kept in one seed box compartment with

hard or smooth seed stored in the second compartment. Hard or smooth seeds drop directly out of the

bottom of the seed box through an adjustable gate

onto a rotating fan plate that throws or distributes

the seed. A wire agitator is mounted in the bottom of

this seed box to prevent seed bridging and maintain

uniform flow or movement of the seed. The agitator,

consisting of a wire rod, is positioned in the bottom of

the seed box and attached to a shaft driven by the hand

crank. As the hand crank is turned by the operator, the

wire rod is moved up and down driven by a cam lever.

Seed in the fluffy seed box is metered by two picker

wheels, and deposited onto the rotating fan plate. The

pickers remove a selected amount of seed and seeding rates can be regulated by speed of hand cranking.

Seed bridging is controlled or prevented by an auger

agitator. Seed can be distributed from 4 to 25 ft (1.2 to

7.7 m) depending upon seed density and wind conditions. The seeder can be mounted on all terrain vehicles, wheel tractors, or small cats and operated using

a 12-volt motor.

Principal Area of Use—Broadcast seeders are

used to seed areas that are inappropriate for drill

seeding, such as rocky or rough terrain, rocky soils,

areas with large amount of debris, and small, irregularly shaped areas. Broadcast seeders can be used

alone or in conjunction with seedbed preparation equipment. Broadcast seeding coupled with anchor chaining, disk-chaining, pipe harrowing, land imprinting,

drilling, scalping, harrows, or other seed coverage

treatments is often preferred over drill seeding. Costs

are generally much lower than for drilling. Variable

planting depths are achieved by broadcasting which

often favors mixed species plantings.

Sagebrush, rabbitbrush, forage kochia, and a

number of other species do best with surface seeding

on a disturbed surface. Broadcast seeders have been

designed to facilitate surface seeding. With proper

equipment, multiple species mixtures with differing

seeding requirements can be seeded simultaneously.

Aerial Broadcasting

Aerial broadcasting using fixed-wing aircraft and

helicopters is used to distribute seed over large areas

and on rough terrain where slope steepness and irregularities, rock, or debris make drilling impractical

(fig. 22).

Aerial broadcasting is usually the most economical

method for seeding large acreages. This technique is

also applicable for narrow corridors, roadways, disturbed right-of-ways, fence lines, and riparian drainage ways. Aerial seeding is an effective method for

uniformly distributing a variety of seeds.

Seed hoppers within the fuselage of the fixed-wing

aircraft (fig. 23) hold the seed. An electric rotary or

Venturi spreader distributes the seed. Agitators

within the seed hopper help to assure continuous and

uniform seed flow. Small obstacles can obstruct seed

passage. Venturi-type spreaders use the propeller

slipstream to carry the seeds out of the base of the

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

Figure 23—Loading seed into a fixedwing aircraft seed hopper.
78 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

seeding device and spread them beneath the aircraft

(Larson 1980).

Seeding rates are computed based on hopper gate

opening, air speed, and elevation of the fixed-wing

aircraft. Desired seeding rates can be achieved with

frequent monitoring. Ground spotters, “flaggers,” or

automatic flag dispersed equipment must be employed

to assure uniform seed distribution. Fixed-winged

aircraft generally operate at an elevation of under

50 ft (18.3 m), and at an air speed of 80 to 100 miles

(128 to 160 km) per hour (USDA Agricultural Research

Service 1976). Under favorable wind conditions and

level terrain, flight elevation may be between 15 to

30 ft (4.5 to 9 m). Most fixed-wing aircraft have the

capacity to carry approximately 1,000 lb (455 kg) of

seed, but larger aircraft may carry three times this

amount. Seed is usually distributed on a strip varying

in width from 100 to 250 ft (31 to 77 m).

Helicopters equipped for aerial seeding have a suspended seedbin or an attached seed hopper that

holds 250 to 2,000 lb (113 to 907 kg) of mixed seed.

Seeding width can vary between 25 to 250 ft (7.6 to

76 m). Helicopters normally operate at 15 to 25 ft

(4.5 to 7.6 m) above the ground at an airspeed between

35 to 50 miles (56 to 80 km) per hour. Lower speeds

may be used to reduce seed drift and for precise seed

placement. Seedbins are equipped with agitators and

blower spreaders to regulate seed flow and spread.

Principal Areas of Use—Fixed-wing aircraft

broadcasting is an effective technique for distributing seed over large range and wildland sites (National Research Council 1981). Planting success is

usually dependent upon time of seeding, seedbed conditions, and thoroughness of seed coverage. Aerial

seeding is particularly useful for seeding mountain

brush, pinyon-juniper, and big sagebrush sites where

chaining is used to cover the seed. Burned areas can be

successfully revegetated with aerial seeding followed

by proper seed coverage, in some cases seed coverage

may not be necessary. Aerial seeding has also been a

successful method of seeding desirable species into aspen, Gambel oak, and other deciduous tree and shrub

stands just prior to leaf fall. No further treatment is

required as seeds are covered by the falling leaves.

Large acreages can be aerial seeded in an extremely

short time period. Major revegetation projects can

often be more successfully seeded using aerial techniques and chaining than drill seeding, as plantings

can be completed during short planting periods or

windows when seedbed and weather conditions are

most favorable. Aerial seeding can be conducted when

wet soil conditions hamper drilling. Drill seeding occurs at a much slower rate than does aerial seeding.

Many times it is impossible to physically get over large

acreages during critical seeding periods with drills.

This can result in considerable acreages being seeded

out of season or totally omitted. With aerial broadcasting, seeding can be delayed until late fall or early

winter, and then seeded in a relatively few days using

aircraft, chain, rail, or cable scarifiers.

Irregular seeding patterns can occur with aerial

seeding where poor flagging or spotting occurs, and

from wind drift. Irregularities in seed placement and

density may not be too serious if there is a fair native

population, as this allows for natural recovery of

native species.

Aerial seeding is often the only appropriate technique available for seeding deteriorated wildland sites,

particularly when the terrain is inaccessible to motor

driven vehicles. However, level and more gentle sites

are often selected for drill seeding. Consequently,

areas requiring special or tailored treatment are often

ignored in favor of more conventional operating systems on less important sites. Aerial seeding should be

recognized as an appropriate method of seeding, and

used in areas where drills have proven less effective

and are more costly to use.

Fixed-wing aerial seeding requires access to a landing strip and loading site. Normally, aerial seeding is

much less costly than drilling unless the aircraft must

be transported a considerable distance, or a landing

site is not available close to the project. Aerial seeding

may be used as a means of “overseeding” or as one of

a number of methods used to seed a single site. Species

like alfalfa, clover, big sagebrush, rabbitbrush, small

burnet, or forage kochia can be successfully established by broadcasting on a rough seedbed. These

species can be overseeded following drill seeding. Seeds

that germinate quickly and early in the spring are

often lost to frost if fall planted. Species that require

winter stratification can be fall seeded with conventional equipment; species best adapted to spring

planting can be aerially overseeded in spring at an

appropriate date. Aerial seeding is also an effective

method of seeding different seed mixtures on specific

sites.

Aerial seeding requires a number of field support

personnel, flaggers, and loaders. Seed must be prepared and available for rapid loading (fig. 24) and

seeding. Seeding is often limited to early morning

hours when flying conditions are most satisfactory

and safe. Winds over 10 miles (16 km) per hour can

create unsafe seeding conditions.

Normal monitoring of wind conditions and planting

procedures will help to increase the probability of

seeding success. Aircraft should not be allowed to

operate under less than favorable conditions. Aerial

seeding can be done in such a short period that minor

delays are insignificant.

Helicopters are usually selected over fixed-wing

aircraft if irregular-shaped sites and variable terrain

are seeded and when air strips are unavailable. Effective seeding of right-of-ways, fence lines, steep slopes,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 79

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

small areas, rocky terrain, and specific species placement can be accomplished with helicopters.

Helicopter seeding is recommended for planting

high elevation sites, streambanks, and roadways

where fixed-wing planes do not operate as safely or

satisfactorily.

Downdraft and wind can cause seeds of different

species to dissipate and fall separately, sometimes

creating differences in stand composition and density.

Variation in seeding and establishment is often advisable, allowing for natural succession and spread of

desirable species. Drift can be reduced by slowing

air speeds and the distance from the seedbin to the

ground. Markers or flaggers can aid in more complete

and even seed distribution.

Helicopters equipped with seedbins (fig. 25) or

seed hoppers (fig. 26) that broadcast seed over large

and small areas are used in aerial broadcasting projects

Figure 24—Loading seed into a seed hopper

suspended from a helicopter.

that require more maneuverability than fixed-wing

aircraft. They can also function more economically

when seeding small, irregular tracts or when precise

placement of seed is required. Helicopters require

small landing pads, and thus can be used to seed sites

where a conventional landing strip is not available to

service a fixed-wing aircraft.

Seed Dribblers

Seed dribblers deposit selected seed onto crawler

tractor tracks (fig. 27). The seed is carried forward,

dropped onto the soil, and pressed into a firmed seedbed. Tractor-pulled seed dribblers deposit seed directly into prepared seedbeds.

The Hansen seed dribbler (fig. 27A) and thimble

seeders (fig. 27B) (Larson 1980; Stevens 1978, 1979)

are tractor-driven seeders, mounted on fenders of

crawler tractors with drive wheels positioned on top of

and driven by tractor tracks. Seed is gravity fed on

both dribblers. A fluted shaft, similar to metering

devices on most grain drills, moves the seed out of the

Hansen dribbler. Seeding rate is determined by seed

size and position of an adjustable gate over the fluted

shaft. In the thimble seed dribbler, a spoked wheel

with small cups attached to spokes rotates through the

seed, filling the cups with seed. Seed is dropped through

an opening and deposited on top of the tractor tracks.

Seeding rate is determined by size of cups and number

of spokes with cups attached.

Seed is deposited on tractor tracks by both dribblers.

Seed is then carried forward on the track and deposited on the ground where it is pressed into the soil. The

weight of the tractor buries the seed into a firm

seedbed 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 on

rough terrain from a seed hopper suspended from

a helicopter.
80 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

catchment depressions. Thimble seeders have been

modified to operate in conjunction with scalpers and to

dispense seed within the scalp.

Primary Areas of Use—Dribblers are ideal for

planting species that require firm seedbeds or whose

seed is in short supply or extremely costly. The Hansen

dribbler, being gravity fed through a fluted shaft, does

not handle fluffy, plumbed, or trashy seed well. The

Thimble dribbler will handle all types of seed. Generally, seedling establishment of shrubs and forbs is

greater when seeded through a dribbler than when

broadcast or drilled. Species that require minimal

coverage, like rabbitbrushes, sagebrushes, asters,

andforage kochia establish much better when dribbled

than when drilled. Dribblers are generally used in

conjunction with other operations like chaining, cabling, 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) thimble

seeder mounted on the fender of crawler tractors. The Drive wheel meters seed onto the

tractor track which moves the seeds forward and

deposits them on the ground. Tractor weight

buries the seed in a firm seedbed.

Figure 28—Brillion seeder.

during one-way chaining. Dribblers can be placed on

both tractor tracks and operated during both passes

of a two-way chaining. If dribblers are only used

during one chaining, the second chaining is preferred.

Brillion Seeder

The Brillion seeder (fig. 28) consists of a twocompartment seed box mounted above and between

two standard cultipackers. Each cultipacker consists

of closely spaced, V-shaped, grooved steel wheels.

The grooves of the two cultipackers are offset. The

first cultipacker smooths and firms the seedbed and

makes small furrows. The fluted seed metering device

broadcasts the seed between the cultipackers onto the

created furrows. The second cultipacker, which is

offset, covers the seed in the original furrows and

creates new ones. The two compartments in the seed

box allow for seeding two types or mixes of seed.

Primary Areas of Use—The Brillion seeder is

used to seed smooth areas. It creates an excellent firm

seedbed and can seed at quite precise rates.

Surface Seeder

Surface seeders have been developed to accommodate species that require surface, or near surface

seeding. The surface seeders consist of a seed box

that drops the seed onto a line of tires that gently

push the seed into the soil surface (fig. 20).

Primary Areas of Use—Some species that require

surface seeding on disturbed soil include the sagebrushes, rabbitbrushes, asters, and forage kochia.

Surface seeders provide the means for depositing

seed onto the surface of disturbed soil. Use is restricted to areas where a tractor can operate.

B

A
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 81

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Interseeders

Interseeders are designed to seed desirable species

into existing vegetation with minimal disturbance.

Interseeders consist of a one- or two-way scalper or

furrow 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 press

wheel. Seed is metered out by a fluted shaft or a spoked

wheel with cups attached on the spoke ends. Scalp or

furrow depth can be regulated with a depth regulator

wheel or hydraulics of the tractor. Seed is covered by

the press wheel or drag chain.

The Truax single row seeder is designed to plant

large irregular-shaped seeds, including acorns and

nuts, in a single row. Seeds of different size can also

be planted by exchanging the finger-pickers, which

remove seeds from the seed box. The seed box is

divided into three separate compartments. Seed of

different species can be placed in each compartment

and metered independently to control the distance

Figure 29—(A) The scalper-interseeder consists

of a fire plow and Hansen shrub seeder. (B) Seeding bitterbrush and alfalfa into a sagebrush community with a scalper-interseeder.

between seeds placed within the furrow. Consequently,

seed placement within and between species can be

carefully regulated.

A single disk is positioned in front of the machine,

and when drawn into the soil, cuts the dense sod or

surface litter. A single shank is mounted directly

behind the disk opener and is drawn into the soil to

create a seedbed or furrow. Gauge wheels are attached

to the machine to control planting depths. After seeds

are deposited, one 16-inch press wheel is used to

compact the seedbed. The seeding mechanism is activated by a drive chain through sprockets mounted on

the press wheels and the base of the seed box.

Primary Areas of Use—The use of interseeders is

restricted to soils that are fairly free of rock, roots, and

stumps, and to terrain on which the tractor can safely

operate. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs can be seeded

through interseeders with or without previous seedbed preparation. Scalpers or furrow openers remove

existing competing vegetation and create water and

snow catchment basins (fig. 30). Interseeders are used

as a single unit, or two or more units can be mounted

on a toolbar (fig. 31).

Fluted shaft seeders, unless modified with a drum

agitator, will handle only smooth seed. Thimble type

seeders will plant all types of seed, including fluffy,

plumed, or otherwise trashy seed.

Interseeders are used to establish desirable species

in cheatgrass and other annual communities, monotypic grass stands (fig. 32A,B), perennial communities, burned areas, and disturbed sites. On these sites,

establishment of seeded species can be superior to

broadcast and drill seeding.

The Truax single-row seeder can be used to interseed

shrubs or herbs into established stands of sod or weeds

and can be operated on any terrain on which a cat or

wheel tractor can safely travel.

A

B

Figure 30—The scalper removes competitive

vegetation and creates water and snow

catchment basins.
82 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Figure 32—Grass stand scalped and seeded

with desirable forbs and shrubs (A) 1 year and

(B) 3 years following seeding.

Figure 31—Two shrub interseeders connected to single tool bar.

Hydroseeder

Hydroseeders (fig. 33) are designed to apply seed,

fertilizer, soil amendments, and fiber mulch to the soil

surface in a hydraulic spray. Hydroseeders consist of

a truck or trailer, tank, pump, discharge nozzle, and

engine. The tank is equipped with various types of

agitators to assure uniform mixing. The pump sprays

the mixture up to 200 ft (61 m). Interchangeable

nozzles provide for various spray patterns and quantity of delivery. Nozzles are designed to rotate horizontally and vertically.

Principal Areas of Use—Hydroseeders are generally 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) seed

and seedlings can dry out, (3) some seedlings cannot

grow through the mulch, (4) seed can be damaged by

agitators and pumps, (5) precocious germination can

occur as a result of moisture in the mulch, (6) seeding

may be done during unfavorable seeding periods, (7)

expense, and (8) large water requirements.

Special Use Equipment __________

Transplanters

Transplanters are tractor-drawn implements that

scalp the soil surface and open a furrow. Bareroot

stock, wildings, cuttings, or container-grown plants

are placed in the furrow and soil are packed around the

plant roots (fig. 34).

Transplanters consist of a heavy frame, a furrow

opener, a set of packing wheels, an operator seat, and

A

B

Figure 33—Hydroseeding roadcuts and fills.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 83

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

a place to store seedlings. A single-disk coulter, semiautomatic seedling placement device and scalper may

be installed on some machines. Transplanters are

towed or mounted on crawler or rubber tired tractors

and four-wheel drive vehicles. The furrow opener cuts

open a furrow in which the seedling root system is

placed. The packing wheels are angled inward to

close the furrow and compact soil around the roots of

the transplant.

Principal Areas of Use—Shrubs make up the

majority of plants that are transplanted on range

and wildlands. However, grass, forbs, and trees are

also transplanted. While transplanting is fairly expensive compared to direct seeding, it has its place.

Transplanting can be economically utilized on critical

big game, upland gamebird, and livestock ranges;

disturbed sites; sites with high erosion potential. It is

also widely used in high esthetic value recreational

areas, windbreaks, shelterbelts, and riparian sites.

Bareroot stock, wildings, container-grown stock, and

cuttings can all be transplanted successfully using a

transplanter (McKenzie and others 1981; Stevens

1979, 1980a,b; Stevens and others 1981b). Generally,

bareroot stock and wildings are the most economical,

producing the most established plants for dollars

expended.

For best results, transplanting should occur in the

early spring when soil moisture content is high and

chances for spring storms are greatest. Fall transplantings are less successful, primarily due to frost

heaving and drying. Care must be taken to ensure

that packing wheels firmly pack soil around the root

system.

Transplanters can consistently plant 1,000 to

1,500 plants per hour. Transplanters are restricted to

soil at least 18 inches (45.5 cm) deep that is free of

large rocks, roots, and stumps. Transplanters must be

built heavy enough to meet adverse site conditions.

Figure 34—Transplanting big sagebrush wildings into a cheatgrass community during early

spring when soil moisture is high.

Transplanters equipped with automatic pickup and

placement fingers have not proven practical with

transplants that have multiple or fibrous root systems

(McKenzie and others 1981).

Survival rate varies with species. Species with fibrous root systems survive much better than those

with 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 at

ground level less than 6 inches (15.3 cm) diameter, (2)

create seedbeds, (3) cover seed, (4) create water catchment basins, and (5) to stimulate shrubs by pruning to

12 inches (30 cm) above ground level.

Roller choppers consist of a steel, 5 ft by 12 ft (1.5

m x 3.7 m) diameter drum with 12 grader blades evenly

spaced and welded vertically around the outside of the

drum (fig. 35). Intake and drain plugs are installed to

allow the drum to be filled with 800 to 900 gallons

(3,000 to 3,400 L) of water. Steel frames, tongue, and

hitch are attached to both ends of the drum.

Primary Areas of Use—As the roller chopper is

pulled forward, the weight, combined with the cutter blades, tips over, uproots, chops up, and kills

trees and shrubs with main stem diameters of less

than 6 inches (15 cm). When pinyon and juniper have

invaded grasslands, shrublands or chained areas, the

roller chopper has been used successfully to remove

them.

Broadcast seeding can occur ahead of, or simultaneously with roller chopping. Seeds are pushed into

the ground and covered with soil and litter. Water and

snow catchments are created by the action of the

cutter blades. Creation of a good seedbed, seed coverage, litter for seedling protection, and moisture retention and increased water infiltration all combine

Figure 35—Roller chopper being used to kill

and cut up pinyon and juniper trees, create a

seedbed, and cover seed.
84 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

for good germination and seedling establishment.

Serviceberry, curlleaf and true mountain mahogany,

bitterbrush, and cliffrose have all been stimulated by

pruning with the roller chopper.

Dozers and Blades

Dozers and blades are widely used in range improvement projects. They are used to remove trees

and shrubs, pile brush and slash, scarify areas, construct roads, and dig trenches, firebreaks, and other

excavations.

Dozers are used in a standard configuration; a

straight concave blade solidly mounted to a crawler or

rubber-tired tractor (Larson 1980). They can also be

modified as follows:

1. As a three-way dozer with multi-purpose dozer

blade that is adjustable for height, tilt, angle, and

pitch hydraulically (fig. 36) (Larson 1980).

2. As a brush, or forest rake with a special blade

that consists of vertical teeth generally with replaceable tips, or a vertical toothed implement that is

attached to a standard or three-way blade (Larson

1980; Roby and Green 1976).

3. As a hula dozer with a standard dozer blade with

hydraulic side tilt and pitch that is often equipped

with four removable digger teeth spaced along the

blade (a hinged push-bar attachment is available for

mounting above and in front of the blade).

4. With a shearing or clearing blade, a straight or

V-shaped solid blade with straight or sharpened cutting 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; construct

trenches, basins, and terraces; move and pile rocks

and debris; prepare seedbeds and planting sites; and

grade and carry out general excavation.

Trenchers, Scalpers, and Gougers

Trenchers, fireplows, gougers, and furrowers are

used to construct trenches, scalps, depressions, and

furrows for the purpose of intercepting runoff, collecting snow and precipitation, preventing erosion, removing competing vegetation and seed, creating a

seedbed, and promoting plant establishment and

growth.

In the case of double-disk contour and Rocky Mountain trenchers, one or two large disks are mounted on

a crossbar or shank. Disks rotate hydraulically to

allow for operation in two directions. Disks and crossbars are hydraulically controlled and will adjust to

the contour of the site and depth and width of the

designed trench (Larson 1980, 1982). Broadcast and

dribbler seeders can be attached to these trenchers,

allowing for seeding to take place concurrently (Stevens

1978).

Another piece of equipment in this category is the

fireplow, a V-shaped lister share with large disks

located on each side of the share (plow) (fig. 29A)

(Larson 1980). Where needed, a coulter can be attached in front of the lister share. A moldboard wing

may be attached behind either disk allowing for the

trench berm to be moved away from the trench edge.

Browse seeders or thimble seeders can be connected to

the fireplow, allowing for seeding to occur simultaneously (Monsen 1984, 1979; Stevens 1979).

Gougers consist of three to five half-circle blades

attached to solid arms that are spring loaded. The

blades are raised and lowered automatically, scooping

out depressions in a cyclic manner. Seed is broadcast

into the depression from a seed box mounted above

the blades and arms (Knudson 1977).

Principal Areas of Use—Contour and Rocky

Mountain trenchers, fireplows, and gougers are used

to construct trenches and scalp areas in a variety of

shapes, widths, and depths, depending on the positioning of the disk, plow, or gouger. These implements

are used to reduce competition, remove unwanted

seed, and create water and snow catchment basins.

Scalped areas can be seeded or have grasses, shrubs,

forbs, and trees transplanted into them. Monotypic

stands of annual and perennials can be improved by

removing unwanted seed and vegetation, and at the

same time seed desirable species. Shrub density can be

reduced and desirable species can be seeded or transplanted into the depressions or scalps. The amount of

vegetation and seed removed depends on the width

and size of scalps and depressions. Width and depth of

scalps or depressions can affect seedling establishment and growth (Stevens 1985a,b). This equipment

is well adapted to smooth, nonrocky soils, but it can

also be used successfully on uneven, semirocky range

sites (Moden and others 1978b; Stevens 1978). Figure 36—Three-way dozer reshaping a

streambank.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 85

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

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 from

helicopters. The most widely used is the flying drip

torch (helitorch) (fig. 37). The helitorch consists of an

oil drum, solenoid valve, electrical fuel pump (gel

models), glowplug, and controls. The oil drum holds

the gel or gasoline-diesel mix. Fuel flow is by gravity

or pump and is controlled by a solenoid. The glowplug

ignites the fuel as it leaves the torch. The helicopter

pilot controls fuel flow and ignition, and can jettison

the complete torch if necessary.

Another aerial ignition system is the ping-pong ball

injector (Larson 1980, 1982; Ramberg 1977). Pingpong balls are loaded with potassium permanganate

and when fed through a ball dispenser they are automatically injected with ethylene glycol and dropped.

The chemical reaction produced by the two chemicals

coming together produces a flame. Ping-pong ball

dispensers are mounted on helicopters, and are electrically 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 air

speed, altitude, and rate of ejection.

Backpack, handheld, vehicle and trailer-mounted

teratorch, and drag-type drip torches are available.

These consist of a fuel tank, wand, stem or boom to

direct the flame and a fuel ignitor. Fuel is generally a

gel, but can be a diesel-gas mix.

Flame throwers, depending on size, are hand operated or mounted on a vehicle or trailer. Pressurized

tanks, hose, and a nozzle are the major components of

a flame thrower. Fuel can be diesel, kerosene, or liquid

propane gas.

Fuse backfire torch or flares are commonly used.

Plastic bags or milk carton type containers filled with

a gel or diesel-gas sawdust mixtures are placed in

areas to be burned and are ignited by a torch or flame

thrower.

Principal Area of Use—Ignitors are dispersed

aerially from ground rigs or by hand to ignite fires

in fire management, slash clean up, and range

improvement.

The helitorch and teratorch are used extensively to

start and manage prescribed burns, start backfires

and burnouts, and make fire lines. The helitorch can

be used in otherwise inaccessible areas as well as in

extensive accessible areas. Large areas can be ignited

in relatively short periods of time with these ignitors,

allowing for better fire control and decreased costs.

A number of hand operated and vehicle- or trailermounted drip torches, and flame throwers are available. The main drawback to these has been that small

crews have difficulty firing large areas in the short

time that favorable burning conditions are present.

Large crews are generally uneconomical. Small, irregularly shaped burns, backfires, and burnouts are

sometimes best managed with hand and vehicle operated equipment.

Herbicide Sprayers

Liquid herbicides are most commonly applied on

rangelands by broadcast spraying. Application is by

ground rigs, fixed-wing aircrafts, helicopters, and hand

sprayers (Ekblad and others 1979; Larson 1980;

Vallentine 1989).

There are two types of ground rigs, boom and

boomless. Boom sprayers are mounted on tractors,

trucks, all terrain vehicles (fig. 38), trailers (fig. 39), or

self-propelled chassis. A boom sprayer consists of a

Figure 37—Helitorch used to start a prescribed burn in a mountain big sagebrush

community. Figure 38—Boom sprayer mounted on an

all-terrain vehicle.
86 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Figure 39—Rangeland boom sprayer. Booms must

be mounted high enough to clear tall shrubs.

tank, pump, pressure gauge, and spring-loaded boom

with nozzles spaced along each boom. A boomless

sprayer has no booms, but has one nozzle or a cluster

of nozzles at one location.

Fixed-wing monoplanes, or biplanes may be equipped

with boom sprayers mounted along or near the lower

wings. Special equipment required includes cutoff

valves, diaphragm check nozzles, and pumps designed

to avoid pressure buildup. Helicopters are equipped

with boom sprayers up to 40 ft (12 m) long with

hydraulic nozzles spaced along the entire length

(fig. 40). Helicopter spray units require lightweight

tanks, special pumps, and positive shut-off valves.

Booms have been specifically designed for helicopter

sprayers. Hand-operated sprayers are pump pressurized tanks equipped with a hose and a handle. A cutoff

valve is located in the handle.

Primary Area of Use—Boom and boomless

ground sprayers can spray only those areas that

their transport power unit can traverse. Height of

woody vegetation cannot extend above the height of

Figure 40—Helicopter equipped with a boom

sprayer.

Figure 41—(A) Strip of intermediate wheatgrass

sprayed with Roundup in June. (B) Shrubs and

forbs established by broadcast seeding in October

within the sprayed strip 3 years following seeding.

A

B

the boom. These sprayers can provide even application

of herbicide with little drift. Boom sprayers are superior to boomless on areas where precise application is

desired. Boom sprayers have less drift and are less

affected by wind. Boomless sprayers are generally less

expensive, and less restricted in their areas of use as

they are able to travel over rougher terrain and work

in larger brush. Boom and boomless sprayers can be

used to apply herbicide to selected areas, such as strip

spraying followed with broadcast or drill seeding

(fig. 41A,B).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 87

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control

Figure 42—A helicopter with a boom sprayer

spraying mountain big sagebrush on the Manti

LaSal National Forest, UT.

Application of herbicide by ground rigs has several advantages over aerial application: small acreages can be sprayed, no landing strip is required

(fixed-wing only), there is less drift, application is not

restricted by fog or wind, equipment is generally less

expensive, and applicators are safer.

Aerial application does have some advantages over

ground rigs: application rate (acres per hour) is greater

and large areas can be sprayed during short periods

of time when conditions are ideal. For this reason,

aircraft are commonly used to spray large acreages

(fig. 42). Aerial application is also well adapted to

spraying wet, rough, steep, and rocky terrain. Cost of

application is less, vegetation and soil are not disturbed, and dense, tall brush stands can be treated

more effectively.

Steep-slope Scarifier and Seeder

The steep-slope seeder was designed to seed steep

slopes and inaccessible sites. It is primarily used to

plant roadways, mine sites, and similar disturbances.

However, it can be modified to seed range and wildland sites.

The machine consists of a tubular constructed

frame with: (1) front- and rear-mounted reversible

spring-loaded scarifier tines, (2) soil drags, (3) four

spring-loaded press wheels, and (4) two electrically

powered rotary seeders or spreaders. The capacity of

the seed hoppers is 2 ft2 (0.57 m2

) (Larson 1980). The

machine can be mounted on a telescoping-boom crane

or gradall. The seeder is bolted to the end of the crane

by a knuckle joint, and can be turned in any direction

or angle. The machine can be operated to run horizontally across a slope, or up or down a roadcut or fill

surface. Seed and fertilizer are dispensed separately

through the two spreaders. The equipment operator is

able to start or stop seeding and adjust the seeding

rate through electrical lines connected from the seeders to a control box mounted within the cab. The

machine can be easily converted to a three-point attachment and towed by a wheel tractor to seed the less

steep sites.

Principal Areas of Use—The seeder was initially

developed to seed steep roadcuts and fill surfaces

where conventional equipment is not able to operate.

Steep, inaccessible sites are normally broadcast seeded

without any seed coverage, and poor plant establishment usually occurs. The steep-slope scarifier seeder

is not only able to operate on uneven terrain, but

seeds are planted in the soil.

The front scarifiers or tines loosen the soil. Seed

and fertilizer are broadcast directly onto the loosened

seedbed. The rear-mounted scarifiers, drags, and

press wheels cover the seed and compact the seedbed.

The seeder operates on extremely rough surfaces with

an abundance of rock or debris. Larson (1980) reports

the machine has a production capability of 2 acres (0.8

ha) per hour. Seeding rates can be adjusted to vary

between 5 to 60 lb (2.3 to 27.2 kg) per acre (Larson

1980).

The steep-slope seeder is not capable of reducing

existing competition, but can be used to seed areas

without damage to existing plants. When mounted on

a gradall or crane, the machine has limited reach, and

can only be operated within the reach of the crane.
88 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 9 Mechanical Plant Control
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 89

10

John F. Vallentine Chapter

Herbicides can be an effective, necessary, and environmentally

sound tool for the control of weeds and brush on rangelands

(Young and others 1981b). As a result, chemical control is a

widely used means of removing unwanted or noxious plants from

range and other pasture lands. Selective plant control by mechanical, biological, fire, or manual means should also be considered but is not always a satisfactory alternative to chemical

control.

New herbicides, new formulations, new application techniques,

and new uses for herbicides have been developed for rangelands

in recent years. Any person who is involved in the development

of rangelands must be well versed in the properties and proper

use of herbicides. Martinelli and others (1982) recommend that

all range managers take advantage of the program for training

and certification of pesticide applicators. They conclude that

these schools, now being offered in most States with Environmental Protection Agency approval and financing, can be extremely valuable as a refresher program even if one does not plan

to apply restricted herbicides. Most States require certification to

purchase, handle, and apply many herbicides.

Herbicides for Plant

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

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

Handbooks and manuals suggested for planning

and carrying out plant control programs on Intermountain rangelands, including the use of herbicides,

include Bohmont (1983), Klingman and others (1982),

Rutherford and Snyder (1983), Weed Science Society

of America (1989), and State Agricultural Extension

Service and Experiment Station publications.

Potential Results of Herbicide

Use ___________________________

Plant control, including the use of herbicides, requires a carefully planned program. The first step in

a plant control program is evaluating: (1) the desirability of resident and potential plant species in the habitat, and (2) at what population levels the various plant

species are desired. Desirability must be based on the

objectives of land ownership, the multiplicity of range

products desired, and the animal species (domestic or

wild) that will be favored. Along with deciding which

plant species are to be increased or decreased, and by

how much, or which will be kept at present levels,

consideration must be given to avoiding or reducing

damage to desirable, nontarget plant species.

The major objective of herbicide application to rangelands is often to improve animal habitat. Animal

habitats must provide food, water, and whatever cover

is needed; but each animal species has its own unique

habitat preferences and requirements. In general,

ideal big game habitat has been equated with: (1) a

greater mixture of forage species than is needed for

livestock, (2) a mosaic of vegetation types, and (3) greater

availability of cover than needed for livestock

(Vallentine 1989). Mosaic vegetation can be maintained or created by treating high potential sites and

leaving untreated draws, ravines, rough ridges, and

shallow, rocky sites. Selective checkerboard treatment of specific sites is generally more effective than

aiming for low plant control levels over the entire area.

Morrison and Meslow (1983) concluded that the

indirect effects of herbicides on wildlife were far greater

than the direct effects. Residues of herbicides in the

environment were found to be of low concentration and

short lived; herbicide levels in wildlife tissues were

low and did not accumulate; and toxic effects on

wildlife were deemed incapable of happening if recommended application practices were followed. Indirect

effects on habitat modification, however, were considered potentially negative or positive. Even preferred

browse species for big game could be increased through

herbicide use, but careful planning is required.

Proven uses of herbicides on rangelands include:

1. Selective control of undesirable plants as a sole

treatment to favor more desirable forage species, for

example, control green rubber rabbitbrush (fig. 1) on

foothill sites (Evans and Young 1975a).

2. Combination treatment with mechanical, fire, or

biological methods, for example, burning or mechanical treatment of salt cedar, Gambel oak, black greasewood, with follow-up herbicidal treatment of sprouts.

3. Release of particularly desirable plant species

over which undesirable woody or even herbaceous

plants have gained dominance, for example, juniper

invasion on deep soil benches (Evans and others 1975)

or tarweed in mountain meadows.

4. Thinning or removal of trash trees in commercial

forests, or both, thereby enhancing herbaceous and

browse understory as well as timber production, for

example, removal of juniper from ponderosa pine sites.

5. Rejuvenation of tall shrubs and low trees, used

as forage by big game, by top killing with light rates

of 2,4-D and stimulating new growth from sprouts and

seedlings, for example, old growth aspen stands, Gambel oak, mountain maple (Harniss and Bartos 1985).

6. Eradication of poisonous plants on sites suitable

for such intensive treatment, for example, tall larkspur on high mountain range and rush skeletonweed

(Cronin and Nielsen 1979).

7. Eradication of small infestations of serious plant

pests or “environmental contaminants” not previously

found locally, for example, spotted knapweed, musk

thistle, and others.

8. Total plant kill to meet the needs of chemical

seedbed preparation for range seeding or planting

(fig. 2), for example, 2,4-D and paraquat on sagebrushcheatgrass sites.

9. As a post-planting treatment, to enhance establishment by selectively controlling weed competition,

for example, dense annual broadleaf weeds or perennial ragweed in new wheatgrass-alfalfa seeding.

Figure 1—Green rubber rabbitbrush sprayed with

2,4-D and Tordon. Crested wheatgrass not affected by herbicide. Herbaceous production

doubled after reduction of rabbitbrush competition.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 91

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

Figure 2—Chemical seedbed preparation.

10. Maintenance control or retreatment when applied periodically following primary treatment, for

example, periodic suppression of Gambel oak stands.

Herbicidal control has some distinct advantages

over other plant control methods, this explains the

current widespread use of herbicides, particularly on

private lands. These general advantages include:

1. Can be used where mechanical methods are impossible, such as steep, rocky, muddy, or certain timbered sites.

2. Provides a selective means of killing sprouting

plants that cannot be effectively killed by top removal

only.

3. Provides a rapid control method from the standpoint of both plant response and acreage covered when

applied by broadcasting or spraying.

4. Has low labor and fuel requirements.

5. Are generally cheaper, in some cases, than mechanical control methods, but may cost more than

prescribed burning.

6. Can be selectively applied in most cases so that

damage to desirable plant species can be minimized.

7. Maintains some vegetal and litter cover and does

not expose soil to erosion.

8. Safe and reliable when proper safeguards are

followed.

9. Can often use regular farm and ranch spray

equipment.

Disadvantages of using chemicals to control undesirable range plants exist. Recognizing them may

permit minimizing or circumventing them.

1. No chemical control has yet proven effective or

practical for all plant species.

2. Herbicides provide a desirable, noncompetitive

seedbed for artificial seeding only under certain

situations.

3. Costs of control may outweigh expected benefits

on lands of low potential.

4. The careless use of chemicals can be hazardous to

nontarget plants, to cultivated crops or to other nontarget sites nearby, or may contaminate water supplies.

5. Lack of selectivity may result in killing associated

forbs and shrubs.

Chemical Seedbed Preparation ____

Herbicides show promise for chemical site preparation. Seeding or planting can be done shortly after

spraying or after a fallow period maintained by herbicides. Seedbed preparation by chemical means, when

effectively used, has the following advantages when

compared with mechanical methods:

1. Leaves a firm seedbed for better plant

establishment.

2. Has good erosion control since the mulch and

litter 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 be

undesirable on shallow, poorly drained, or poorly structured soil.

5. Provides a means of selective plant kill when

desirable native forage plants are present.

6. Averts most soil crusting and reduces frost

heaving.

7. Conserves soil moisture and nitrogen, similar to

mechanical fallow, when used as chemical fallow

(Eckert and Evans 1967).

8. Improves moisture penetration and retention as

a result of mulch cover on the ground.

9. Allows spraying, drill seeding, transplanting,

and fertilization in a single operation while climatic

conditions are still optimum (Kay and Owen 1970).

10. Protects grass seedlings by means of the standing vegetation killed by herbicides.

11. Permits seeding an entire field, riparian zone, or

watershed having erosive soil, at one time.

12. May be less costly than mechanical seedbed

preparation.

13. Does not destroy the soil seedbed of desirable

native species.

On the other hand, dead mulch and litter following

chemical seedbed preparation may be excessive, or

otherwise hinder seeding. However, use of the rangeland drill with its various modifications permits drilling into all but the most extreme sites. Also, herbicide

applications may not kill weed seeds resident in the

soil unless used as chemical fallow during a growing

season. This may require additional herbicide application during the seedling year as a maintenance

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

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

How to Apply ___________________

Several methods are available for applying herbicides to undesirable plants. For convenience, these are

divided into foliage, stem, and soil application. See

Bohmont (1983) for details about various herbicide

applications.

I. Foliage application

A.Foliage spray (selective 2,4-D and related phenoxy

herbicides, dalapon, dicamba, paraquat (at low

rates), 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 of

frills 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 boom

sprayer.

Figure 4—Boom sprayers can be (A) hand held

and (B) vehicle mounted. Spraying strips of

crested wheatgrass with Roundup to facilitate

transplanting 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 commonly used method on rangelands. Because an herbicide is applied to desirable as well as undesirable

plants on the site when broadcast, selective herbicides

are required. Broadcast spray applications can be

made either by ground rigs or by aerial application.

When herbicides are applied by ground rigs, a spray

volume of 10 gal/acre (93.5 L/ha) is common but volume may vary from 5 to 40 gal (46.8 to 374.2 L/ha)

depending on need. With aerial application, spray

volume can be reduced down to 1 to 3 gal/acre (9.3 to

28.1 L/ha), with ultra low volumes down to 0.50 gal/

acre (4.7 L/ha) or even less being satisfactory in some

situations.

The comparative advantages of using ground application or aerial application of herbicide sprays are as

follows:
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 93

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

Figure 5—Results of basal stem spraying of

Gambel oak with Picloram, Triclopyr, and

Hexazinone.

Figure 6—One hundred percent kill of salt cedar.

Stems cut off and stem ends sprayed with 2,4-D.

• Broadcast Ground Application

1. 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 Application

1. 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 commonly

used, helicopters are advantageous in some situations

(USDA Agricultural Research Service 1976). Helicopters that require no landing strip are interfered with

less by trees, snags, and steep terrain, permit slower

air speed for application, and have greater maneuverability. However, they are generally less available

when needed, have less lifting power in thin, warm

air, have less payload capacity (50 to 150 gal [190 to

570 L] compared to 125 to 600 gal [475 to 2,270 L] for

fixed wing aircraft), and are more costly per acre on

larger projects.

Foliage spray application with ground rigs generally

use boom applicators that are as narrow as 4 ft (1.2 m)

for hand application to as wide as 100 ft (30.5 m) for

self propelled systems. Ground sprayers adapted to

range use are discussed by Young and others (1979b).

Maxwell and others (1983) describe adapting all-terrain vehicles for herbicide application on difficult-toreach sites. Boomless ground applicators have been

used conveniently in tall brush, along fence rows, or in

very rough terrain. Such mist blowers have been used

in applying low levels of phenoxy herbicides, using

crosswinds of 5 to 12 mph (8 to 19 km/h), thereby

permitting strips up to 100 ft (30.5 m) wide to be

covered.

Wipe-on applicators have permitted taller, noxious

plants to be controlled with nonselective herbicides

without damaging low growing desirable plants

(Mayeux and Crane 1983; Messersmith and Lym 1981;

Moomaw and Martin 1985). Wipe-on applicators have

advantages in applying selective herbicides because

low volume is required, the total amount of herbicide

used is reduced, spray drift is mostly eliminated, and

low cost equipment can be used in getting selective

control.

Individual plant treatments including wetting

sprays, stem application (fig. 6), or soil application

may have advantages over broadcast application for

spot infestations, for widely scattered plants, on terrain that is too rough for wheeled machinery, or where

only a small portion of the plants are to be removed,

such as in commercial forests. Individual plant treatment generally allows nonselective herbicides to be

used selectively through positive control of spray direction. However, individual plant treatments have a

high cost per plant, high labor demand, slow job

completion, and are difficult to control when treating

plants over 6 ft (1.8 m) high with a foliage application.

Hand held boom sprayers or mist blowers provide

advantages somewhat intermediate between broadcast application and individual plant treatment.

Soil injection, soil surface placement around the

stem base, application in continuous narrow bands on

the soil surface or underground, or use of the gridball

technique permit nonselective herbicides to be used
94 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

with significantly reduced herbaceous plant injury.

The gridball technique provides for placing pellets in

grid fashion, resulting in conical columns of active

herbicide in the soil that can intercept the deep roots

of woody plants while minimizing intercept by the

roots of herbaceous plants.

Where desired, applying soil-active herbicides in granular or pellet form has the advantage of minimizing drift,

not being intercepted by foliage, having controlled release, ease of handling and application, premixing; thereby

reducing formulation errors, simple application equipment generally, and prolonged soil activity.

What to Apply __________________

The following terminology will be useful in evaluating the characteristics of herbicides:

Herbicide, a chemical that kills plants (syn.

phytocide).

Contact, an herbicide that kills only plant parts

directly exposed to the chemical and is direction toxic

to living cells.

Translocated, an herbicide applied to one part of a

plant that is spread throughout the plant where effects are produced (syn. synthetic hormone herbicide,

systemic herbicide, or growth regulator).

Selective, an herbicide that kills or damages a particular plant species or group of species with little or no

injury to other plant species (are often nonselective at

heavy rates).

Nonselective, an herbicide that kills or damages all

plant species to which it is applied (general weed

killer).

Soil sterilant, an herbicide that kills or damages

plants when herbicide is present in the soil. The effect

may be temporary or permanent and either selective

or nonselective.

The properties of herbicides used or proposed for use

on rangelands are given in table 1. General information on clearance and general uses are given for each

herbicide. More detailed information on individual

herbicides 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 also

MCPA and 2,4-DP or dichlorprop in some areas, or

4-DB when damage to legumes is to be avoided) have

been the most widely used on rangelands. Silvex and

2,4,5-T, previously widely used in brush control, by

regulation can no longer be manufactured or used in

the United States or Canada.

New herbicides such as glyphosate, tebuthiuron,

hexazinone, and triclopyr are now in widespread use

on 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 nonselective and have either temporary or lasting effects.

Herbicides such as dicamba and picloram are effective

when applied to either soil or foliage. Atrazine, fenac,

2,3,6-TBA, and tebuthiuron are effective only when

applied to the soil. Soil-active only herbicides are

generally applied as dry granules or pellets since

vegetation will intercept some or most of the spray, but

other soil-active herbicides can be applied in either dry

or liquid form.

Only a few herbicides have been effectively used,

either singly or in combination, on range sites in

preparation for seeding or transplanting. Chemical

application fallowed by direct seeding into the killed

mulch, without further soil treatment, is effective if

the herbicide (1) controls a broad spectrum of undesirable plants, (2) dissipates rapidly after weed control is

accomplished, and (3) is broken down or leached away

by the time seeded species germinate, or is not toxic to

seedlings of the seeded species (Eckert and Evans

1967). Chemical fallow during the previous growing

season has been more successful in low rainfall areas

than spring herbicide treatment and seeding.

The herbicide 2,4-D has been effective in chemical

seedbed preparation on those sites where the principal

competition 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 and

drilling with a rangeland drill have been effective for

establishing additional perennial grasses on sagebrush-grass and forb-grass sites with a fair understory of perennial grasses. A second herbicide application may be required in the spring of the establishment

year if sprouting shrubs such as rabbitbrush are

present or a large number of sagebrush seedlings

develop.

Picloram can be used in chemical seedbed preparation where rhizomatous forbs and shrubs not killed by

2,4-D are present. Although low chemical residual

amount in the soil will not be harmful to grass seedlings,

2 or 3 years must be allowed before forb and shrub

species are introduced following picloram application.

On sites dominated by annual grasses, spring application of paraquat and drilling perennial grasses have

been effective. Since paraquat is quick acting and

leaves no soil residues, planting of perennial forage

species can follow immediately (Evans and others

1975). Paraquat has only a temporary effect on perennial grasses and does not kill most broadleaf plants.

Where broad leaved weeds and undesirable shrubs are

growing with cheatgrass, 2,4-D should be combined

with the paraquat application (National Research

Council 1968). Band “tilling” with paraquat and drilling

down the center of each band has also been effective on

annual grass sites (Kay and Owen 1970).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 95

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

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 depends

on 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 as

foxtail barley or saltgrass. Persists 1 to 3

weeks 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. Sensitivity

selective, temporary of most native species is not known. Can

soil sterilant be used to control and exhaust seed bank

of annual weeds. Fall seeding 1 year after

treatment 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 effect

on broadleaf perennials. Low rate chemically

cures 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 persist

for 2 or 3 years. Often synergic with

phenoxy 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 high

rates 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

a

Registration of herbicides for range and pasture uses and the accompanying restrictions are subject to continual change. Current clearance and

restrictions at both State and Federal levels should be checked and complied with. Silvex, Amitrole, Dalapon, Atrazine, Fenatrol, and 2, 4, 5, T have

been removed from the market or are no longer approved for use on rangelands in the United States and Canada. LD50 taken from Weed Science

Society of America (1989). See Woodward (1982) for herbicide tolerance of trout. b

Publication directed herbicide control of individual plant species (Bartel and Rittenhouse 1979; Bowes 1976; Britton and Sneva 1981, 1985; Clary

and 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 Cronin

1981; Wilson 1981; Young and Evans 1971, 1976; Young and others 1984c.
96 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

Fall application of 0.5 to 1 lb/acre (0.6 to 1.1 kg/ha)

of atrazine has effectively controlled cheatgrass during a chemical fallow period (Eckert and Evans 1967;

Young and others 1969b). However, at least 1 year

must be allowed for dissipation prior to grass seeding.

When atrazine is used for chemical fallow, adequate

broadleaf control may require spring application of

2,4-D (National Research Council 1968). Integrating

2,4-D or picloram spraying for brush control and

atrazine fallow for cheatgrass control has proven effective in Nevada (Evans and Young 1977b).

Dalapon has been more effective than either paraquat

or atrazine in killing medusahead (Young and Evans

1971). Since dalapon is slower acting than paraquat

and the residual remains longer in the soil, grass

seeding should be delayed for at least 6 weeks following dalapon application. Dalapon gives some control of

perennial grasses but is ineffective on broad leaved

plants.

One of the most promising herbicides for site preparation for range revegetation is glyphosate (trade

name, Roundup). When broadcast sprayed or applied

in strips, it provides nearly complete kill of all resident

vegetation. Since it dissipates rapidly in the soil,

seedings can be made within 1 to 3 weeks after

glyphosate applications. Although effective in brush

and weed control, it has also been effective on foxtail

barley and saltgrass.

Oust has remained effective in controlling cheatgrass

for 2 years when applied at 1 oz/acre. Satisfactory

stands of crested wheatgrass have been established by

drill seeding into the treated sites 1 year after fall

treatment. Although individual species exhibit different degrees of sensitivity, it appears sites treated at

rates up to 1.0 oz/acre can be planted within 180 days

following fall treatment.

The compiled herbicidal plant control recommendations published by the respective State agricultural

experiment stations and extension services, many of

these revised annually, are current and locally adapted.

Examples include Alley and others (1978), Chase

(1984), Cords and Artz (1976), Dewey (1983b), Duncan

and McDaniel (1991), Heikes (1978), Hepworth (1980),

or Washington Agricultural Extension Service (1984)

or their revisions or replacements. Other compiled

sources of individual plant control recommendations

include Bovey and Rodney (1977), Hamel (1983), Spencer (1982), and USDA Science and Education Administration (1980).

Herbicide Approval ______________

All pesticides must be registered by the Pesticides

Registration Division, Office of Pesticides Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, before entering

into interstate or intrastate commerce. The Environmental Protection Agency approves all uses of pesticides including herbicides, regulates instructions on

pesticide labels, sets tolerances in animal feeds

and human foods, may seize any raw agricultural

commodities not complying with these tolerances, and

can punish violators using nonregistered pesticides or

making unapproved use of registered herbicides.

Herbicides approved for range use are not hazardous to livestock, wildlife, or humans at recommended

application methods and rates. Environmental Protection Agency registration of herbicides is intended to

insure that they are released for public sale and use

only after detailed research and thorough testing.

Tolerance levels set for human intake of pesticides

include rather large safety factors and are generally

set at one percent or less of the highest level causing no

adverse effect in the most sensitive animal species; but

zero tolerance is mandatory in some cases.

The relative degree of toxicity of the various herbicides to warm-blooded animals has been determined

experimentally. The relative degree of toxicity is expressed as the acute oral LD50 (the single dosage by

mouth that kills 50 percent of the test animals expressed as mg/kg of body weight). The LD50 for each

herbicide is given in table 1. Toxicity classes are

related to LD50 levels as follows:

Class LD50 (mg/kg)

Highly toxic 50 or less

Moderately toxic 50 to 500

Mildly toxic 500 to 5,000

Nontoxic Above 5,000

In addition to the Environmental Protection Agency,

one lead agency within each State is designated by its

governor to participate in pesticide regulation. Individual States may have special registration and use

requirements for pesticides. Also, the designated State

agency is charged with certifying pesticide applicators. Only certified pesticide applicators are permitted

to purchase and use “restricted use” pesticides, including paraquat and picloram, or those on emergency

exemption.

In addition to the regular Federal registration of

pesticide uses, three special registrations are provided

for additional pesticide use approval.

1. Experimental label. This special Federal label

permits new products, or old products being considered for removal of registration, to be further researched and evaluated before final approval is given.

2. Emergency exemption. The Federal administration of the Environmental Protection Agency may

exempt any Federal or State agency so requesting

unapproved pesticide usage provided that the emergency requires such exemption.

3. Special state label. A state may provide registration for additional uses of Federally registered pesticides within the State, if such uses have not previously

been denied, disapproved, or cancelled by the Environmental Protection Agency. Final approval of the State
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 97

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

label is given by the Environmental Protection Agency

unless such use is known to have definite detrimental

effects on humans or the environment.

Evaluating Herbicide Sprays ______

Preparation of a spray mix involves mixing the

commercial product formulated by the manufacturer

with the right kind and amount of carrier and adding

any additional surfactant needed. The combination of

formulation, dilution with the carrier, rate of application, and method of application generally determines

whether a recommended herbicide will be highly selective and effective or not. The proper preparation

and use of herbicides requires an understanding of the

following terms:

Toxicant, the herbicide or chemical agent that causes

a toxic effect on plants.

Carrier, the diluent in which the toxicant is mixed to

provide greater bulk for more effective application.

Commercial product, the herbicide formulation prepared in liquid form for spray application.

Surfactant (surface active agent), materials used in

herbicide formulations to facilitate or accentuate emulsifiability, spreading, wetting, sticking, dispersibility,

solubilization, or other surface modifying properties.

Active ingredient, that part of a commercial product

or spray mix that directly causes the herbicidal effects.

Acid equivalent (a.e.), the amount of active ingredient expressed in terms of the parent acid or the

amount that theoretically can be converted to the

parent acid.

The active ingredient of phenoxy herbicides is expressed in terms of acid equivalent. This is a relative

term relating esters and salts to the pure acid, a form

that is seldom available but may occur in minor

amounts mixed with the other chemical forms. The

acid equivalent is a more precise measurement than

the actual amount of the particular chemical form.

However, acid equivalent measures toxicity only indirectly since other factors in the formulation also affect

toxicity to plants. For example, the ester chemical

forms of 2,4-D are more toxic per unit of acid equivalence (a.e.) than the salt forms or the pure acid. The

herbicide label on the commercial product generally

provides the amount of toxicant therein in terms of

both (1) lb a.e./gal, and (2) percent a.e. (by weight).

Water is the carrier most commonly used today, but

the addition of diesel oil to comprise up to 25 percent

of the total carrier may increase effectiveness with

some woody plants. Water has good driving force

through the upper foliage, is easier to work with, and

is low cost; but the addition of diesel oil often reduces

evaporation of the spray mix, spreads more evenly on

the leaf, and penetrates plant cuticles better. Surfactants

increase emulsifiability, spreading, sticking, and other

desirable surface modifying properties of the spray

mix. They are added to the commercial product at the

factory, but additional amounts or kinds may be included in specific recommendations. However, excessive use of surfactants may reduce or eliminate normal

selectivity of an herbicide.

Herbicide recommendations are generally given in

one 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 or

cutstump application, or plant or soil injection.

3. Weight (grams or ounces) or volume (tablespoons

or cups) of commercial product per plant or clump of

plants.

The amount of herbicide required to provide adequate control varies with kind and chemical form of

herbicide, plant species, and method of application.

Herbicide rate recommendations primarily consider

optimum toxic effects within legal limits. Higher rates

are rarely more effective and may prove detrimental;

selective herbicides often become nonselective when

applied at excessive rates. However, reducing rates

below recommended levels to save money or to be

environmentally conscious may sharply reduce kills,

particularly when less then ideal conditions are

encountered.

Greater selectivity can be realized with herbicides

by carefully controlling the application rate, fully

considering the relative growth stages of the target

and nontarget plant species, using appropriate or even

differential application techniques, and using adequate

but not excessive amounts of surfactants. When multiple herbicides are required for additive or synergistic

effects, or when repeat applications are required for

satisfactory kill, the single application of one herbicide

but 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. per

acre is recommended and a commercial product containing 4 lb a.e. per gallon is purchased, then use the

following:

0.5 gal (or 4 pt) of product is

required per acre. Add enough

carrier to give desired volume

of spray mix, and apply.

2. Rate per acre for granular form. If 3 lb active per

acre is recommended for a commercial product

 

2 lb a.e./acre

4 lb a.e./ga. product =
98 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

containing 10 percent active ingredients in granular

form then use the following:

30 lb of granules is required

per 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 use

the following:

7.68 T of C.P. is required

per gal of spray mix.

Apply to plants until wet.

4. Amount per small plot. If a 400 ft2 plot is to be

sprayed at the rate of 3 lb a.e./gal and a commercial

product containing 4 lb a.e./gal is used, then use the

following:

l.76 T of C.P. is required.

Add enough carrier to

give desired amount of

spray mix and apply to

plot.

5. Amount per field unit. If a l50 acre unit is to be

sprayed with 2 lb a.e. of 2,4-D in 10 gal of spray mix per

acre, and a commercial product containing 6 lb a.e./gal

is 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)

a

1 gal = 4 quarts = 8 pints = 16 cups = 256 tablespoons = 768

teaspoons = 231 inches3 = 3.785 L.

When to Apply __________________

The age, stage of growth, and rapidity of growth

affect the susceptibility of plants to herbicides. The

most effective kill by phenoxy herbicides and most

other foliage-applied, translocated herbicides is obtained when carbohydrate production and translocation rate is at the maximum, often near full leaf stage

(fig. 7). Since such herbicides are carried with the

photosynthate stream throughout the plant, intrinsic

plant factors as well as external environmental factors

that stimulate growth generally increase plant kill.

Maximum growth rate and herbicide kill are associated with ideal soil moisture and fertility, ideal temperature, and adequate light.

Reduced susceptibility periods of desirable species

in the plant composition can often be found and followed. For example, 2,4-D should be applied early in

the spring for big sagebrush kill, in order to reduce

damage to bitterbrush (fig. 8). Spraying at the time of

leaf origin in bitterbrush, and before the appearance of

 

6 lb a.e.h.g. 256

2 lb a.e./gal in C.P. 100

x

x =

 

3 lb a.e./aX 400 ft 256 2 x

4 lb a.e./gal in C.P. 43,560 x =

Figure 8—With proper timing, big sagebrush

was killed and antelope bitterbrush was unharmed

by aerial spraying of 2,4-D.

Figure 7—Mountain big sagebrush killed with

aerial spraying of 2,4-D. Spraying occurred when

growth rate, soil moisture, temperature, and light

were ideal. With better control of helicopter flight

paths there would not have been misses that are

evident in the background.

distinct twig elongation or flowering, generally causes

only slight damage to large bitterbrush plants. Selective application methods permit nonselective herbicides to be used selectively.

Foliar herbicide application must be timed not only

to coincide with ideal plant growth stages, but the best

associated environmental and climatic conditions as

well. To get the best kill from broadcast spraying of

phenoxy herbicides, do not spray:

1. During prolonged drought when low soil moisture

retards plant growth.

2. Before most leaves are well developed—exact

timing will vary somewhat between different plant

species.

3. After leaves have stopped growing rapidly, begin

maturing, and develop thickened cuticles.

 

3 lb a.e./acre 100%

10%

x =
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 99

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control

4. When plant growth has been retarded by late

frost, hail, insects, or excessive leaf removal by grazing.

5. When temperature is over 90∞F (32.2∞C) or under

55∞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 aerial

application or 15 mph (24 km/h) for ground spraying,

or when the air movement is being subjected to great

turbulence and updrafts.

7. When thunderstorms are approaching. (Rain 4 or

5 hours after spraying will reduce effects very little.)

Soil surface application is less dependent on stage of

plant growth than foliage sprays but does require

precipitation to dissolve and move the herbicide into

the soil. Application just prior to normal rainy season

is ideal unless excessive leaching is anticipated then.

Herbicides Can be Effective and

Safe___________________________

Even though herbicides are among the least hazardous of all pesticides, recommended safeguards in their

handling and application must be followed. These

routine safeguards include following all directions and

restrictions shown on the pesticide label, storing pesticides only in the original containers, properly disposing of excess chemicals, and cleaning spraying equipment after use.

Herbicides now approved for range and pasture use

pose no hazard to livestock, wildlife, the applicator, or

local inhabitants when properly applied. The Environmental Protection Agency requires temporary removal of livestock following application of the most

toxic herbicides, but this is mostly precautionary or

directed to dairy cows only. However, livestock should

be denied access to spraying equipment, herbicide

containers, or herbicide in concentrated form. Herbicides may temporarily increase the palatability of

treated plants, and this may increase the hazard from

poisonous plants. In some cases the natural poisoning

agent in the poisonous plants may be increased also.

For these reasons, care must be taken that poisonous

plants affected by herbicides are not grazed until they

begin to dry and lose their palatability (generally

3 weeks or more after herbicide application).

Proper swath widths are important in preventing

skips or overlapping of swaths and in obtaining complete coverage of the foliage in broadcast spray application. Since height above the ground will affect swath

width, it should be carefully controlled. Application

rates should be checked periodically by proper calibration methods and corrected as needed (Bohmont 1983;

Portman 1984; Young and others 1979b). Flagging

is essential in aerial application, and some form of

ground marking will generally be required with ground

application. Many aircraft are now equipped with

automatic flaggers that dispense strips of wet, colored

paper to mark flight lines reducing or eliminating the

need for manual flagging. Gebhardt and others (1985)

described a foam marking system for use with boom

sprayers operated on the ground.

Herbicide drift is a special problem associated with

foliage spray applications, and can be hazardous to

susceptible plants downwind unless controlled. The

direction, distance, and amount of spray drift that

occurs before the herbicide reaches the ground are

influenced by several factors. Drift is reduced by increased size of droplets and higher specific gravity of

the spray mix, lower evaporation rate, reduced height

of release, low velocity of the wind, no vertical air

movements, and carefully selected application equipment. Spray drift is a greater problem in aerial application because of the elevated release point and air

turbulence generated, but can be serious in ground

application as well. Herbicides that volatize after

application are again subject to wind movement. Certain ester forms of the phenoxy herbicides are highly

volatile while others are not. Low volatile ester or salt

forms should be selected for use if susceptible crops or

areas to be protected are in the immediate vicinity.

In addition to using herbicide formulations with low

volatility and thus drift potential, other means of

reducing drift of herbicides include:

1. Using application equipment that will maintain

adequate size and uniformity of droplets. Finely atomized spray drops may drift from the target area or

evaporate before reaching the foliage. Spray droplets

should be large enough to minimize drift hazards and

yet be sufficiently small and properly distributed to

give good coverage.

2. Reducing height of release, particularly in aerial

application.

3. Avoiding spraying on windy days and when vertical air movement is great; favorable conditions are

more apt to be found in early morning, late evening,

and night.

4. Using water as the carrier since water droplets

are heavier and drift less than oil droplets, while being

aware that antievaporants may be needed to reduce

evaporation in dry atmospheres.

5. Selecting spray days with a slight, continuous

wind movement blowing away from susceptible crops

or other nontarget areas.

6. Using positive liquid shutoff systems in aerial

application and avoiding flights over susceptible crops.

7. Using invert emulsions (water in oil), recognizing

however, that special equipment will be required for

application because of its thick, nonflowing physical

characteristics.

8. Using granular formulations of soil-active

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

Chapter 10 Herbicides for Plant Control
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 101

11

Chapter

Introduction ________________________________

Plant responses to fire differ because of phenological variations

at the time of burning, inherently different susceptibilities to

heat damage, differing regenerative abilities, and different responses to the postfire environment. Individual plants of the

same or different species may have different responses to fire

because of local variations in fire temperature or microenvironment. The postfire assemblage of plants may have few species

changes, as is often the case after grassland fires, or may be

dramatically different in both species composition and structure,

following some forest fires. When understood, these differential

susceptibilities to fire can be used to manipulate plant communities. Prescribed burning can often be used to enhance one species

or assemblage of species while reducing another species or

assemblage of species (fig. 1).

Vegetative

Manipulation with

Prescribed Burning

Steven G. Whisenant
102 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Figure 1—Prescribed fire in a spruce-fir-aspen

stand. Fire is used to suppress or remove spruce

and fir and to release aspen and understory

herbs.

Most plants have some tolerance to fire, yet undesirable results can occur. These undesirable results

can be minimized if the resource manager has an

understanding of fire ecology and prescribes a fire

under conditions adequate to accomplish management objectives. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the effects

of fire on some grasses and shrubs common to the

Intermountain area. These should be used as approximations of the expected results, which are subject to

variation.

Prescribed burning can be a useful tool in both big

sagebrush and juniper-pinyon communities if burning

is carefully prescribed and the area is deferred from

livestock grazing for 2 years after treatment (Wright

and others 1979).

Fire, improperly used (or wildfires), may have such

adverse effects as converting desirable shrub (fig. 2) and

perennial grass stands to annual grasses or maintaining annual grass communities. Understanding how

fire affects plants is an important step in being able to

use fire to accomplish specific management objectives.

The effects of fire on plants can be clearly understood

only if the modes of action of fire on that community

are considered. According to Lloyd (1972) the primary

effects of fire on plant communities are: (1) the direct

action of heat on plants and soils, (2) changes in the

microenvironment, and (3) the redistribution of certain nutrients. The first of these involves breakdown

of organic compounds, possible stimuli to dormant

organs, and physical, chemical, and biotic changes in

the surface soil. The second mode of action affects the

microclimate, and the third includes losses of volatile

compounds in the smoke and deposition of nonvolatile

compounds in the ash. Understanding these three

modes of action is helpful in understanding how fire

can 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 consumption

and changes in the microenvironment caused by fire. Recovers

in 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 little

damage

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 than

small 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 for

2 to 3 years after burning. Can be damaged by severe fires in

dry years

Wheatgrass Little or no damage Bluebunch wheatgrass can be damaged if burning occurs in a

dry year. Other wheatgrass, particularly crested wheatgrass are

difficult to burn in seeded monocultures

Prairie junegrass Undamaged Often increases its density following burning

a

Adapted and modified from Wright and others (1979).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 103

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

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 mesic

sites. Spring and late fall burning is less damaging than summer

burning (Bunting and others 1985)

Sagebrush species Slight to severe Black sagebrush and low sagebrush are small and widely

spaced. They are rarely burned and may often be used as fire

breaks when burning adjacent big sagebrush. Silver sagebrush

is capable of sprouting after being burned, and is only slightly

damaged. 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 or

damaged by high severity fires

Curlleaf mountain mahogany Variable Mature, decadent stands, with curlleaf mountain mahogany

mostly in excess of 50 years old may be rejuvenated by fire.

Also may be beneficial when conifers are out competing

mahogany seedlings. Damaging to younger, vigorous stands

(Gruell and others 1985)

a

Adapted and modified from Wright and others (1979).

Figure 2—Wildfire in Wyoming big sagebrush

and winterfat communities. Within 2 years following fire, the areas were completely dominated by

cheatgrass.

Heat damage is a function of duration of exposure,

environmental temperature, and the initial vegetation temperature (Hare 1961). The quantity of heat

required to raise the temperature of living vegetation

to the lethal temperature is directly proportional to

the difference between the lethal temperature and

the initial vegetation temperature. Initial vegetation

temperature is a function of air temperature and

availability of radiant energy, both are largely regulated by the time of day and season of year. The

physiological condition of the protoplasm is an important variable regulating heat effects on plants. As the

moisture content of vegetative tissue decreases, its

tolerance to heat increases because of the high specific

heat of water and the physiological activity of hydrated tissues (Hare 1961).

Burning herbaceous plants during periods of active

growth generally has adverse impacts on the plant.

Conversely, dormant plants are seldom seriously damaged by burning. For example, burning in the spring

usually increases warm season herbaceous plants

while damaging cool season herbaceous plants

(Daubenmire 1968; Wright and Bailey 1982). Burning

in the fall usually has the opposite effect.

Plant growth form is a critical factor in the response

of plants to heat, with rhizomatous plants having the

greatest degree of protection. In general, the deeper

the rhizomes are located in the soil, the greater the

survival rate from fire (Flinn and Wein 1977). Fire

may have either beneficial or detrimental effects on

annual plants, depending upon the growth stage,

location of the seeds during the fire (Daubenmire

1968), and the resulting microenvironment (Evans

and Young 1984). The heat generated by a fire may be

sufficiently high to kill seeds in the upper part of the

surface litter, or in the inflorescence, but seeds on or

under the mineral soil surface often survive (Bentley
104 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

and Fenner 1958; Daubenmire 1968). Understanding

the effects of fire on the various plant life forms is a

critical component in prescribing the use of fire to

effect desired changes in a plant community.

Season of burning, which greatly influences initial

vegetation temperature, tissue hydration, phenology,

and position of perennating buds is extremely important in regulating the effects of fire. Within a season,

fire intensity increases with increasing fuel, ambient

temperature, windspeed, decreasing fuel moisture,

and relative humidity. Thus, by carefully selecting

the burning time and environmental conditions, a

resource manager can control fire intensity and damage to the existing plant community.

Woody plants may be well insulated from extreme

temperatures by bark. Fahnestock and Hare (1964)

reported longleaf pine bark surface temperatures,

during burning, varied from 554 to 1,472 ∞F (290 to

800∞C) while cambial temperatures varied from 100 to

180∞F (38 to 82∞C). Seedlings of many plants are more

susceptible to fire damage than mature plants. Young

ponderosa pine and honey mesquite are much more

likely to be killed by fire than older plants (Wright and

Bailey 1982). Much of this increased protection may be

due to the increased bark thickness on older plants.

Considerable research on the effects of litter removal in grassland plant communities has demonstrated the importance of that aspect of grassland fire

ecology (Dix 1960; Hulbert 1969; Lloyd 1972; Old

1969). The mechanical removal of dormant, standing

herbaceous vegetation, and mulch often accomplishes

the same results on perennial plants as burning.

Heavy mulch accumulations produce a dominating

cover that stifles growth by depriving the plants of

space and light (Dix 1960; Old 1969; Scifres and

Kelley 1979; Vogl 1974; Whisenant and others 1984).

Chemical substances leached from undecomposed plant

material may further inhibit growth (Rice 1974).

Postburn responses of grasses in arid and semiarid

regions are largely influenced by soil water content

after burning. When prescribed fires are followed by a

prolonged dry season, the vegetation response is predictably poor. Burning only when soil water content is

high is the most reliable way to ensure adequate water

for regrowth of plants in regions with unreliable rainfall (Wright 1974).

The importance of postburn changes in soil chemistry has been widely investigated. Most reports from

grasslands indicate that nutrient gain from ash is of

no detectable significance; any increases in production

are a result of litter removal (Hulbert 1969; Lloyd

1971, 1972; Old 1969). In forests, where great volumes

of plant material may be consumed, the ash may serve

as an important fertilizer (Chandler and others 1983).

Soil pH of acidic, weakly buffered forest soils is usually

raised following fires that consume great quantities of

woody material (Ahlgren and Ahlgren 1960). Most

soils of western rangelands are basic, and strongly

buffered.

The current uses of prescribed fire on western wildlands may be categorized into four interrelated areas:

(1) maintaining existing vegetation, (2) site preparation prior to revegetation, (3) reducing woody plant

density, and (4) wildlife habitat improvement.

Maintaining Existing

Vegetation _____________________

Prescribed fires used for maintenance of existing

vegetation are relatively cool fires. They maintain a

desirable balance in the vegetation (Scifres 1980) and

do not create major changes in the vegetation community. Maintenance fires are usually conducted during

relatively cool weather with a higher relative humidity than fires used to create type changes or remove

woody debris.

Grass (Christensen 1977; Daubenmire 1968; Lloyd

1971) and browse (DeWitt and Derby 1955; Dills 1970;

Lay 1957) appearing after a fire may be attractive to

grazing animals and often results in higher weight

gains (Anderson and others 1970; Daubenmire 1968).

Following prescribed burning, plants are often higher

in crude protein, ether extract, nitrogen free extract,

digestible energy, phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium (Daubenmire 1968; DeWitt and Derby 1955; Lay

1957, Lloyd 1971). Most studies report that cattle

make greater weight gains on burned than on unburned areas (Anderson and others 1970; Duvall and

Whitaker 1964). These increases in nutrient content

are often limited to 3 to 4 months after burning. Many

of the increases in plant nutritive quality can be

explained by the reduced tissue age of plants in recently burned areas (Christensen 1977).

Increases or decreases in forage quality or productivity may be determined by the season of burning. For

example, late spring burning of big bluestem grassland in Kansas increased protein content, whereas

burning at other seasons decreased it (Aldous 1934).

Where fire alters dry matter production per unit of

land surface (or per plant), the gains or losses expressed as a percentage of dry matter may be reversed

when expressed on a land area basis. Thus, the percentage protein in the shoots of certain Australian

grasses was higher after a fire, but the stand of grass

was thinned so much that there was much less total

protein on a land area basis (Smith and others 1960).

In contrast, Christensen (1977) stated that because of

increased net production in the burned area, uptake of

all nutrients on a unit area basis by plants in the

burned area undoubtedly exceeded uptake in unburned

areas despite the lack of significant differences in

tissue content of certain nutrients.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 105

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Sites in the early stages of reinvasion by big sagebrush, pinyon (fig. 3), juniper or other shrubs that may

be considered undesirable in excessive amounts, are

one of the best uses of prescribed burning. Ideally, the

burning occurs while there is still sufficient herbaceous fuel available (fig. 4) and the woody plants are

small and most susceptible to fire-caused mortality.

Seedlings of woody plants are more susceptible to fire

damage than mature plants. Small plants of juniper

and pinyon species are usually more easily killed by

fire, because the foliage is more likely to be ignited by

ground fires (fig. 3). Mature pinyon or juniper trees

often exhibit a greater distance between the ground

and the lowest foliage, particularly when plants are

heavily foraged, or high-lined, by big game animals.

Figure 3—Effect of prescribed fire on small

pinyon trees and understory herbs 2 years following fire. This 27-year-old chaining project is

primarily on year-round range.

Figure 4—(A) Sufficient fuel has to be available to successfully burn juniper-pinyon stands. (B) Fire cannot

be started or continued when understory fuel is lacking.

Fire in the herbaceous layer may pass under mature

pinyon or juniper trees without igniting the canopy.

Site Preparation Prior to

Revegetation ___________________

Prescribed burning may have several potential uses

in the revegetation of western wildlands. Herbicide

treatments or chaining may create debris that interfere with activities of livestock, wildlife, or planting

equipment. Fire may be used to reduce this woody

debris (fig. 5). The effectiveness of fire in debris removal varies with environmental conditions and the

amount and distribution of fuel. Burning conditions

favorable for debris removal are more hazardous than

burning conditions used for maintenance burning.

Ignition and consumption of woody debris requires

hotter, drier environmental conditions. Certain detrimental effects on desirable species may also be associated with this intensity of burning. The potential

damage to desirable species should always be carefully weighed against the expected benefits from burning to consume woody debris.

Competition from herbaceous weeds is one of the

most important causes of seeding failures and the

degeneration of established seedings. Direct seeding

efforts may be damaged by competition from annual

grasses. Cheatgrass has invaded big sagebrush communities in much of the Western United States (Evans

and Young 1975b). Cheatgrass is highly competitive

with perennial grasses and once established, may

continue to dominate the site (Young and Evans

1973). Daubenmire (1968) stated there was no conclusive evidence that cheatgrass will relinquish an area

to indigenous species once it becomes established

A

B

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

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Figure 6—Fire in a big sagebrush-perennial grass-cheatgrass community (A) provided the established

perennial grasses the opportunity to once again become dominant (B).

(fig. 6). The highly competitive nature of cheatgrass

makes establishment of desirable perennial grasses

very difficult. In a Nevada study, growth of perennial

grass seedlings was dependent upon cheatgrass control (Evans and others 1970). Without cheatgrass

control, soil water was depleted prior to establishment

of perennial grasses.

Fire has been used with varying degrees of success

in big sagebrush-cheatgrass communities to prepare

the area for seeding to perennial grasses. It has not

been very successful where cheatgrass is dominant

(Wright and others 1979). Procedures developed for

rehabilitating cheatgrass-dominated rangeland following wildfires may also be used following prescribed

burning. Areas dominated by cheatgrass may be treated

with atrazine or plowed and seeded to aid establishment of an adequate stand of perennial grasses (Eckert

and Evans 1967; Eckert and others 1974).

A

Figure 5—Prescribed fire being used to reduce

woody debris on a chained juniper-pinyon area

used by cattle, elk, and mule deer.

Fire may be used to convert juniper-pinyon communities to a more desirable mixture of woody and

herbaceous plants (fig. 3). Simply removing the trees

does not ensure that the resulting vegetation mixture

will be dominated by more desirable herbaceous and

woody plants. Removing woody plants often results in

increased cheatgrass densities. The vegetation resulting from disturbing western juniper woodlands may

be considered as a greater environmental degradation

than tree invasion if sustained forage production is

used as the evaluation criteria (Young and others

1985). They discussed obstacles encountered in attempting to revegetate western juniper-dominated

rangelands. The aerial standing crop of the trees often

reaches 187 tons per acre (419 metric tons per ha). This

represents a great sink of nutrients that are unavailable for plant growth and can become an impediment

to seeding equipment. A flush of annual weeds usually

occurs following tree removal, which may reduce establishment of seeded species. Some type of weed

control is recommended following tree removal, with

herbicides providing the most potential (Young and

others 1985).

Big sagebrush-cheatgrass communities (fig. 7) can be

successfully seeded following burning if the fire is hot

enough to consume both sagebrush plants and cheatgrass seeds in the standing inflorescence (Young and

others 1976b). Density and ground cover of cheatgrass

may be drastically reduced the first year after fire but

increase dramatically the second year. In one study

there were less than 0.9 plants per ft2 (10 plants per m2

)

the first year after fire, nearly 740 plants per ft2 (8,000

plants per m2) the second year, and more than 1,490

plants per ft2 (16,000 plants per m2) the third year

(Young and Evans 1978b). Ground cover of cheatgrass

was about 2 percent the first year, 12 percent the

second, and 14 percent the third year after burning.

B
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 107

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Figure 7—Big sagebrush community with sufficient understory to burn. Seeding of desirable

perennial species should occur following the

burn.

Much of the postburn area provides a nutrient-rich

environment, allowing full expression of downy brome’s

growth potential (Young and Evans 1978b). Even

though much of the cheatgrass seed is destroyed by

fire, some survive and develop into large vigorous

plants with many tillers and seeds produced per plant.

Young and Evans (1978b) found cheatgrass seed production per plant in an unburned area varied from less

than 10 to 250 per plant while in a burned area it

varied from 960 to almost 6,000 per plant. They attributed this response to reduced intraspecific competition resulting, from lower plant density. Hassan and

West (1986) found that even though fire reduced

cheatgrass seed pools by half, the seed pool increased

within 1 year to twice the level on unburned areas. If

much cheatgrass seed remains, the area may be chemically fallowed (Eckert and Evans 1967), or the cheatgrass

seedlings plowed prior to seeding perennial grasses.

After fire there is a dramatic reduction in diversity

of annual plants. Wildfires are a major agent for increases in cheatgrass, which is well suited to postburn

conditions because of its reproductive and competitive

abilities (Evans and Young 1984). Rehabilitation of

big sagebrush-cheatgrass rangeland following wildfires has resulted in the conversion of large areas from

annual grass to perennial grass dominance (fig. 6).

Wildfires in this vegetation type may be either extremely detrimental or beneficial, depending on rehabilitation efforts. The advantages obtained by burning

must be realized during the first year following the

fire.

An accumulation of plant litter on the soil surface is

an important requirement for establishment of cheatgrass in the arid Intermountain area (Evans and

Young 1970). Plant litter on the soil surface moderates

the microenvironmental parameters of air temperature and available water in the surface soil. This creates

a seedbed environment within the physiological

requirements for cheatgrass seed germination and

seedling growth. The microenvironment of a bare soil

seedbed does not permit germination and establishment of cheatgrass in Nevada (Evans and Young

1970). However, there is some evidence, but little data,

to indicate that plant litter on the soil surface is less

critical for cheatgrass seedling success in more mesic

regions of the Western United States.

Planning revegetation efforts requires that potential cheatgrass competition levels be predicted. Using

a bioassay technique, Young and others (1976b), determined the density of viable cheatgrass seeds relative to postfire seedbed conditions. By determining the

relative cover of ash and unburned organic matter

after fire, an estimate of the potential cheatgrass

reinfestation can be determined. Bioassays from the

area to be rehabilitated may be conducted by placing

samples of unburned organic matter and ash in small

cups and covering with vermiculite (Young and others

1969a). Cheatgrass seedlings from the samples are

counted for 8 weeks and calculated on a number per m2

basis. As few as 4.0 seedlings per ft2 (43 cheatgrass

seedlings per m2) moderately reduced establishment

of crested wheatgrass seedlings and 64.0 seedlings

per ft2 (688 cheatgrass seedlings per m2) prevented

perennial grass seedling establishment in a greenhouse (Evans 1961).

Effects of Fire on Woody

Plants _________________________

Management goals for sagebrush wildlands vary,

but conservation of the basic natural resources, soil

and vegetation, is usually one of the primary considerations. Blaisdell and others (1982) stated that in

general, there is too much sagebrush and other low

value shrubs, too many annuals, and not enough

perennial grasses and forbs. Under these conditions,

the most common vegetation management goal is to

reduce sagebrush and increase perennial grasses and

forbs.

Grazing management may be used to improve the

vegetation if deterioration has not progressed too far.

Unfortunately, the aggressive, long lived nature of

sagebrush often requires some form of direct control

followed by revegetation with perennial, herbaceous

species to restore the area to a satisfactory condition

(Blaisdell and others 1982). It is wise, however, to

consider the desirable attributes of sagebrush, in proper

amounts, when planning control measures. Sagebrush

is a part of many native plant communities and has

many benefits when not overly abundant. Regardless

of the control measure used, proper grazing management should always be part of the long-term management plan.
108 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Forage that is unavailable to the browsing animal is

of little value to them. Many woody plants obtain a

height that places all the yearly leaf and shoot production out of reach of most browsing animals. Aspen and

bitterbrush are just two of the plants capable of reaching that height. When plants resprout following top

removal, the opportunity exists to increase forage

availability with fire. Fire may stimulate suckering or

resprouting of some species; placing the majority of

annual browse production within reach of most animals. When aspen is clearcut, burned, or otherwise

disturbed, resprout (sucker) density may be in the

tens of thousands per acre (fig. 8) (Jones 1975). Maximum densities are reached the first year and begin to

decline after that (Jones and Trujillo 1975). Forage

production in aspen and conifer (fig. 9) communities is

greatly increased following burning (Bartos and

Mueggler 1979; Jones 1975).

Juniper and pinyon species have invaded many

sagebrush/grass and grass communities during the

past 80 years and have also increased their density

over much of their range. The highly competitive

nature of these trees has proven detrimental to some

of the more desirable woody and herbaceous species.

Several studies have attributed this increased density

to overgrazing and reductions in fire frequency, which

have enabled these fire intolerant species to increase

both their range and density (Blackburn and Tueller

1970; Johnsen 1962).

In the sagebrush and juniper-pinyon communities

the primary use of prescribed burning has been to reduce

competition between the excessive woody plant cover

and the more desirable plant species (fig. 10). Burning

these communities often increases productivity, quality, and palatability of herbaceous plants and may

have long lasting effects on the vegetative composition. Evans and Young (1978) stated that establishment of perennial grasses was an important factor in

Figure 8—Release of understory herbs and

resprouting of aspen following prescribed burn.

Figure 9—Response of understory grasses and

forbs following burning of lodgepole pine.

Figure 10—Increase of native grasses, forbs, and

palatable shrubs following wildfire in a juniperpinyon community.

delaying the reinvasion of big sagebrush and low

rabbitbrush.

Bitterbrush exhibits a less predictable response to

fire. Several factors are undoubtedly responsible for

this variability; not the least of which is the difference

between wildfires, which often occur during the hottest period of the year, and prescribed fires that are

often set during cooler weather. Wildfires usually

occur during the summer, when carbohydrate reserves are low (Menke and Trlica 1981). Wildfires

have reportedly destroyed bitterbrush on large areas

(Hormay 1943) and “permanently eradicated” it on

many sites in the Great Basin (Billings 1952). Bitterbrush resprouted frequently, but inversely with fire

intensity following fires in eastern Idaho (Blaisdell

1950, 1953). Resprouting was limited following wildfires in Washington (Daubenmire 1970) and California

(Nord 1965). Other research that included prescribed

fires, concluded that burning in the spring was less
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 109

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

damaging than burning at other times (Blaisdell and

Mueggler 1956).

Genetic traits account for some of the variable response of bitterbrush to fire (Bunting and others 1985;

Clark and others 1982; Giunta and others 1978).

Decumbent forms resprout more frequently than erect

forms of bitterbrush, particularly following spring

burns (Bunting and others 1985; Clark and others

1982). Clark and others (1982) stated that bitterbrush

does not sprout abundantly after fire. However, fire

creates litter-free sites necessary for germination of

rodent-cached seed (Sherman and Chilcote 1972).

Bunting and others (1985) studied bitterbrush response, 3 to 10 years after burning, following both

prescribed fires and wildfires at 56 locations in Idaho

and Montana. They found seedling establishment rates

were greatly influenced by soil water content; more

mesic sites had higher bitterbrush establishment rates.

Since most bitterbrush reproduction is from seed

(Daubenmire and Daubenmire 1968; West 1968) rather

than vegetatively, burning may enhance reproduction

in a few situations (Clark and others 1982).

Use of Fire to Improve Wildlife

Habitat ________________________

Leopold (1933) defined game management as “...the

art of making land produce sustained annual crops of

wild game for recreational use.” Burger (1979) defined

wildlife management as “...a blending of science and

art, aimed at achieving sound human goals for wildlife

resources by working with habitats, wildlife populations, and people.” Others definitions exist, but like

these, virtually all of them place some emphasis on

managing the land as habitat. Management of habitats and wildlife populations are closely linked (Scotter

1980). Wildlife habitat is a constantly changing entity

that cannot be preserved unchanged. It consists principally of vegetation, and as such is subject to change

through succession.

Fire serves as a primary agent of successional setback 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 eventually

result in intense fires that may burn large areas. Even

under these circumstances, there are areas within the

fire’s boundaries which, because of aspect, additional

moisture, type or amount of vegetation, do not burn or

burn incompletely. Along the edges of most fires there

is mixing of burned and unburned areas. “Fingers” and

pockets of unburned or incompletely burned habitat

remain in and around the burned areas (fig. 11).

Improved fire protection has contributed to the

decreased quality of some wildlife habitat by aiding

Figure 11—Fire can occur in pockets or fingers,

thus increasing community diversity and edge

areas.

succession to plant communities with low capacities to

support certain species of animals (particularly big

game animals) (Scotter 1980). Prior to human’s intervention, wildfires regularly burned large areas. Much

of the postfire vegetation provided favorable forage for

livestock and certain game species, especially deer

and elk (Lyon 1966b). For example, in the Northern

Region of the U.S. Forest Service, which includes

portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, the area

burned by wildfire declined from an annual average of

249,000 acres (101,000 ha) at the turn of the century

to less than 4,942 acres (2,000 ha) in the early 1960’s

(Pengelly 1966). This resulted in an increase in the

amount of mature forests at the expense of the grass or

shrub subclimax vegetation. These succession patterns are common to much of Western North America,

and have reduced the quality and extent of large

herbivore habitat (Scotter 1980).

Prescribed burning is a promising tool for wildlife

habitat improvement. It has been used to enhance

habitat diversity, and to improve forage quality and

quantity (fig. 1, 9, 10, 11) Severson and Medina (1983)

stated “...prescribed burning can be used to improve or

create wildlife habitat by creating diversity and edge

and by improving the quantity and quality of food.

Diversity and edge enhancement is generally accomplished by eliminating overstory vegetation, trees and

shrubs, in prearranged patterns that create optimum

cover/forage ratios. Benefits to food resources can be

realized by eliminating undesirable plants, removing

dense, rank, and/or overmature growth to stimulate

crown or root sprouting, and increasing the nutritive

value.”

Fire, like any other management tool, is not a panacea. The misapplication of fire can have devastating

effects on wildlife habitat (fig. 12). Understanding the
110 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

influence of fire on plant succession and the relationships between animal habitat requirements and plant

succession will enable resource managers to make

informed decisions.

Successional Relationships Between

Plants and Animals

Many animals are associated with one or more of the

successional stages or plant communities. Bailey (1984)

classified animals into three categories that describe

the relationships between their habitat requirements

and plant succession. He considered animals as either

climax-adapted (Class I), adapted to early successional stages (Class II), or adapted to a mixture of

successional stages (Class III). By understanding these

relationships the resource manager can often use fire

to retard or set back succession to a vegetative type

more compatible with management objectives.

Animals have different degrees of versatility in the

number of plant communities and successional stages

that they can use for feeding and reproduction. Populations of climax-adapted species (Class I) may be adversely affected by habitat disturbances, such as fire.

Bailey (1984) listed the woodland caribou, spruce

grouse, snowshoe hare, and pileated woodpecker as

examples of climax-adapted species. These types of

animals are poorly equipped to adapt to habitat changes

and 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, maintain

plant successional stages most favorable to Class II

species.

Animals that can adapt to a mixture of successional

stages (Class III species) are less affected by abrupt

Figure 12—Misuse and uncontrolled use of

fire can result in losses of critical wildlife habitat. This fire destroyed prime sage-grouse and

mule deer habitat.

habitat changes. Bailey (1984) considered ruffed

grouse, whitetailed deer, and mule deer to be good

examples of Class III species; which may require

disturbance or protection, depending on which habitat

component is limiting.

Thomas (1979) developed a versatility index (V) that

can be used to rate individual animal species, or all the

species of an area. The V score for each species is

derived by determining the total number of plant

communities and the total number of successional

stages to which the species shows primary orientation

for feeding and reproduction: V = (Cr + Sr) + (Cf + Sf)

where V is the versatility score, Cr is the number of

communities used by the species for reproduction, Sr

is the number of successional stages used for reproduction, Cf is the number of communities used for

feeding, and Sfis the number of stages used for feeding

(Thomas 1979). The versatility index is a tool that

allows wildlife habitat managers to estimate how

many, and which wildlife species are likely to benefit

or be harmed by prescribed fire in a specific area.

Wildlife habitats should be identified in such a way

that they can be considered simultaneously with other

land management activities. This can be accomplished

by equating plant communities and successional stages

with habitats for wildlife (Thomas 1979). Associating

individual wildlife species or groups of species with

plant communities and stages of plant succession

allows the wildlife manager to translate range and

forest inventories into wildlife habitat information

(Whisenant 1986a).

Prescribed burning has been successfully used to

increase willow abundance for moose habitat improvement. Geyer’s willow is a subclimax species, highly

preferred by moose, which is replaced by spruce through

succession. Prescribed burning has been used in western Wyoming to prevent succession to spruce, and to

stimulate willow regeneration (Weiss 1983). The resulting increase in amount of willow was followed by

increased moose use of the burned areas.

Cover Requirements

Scotter (1980) asserted that habitat components

such as type and amount of cover may be equally as

important as quantity and quality of food.

The primary function of cover is to provide escape

routes and hiding places from predators, in addition to

shelter from weather (Black and others 1976; Severson

and Medina 1983; Thomas 1979; Thomas and others

1976). Hiding cover provides the security that makes

an animal’s use of the area possible, and thermal cover

helps the animal maintain body temperatures within

tolerable limits.

Requirements for hiding cover vary throughout

the year. Leopold (1933) listed five kinds of cover for

birds: winter cover, refuge cover, loafing cover, nesting,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 111

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

and roosting cover. There is much overlap between

these kinds of cover; one location may serve as adequate winter, refuge, and nesting or loafing cover.

Rarely are cover requirements for a particular species

completely understood. Careful consideration of these

requirements with respect to the location and species

in question will help to alleviate many of the potential

problems.

For example, hiding cover for elk has been defined as

the vegetation capable of hiding 90 percent of an elk

from the view of a person at 200 ft (61.0 m) or less

(Black and others 1976; Thomas 1979). The amount of

vegetation required to do this varies between vegetation type and location. Elk use of cover is significantly

reduced beyond 900 ft (274.3 m) from an opening

(Reynolds 1966). Hiding cover that meets the requirements for elk will be more than adequate for deer

(Black and others 1976).

For elk management, an optimum ratio of 40 percent

cover to 60 percent foraging area has been recommended (Black and others 1976; Thomas 1979). This

suggestion was based on how elk used cover and

openings in relation to edges. The 60 percent forage

area included all openings and forested areas that did

not qualify as cover.

Thomas and others (1976) defined thermal cover

for 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 cover

than single layered vegetation. At least 30 acres (12.1 ha)

are required for adequate shelter from the wind, and

areas larger than 60 acres (24.2 ha) are not used

efficiently. Others have suggested that elk thermal

cover requirements are more variable. Consistently

used elk thermal cover in south-central Wyoming

summer ranges are less than 5 acres (2.0 ha) in size

and only 150 ft (45.7 m) from openings (Ward 1976).

Thermal cover for deer has been defined (on summer

and spring fall range) as trees or shrubs, at least

sapling size (Black and others 1976). Deer thermal

cover 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). Unfortunately, research into deer and elk cover requirements

have rarely considered winter ranges that undoubtedly must be very important (Severson and Medina

1983).

Pronghorn antelope are associated with open country,

and little research attention has been given to their

thermal cover requirements. However, pronghorns

are reported to make use of wind velocity barriers

such as creek and river banks, road fills and dikes,

and the lee sides of sagebrush (Yoakum 1980).

Pronghorns have also been observed taking summer

shelter under isolated trees in otherwise open valleys.

Until more detailed information is available, resource

managers must make subjective judgements about

the adequacy of pronghorn thermal cover.

Burning may alter an animal’s ability to enter an

area. In forests, movements of large animals into an

area may be reduced or eliminated if large numbers of

fallen trees restrict movement.

Kelsall (1968) believed the tangle of dead trees on

burned areas explained the observations of Banfield

(1954) that barren ground caribou avoided burned

forests. Gates (1968) showed that deer used burned

and debris free areas more frequently than those that

contained unburned logging slash. Research did not

rule out the possibility that deer preferred the food on

the burned areas. Where downed timber restricts

movement of large ungulates into an area, the burning

plan should attempt to increase animal access into as

many new areas as possible or practical.

Another concept closely allied with cover is vegetation edges, which are the places where plant communities or successional stages come together (Thomas

1979). A discussion of the importance of areas of

vegetation edge is aided by an understanding of two

important concepts, dispersion and interspersion

(Thomas 1979). The law of dispersion states “the

potential density of game...requiring two or more

types is, within ordinary limits, proportional to the

sum of the type peripheries” (Leopold 1933). The law

of interspersion states that “the number of species

requiring two or more types of habitat depends on the

degree of interspersion of numerous blocks of such

types” (Severson and Medina 1983).

Small or patchy fires that create a mosaic of vegetation types and statures in previously homogenous

vegetation are usually beneficial to most species. These

types of fires not only increase the number of species

present but often increase the number of individual

animals. Biswell (1952) recommended small burns of

5 to 10 acres (2.0 to 4.0 ha) in a checkerboard pattern

to open up dense chamise brushland for blacktailed

deer, game birds, and small mammals in California.

This type of burning program increased deer abundance, weight, weaning percentage, and wintering

ability compared to deer from unburned areas or on

large uniform burns. This improved deer performance

was explained by enhanced nutritive value of plants

growing in the openings.

Often it is not the quantity of the habitat components that determines animal numbers or health, but

rather the degree of interspersion, or spatial relationship to other requirements (Dasmann 1964). It is the

complexity of habitat requirements that leads to the

recognition of the “edge effect.” More edge between

particular types results in greater densities of animals

associated with that edge. Increasing the interspersion of types will increase the edge requirements of
112 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

various animals as well as the use of diversity indices

to quantify the edge (Severson and Medina 1983;

Thomas 1979; Yoakum and others 1980).

Food Requirements

Nutrient contents of plants often follow a predictable annual cycle. Nutritional values are highest early

in the growing season, usually decline following flowering, and are lowest during dormant periods. Most

herbivores thrive as long as they can consume the

young tender shoots, leaves, and buds. Nutritional

difficulties occur when they are forced to eat old,

coarse vegetation.

Fire can be used to remove old litter and standing

vegetation from an area. This often has the effect of

improving diet quality of large herbivores by reducing

consumption of old coarse growth and increasing consumption of young plant parts.

The concept of tolerance ranges for all environmental factors should always be considered in any habitat

analysis and improvement scheme. Dasmann (1964)

aptly stated the correct approach when he wrote “the

game manager, in attempts to improve habitat, must

continually search through the range of potential

limiting factors seeking one that can practically and

economically by remedied. Habitat research and management have sometimes been defined as attempts to

discover limiting factors and then to remove each in

turn until the maximum feasible production of wildlife

is obtained.” Unfortunately, it is not always simple to

determine what is limiting wildlife populations.

Riparian Considerations

Fire can have many impacts on stream habitats. Of

primary importance are changes in soil erosion, water

flow, nutrient loading, and water temperature. All of

these commonly increase following a fire and may be

detrimental to aquatic organisms. A reduction in

streamside vegetation often results from burning and

is a contributing factor to many of the detrimental

impacts. Sediment input to streams may reduce the

area suitable for spawning or smother fish eggs with

fine materials (Cordone 1961). Increased water flow

may damage eggs by increasing gravel movement

(Lyon and others 1978). Removal of streamside vegetation often increases streambank erosion, reduces

the available streamside habitat, and increases water

temperatures. Increased water temperature increases

oxygen demand and fish disease (Lyon and others

1978). Increased nutrient loading often occurs after a

fire and may be beneficial by increasing stream productivity (Lyon and others 1978). Adverse streamrelated impacts can be lessened by leaving a buffer of

vegetation around streams.

Competitive Interactions Between Wildlife

Species

Fire may alter the competitive interactions between

animals; with the result of one species increasing at

the expense of another. An interesting study of how

fire can alter the competitive relationships between

ungulates was conducted in Banff and Jasper National

Parks of Alberta, Canada (Flook 1964). Before the fire,

mule deer, moose, and bighorn sheep were relatively

common, and elk were relatively uncommon. Each of

these species lived in separate habitats and interactions were relatively rare. Widespread fires encouraged grassland and shrubland that benefited the elk.

The elk moved into many new areas and competed

vigorously with mule deer for food and cover and with

bighorn sheep and moose for food. As a consequence

of habitat changes brought on by fire, and competition

from elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mule deer declined in numbers (Flook 1964).

Evaluating the effects of fire or any other management practice, on multiple wildlife species becomes

quite complex. Thomas (1979) devised a matrix type

approach to analyzing potential impacts of management practices on all forest species in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. This required an understanding of the

habitat requirements of the wildlife species, the requirements filled by the present vegetative community, and the requirements filled by the post burn

vegetation.

Manipulating Wildlife Habitat With Fire

The first step in planning a habitat manipulation

program must be to clarify the objectives. Is management for species diversity the overriding consideration? If so, the habitat should be developed for maximum diversity of communities, successional stages,

and ages of plants. If a single animal species is to be

given priority, then habitat manipulation should be

planned with that species in mind, with less concern

for requirements of other species. Are recreational and

aesthetic considerations of overriding importance in

the area? If so, the vegetation manipulation plan will

require a much different approach. Often multiple use

objectives require consideration of all species and

uses. However, certain smaller areas may be selected

as having the greatest potential for a particular use

and can be managed primarily for that use. These are

some of the questions that must be addressed early in

the planning stages.

Severson and Medina (1983) stated that wildlife

habitat managers have four facets of vegetation manipulation to consider when designing habitat modifications: (1) the amount of hiding and thermal cover

necessary to fulfill the animals’ needs, (2) the amount
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 113

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

of area needed for food production, (3) the optimum

arrangement (interspersion) of various cover and food

producing areas to realize, and (4) the optimum amount

of edge. When considering these four facets of vegetative manipulation the habitat manager must seek to

find the limiting factor(s) of the population(s) in question. Adequate information is seldom available on all

the possible limiting factors. As a result, the habitat

manager should acquire more information, or proceed

by improving the quality of the “probable limiting

factors” in the habitat. General reviews and discussions of habitat improvement techniques can be found

in Thomas (1979), Yoakum and others 1980, and

Severson and Medina (1983).

Successful habitat management must be based on

a thorough understanding of the fact that the vegetation on a given site does not remain the same from

year to year if left alone (Leopold 1933). Each successional change is characterized by a certain assemblage

of plant species that have different kinds and amounts

of cover and food. Succession can be hastened by

planting climax species, protection from grazing, and

fire. Even with this help, accelerating the pace of

succession may be very slow. Succession can be rapidly set back through the use of prescribed burning

(fig. 13). The challenge to the habitat manager is to

ensure that this change in plant succession is consistent with management objectives.

Several kinds of changes in the plant community are

possible and should be considered in a habitat manipulation program. Fire can be used to change plant

abundance, availability, dispersion, nutritive value,

and species composition. Community dispersion, interspersion, and edge can also be altered with fire.

Judicious use of fire can often produce the desired mix

of these attributes in a plant community (fig. 14).

Figure 13—Selective spot burning in a mixed

spruce and aspen community. Prescribed

burning was used to set back succession on

a prime elk summering area.

Figure 14—Juniper-pinyon being selectively burned

for 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-pinyon

burn.

Selectivity is required to produce the desired plant

community with prescribed burning. Three types of

selectivity can be used to effect the desired changes in

plant communities: (1) selectivity of fire intensity, (2)

species selectivity, and (3) area selectivity. Of these

three types of selectivity, fire intensity is of overriding

importance; understanding each is necessary to realize the potential of fire in habitat manipulation.

Fire intensity (described by fireline intensity) is the

amount of heat released per unit of time per length of

fire front. Fire severity incorporates both upward and

downward heat fluxes and is an expression of the

effect of fire on the ecosystem (Brown 1985a). It relates

plant mortality to the extent of organic matter loss.

Selectivity of fire intensity is obtained by selecting the

proper mix of environmental conditions to achieve the

fire intensity necessary to effect the desired change in

the habitat. Burning under relatively cool, humid

conditions results in fire with reduced severity that

may not consume the ground litter. Conversely, burning under hot, dry, and windy conditions results in a

more severe fire capable of removing vegetation and

A

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

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

organic matter to the mineral soil. The differences

between these two kinds of fires have profound influences on the resulting vegetation.

Postfire aspen sucker density is influenced by fire

intensity and fire severity (Brown 1985a). Aspen sucker

response to three levels of fire severity have been

described by Brown (1985a) based on studies by Horton

and Hopkins (1965) and Bartos and Mueggler (1981):

1. Low fire intensity and low ground char results in

partial mortality of vegetation. Less than 50 to 60

percent of aspen trees are top-killed, and litter and

upper part of soil duff is consumed. Suckering response is patchy and sparse.

2. Moderate to high fire intensity with moderate

ground char top-kills nearly all of the aspen. Some

patches of soil duff and charred material remain.

Suckering is prolific.

3. Moderate to high fire intensity with high ground

char top-kills nearly all of the aspen. Forest floor is

reduced to ash and exposed mineral soil. Substantial

suckering results.

Species selectivity is the ability to change the plant

species composition of an area to meet the desired

management objectives. Fire intensity, life form, and

phenology all influence the differential mortality or

stimulation of plants following fire. Plant species

response to fire differs because of phenological variations at the time of burning, inherent susceptibilities

to heat damage, regenerative abilities, and responses

to the postfire environment. Individual plants may

have different responses to fire because of local variations in fire temperature or microenvironment. The

postfire assemblage of plants may have few species

changes, as is often the case after grassland fires, or

may be dramatically different in both species composition and structure, which occurs following some

forest fires.

The precise path of plant succession, or the results of

fire on a certain community depends on many interacting factors and may, therefore, be difficult to predict.

It is the plant community, and the successional stages

of it, that are of primary concern to the wildlife habitat

manager and should be understood prior to any prescribed burning operation. Fortunately, there is sufficient information available on fire effects in many

communities to allow several generalizations.

Each step in succession may last only a few months

or as long as several centuries. Succession can be

hastened by planting climax species, protection from

abusive grazing, and from fire. The process of succession from one vegetation type to another can be very

slow, even with helpful management. Succession can

be set back by many kinds of disturbances; the most

common of which are overgrazing by domestic livestock, cutting vegetation for hay or timber, plowing

the soil, and burning.

Grasslands are usually well adapted to recurring

fire regimes and are not drastically changed by fire. An

increase in forbs is a common occurrence. Early successional animals such as bobwhite quail are often

favored by these changes (Leopold 1933; Stoddard

1931). Woody plants vary considerably in their response to fire. Communities of woody plants without

the ability to resprout following top removal, such as

big sagebrush and Utah juniper, are often destroyed by

fire. In contrast, communities with aggressive resprouters such as mesquite, willow, aspen, or Gambel

oak retain similar species compositions but the aboveground portions of the communities may be drastically

reduced 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 in

determining the amount of dispersion, interspersion,

and edge in the post-burn community. Area selectivity

can be obtained by burning a series of small areas

(fig. 14) or by burning at a time and place where the

fire will not burn continuously.

Burning Techniques _____________

Firebreak Considerations

Adequate firebreak construction is essential to the

development of a successful prescribed burn. Firebreaks may consist of any area, whether natural or

human-made, which successfully contains the fire

under consideration. Natural firebreaks may be rivers, rock bluffs (fig. 15), or areas with insufficient

vegetation to carry the fire. Human-made firebreaks

may be roads (fig. 16), plowed fields, or areas constructed specifically to stop a prescribed fire.

Natural firebreaks provide a significant cost advantage when available, but specially developed firebreaks are routinely used in prescribed burning. These

usually consist of a combination of mechanically removing vegetation down to the mineral soil for a width

Figure 15—Use of a river and rocky hillside

as natural fire breaks in a prescribed burn.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 115

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Figure 16—Human-made firebreak in a juniper-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 vegetation

in a strip around the area to be burned. Burning

firebreaks usually occur under relatively mild conditions. Depending on the situation, this may mean

burning the firebreak several months in advance or

preparing the firebreak the morning of the main fire.

Burning in grassland fuels usually requires only a

100 ft (30.5 m) firebreak (fig. 17). However, burning in

shrubby vegetation, particularly where the shrubs

contain volatile oils, requires a much wider firebreak

(fig. 18). The following burning prescriptions include

suggested fireline widths, however, there is no substitute for experience and careful consideration of the

unique features of each individual burning situation.

For detailed information on fireline preparation, firing techniques, and the application of prescribed burning, refer to the excellent reviews on those subjects

(Emrick and Adams 1977; Fischer 1978; Martin and

Dell 1978; Mobley and others 1978; Schroeder and

Buck 1970; Wright 1974; Wright and Bailey 1982).

Sagebrush Communities

Larger sagebrush types (fig. 12) often provide fuel

sufficient to carry a fire. Sites dominated by dwarf

species seldom support enough fuel to carry a fire.

Big Sagebrush-Grass

According to Beardall and Sylvester (1976), a minimum of 600 to 700 lb per acre (673 to 785 kg per ha) of

herbaceous fuel is required to burn sagebrush grass

communities. Where the fire is to be carried with

herbaceous fuels, livestock grazing should be restricted

during the growing season prior to the burn. This

should help provide adequate fuel to carry the fire.

Pechanec and Stewart (1944) determined that 20

percent cover should be the minimum amount of

sagebrush to consider burning. Wright and others

(1979) recommended early spring or late summer

burning, when soil moisture is usually present down to

12 to 19 inches (30.5 to 48.3 cm). Soil moisture is less

critical when burning in the fall.

The following instructions for burning sagebrushgrass 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) width

around the entire area to be burned. This fireline

should expose the mineral soil.

2. Burn a 250 ft (76.2 m) blackline on the downwind

side, when weather conditions are mild. Air temperature should be 60 to 70 ∞F (15.6 to 21.1 ∞C), relative

humidity 25 to 40 percent, and windspeed 6 to 10 mi

per h (9.7 to 16.0 km per h). These environmental

conditions are most common in the early morning

hours during the summer.

3. Burn the remaining area in the afternoon as air

temperature reaches the maximum and relative

humidity approaches its minimum. Recommended

Fire Plan for Volatile Fuels

400 ft

R. H. = 25 - 40%

Wind = 8 - 15 mph

Temp. = 65-75 F.

R. H. = 50 - 60%

Wind < 8 mph
116 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

environmental conditions are air temperature of 75 to

80 ∞F (23.9 to 26.7 ∞C), relative humidity 15 to 20

percent, and windspeed 8 to 15 mi per h (12.9 to 23.9

km per h).

Dense Stands of Big Sagebrush

Dense stands of big sagebrush surrounded by low

sagebrush may be burned during hot, dry, windy days

with no firelines (Beardall and Sylvester 1976). They

suggested burning these areas in early spring when

relative humidity is below 60 percent, windspeed is

above 8 mi per h (12.9 km per h), and when there is

more than 600 to 700 lb per acre (673 to 785 kg per ha)

of fine fuel.

A technique for burning very dense stands of big

sagebrush that does not require fireline preparation

was developed by Neuenschwander (1980). This technique involves winter burning, with snow present, and

is restricted to areas with greater than 50 percent

sagebrush cover and a distance between plants of less

than 50 percent of the average sagebrush height. With

those restrictions, fire carried through sagebrush canopies when effective windspeed was above 5 mi per h

(8.0 km per h) and the winter ignition index was

greater than 29. The winter ignition index is determined using the following equation:

Y1 = 96.64 – 91.20 (X1) – 1.1 (X2)

r2 = 0.811

Where Y1 = ignition index

X1 = 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 in

most areas because of stand limitations and the relatively few days with proper burning conditions

(Neuenschwander 1980). However, where feasible,

winter broadcast burning is inexpensive, and completely safe when snow is present. It requires no

fireline construction or fire crews and can be used to

create vegetation mosaics beneficial to both wildlife

and livestock.

Cheatgrass Communities

Burning cheatgrass ranges is relatively easy if a

continuous cover of dry cheatgrass is present. The

critical aspect in burning this community is postfire

management. Establishment of perennial grass species is very important. Fireline construction can easily

be done with the wetline technique described by Martin

and others (1977). Fires can be backed away from a

single wetline or allowed to burn between two wetlines.

Martin and others (1982) suggested the following

prescription for burning cheatgrass ranges: (1) burn

after grasses have dried out and when soil surface

litter is dry enough for the fire to consume cheatgrass

seeds in the soil surface litter, (2) use backfires to

create a blackline of 30 to 100 ft (9.1 to 30.5 m) on the

downwind sides, and (3) burn with headfire when air

temperature is 56 to 84 ∞F (13.3 to 28.9 ∞C), relative

humidity is 20 to 45 percent, and windspeed is 0 to

10 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 and

shrub cover, allowing recovery of herbaceous species,

or as a site preparation procedure for seeding efforts.

The following guidelines are useful in planning and

conducting prescribed fires in juniper-pinyon types.

Closed Stands of Juniper and Pinyon—Stands

of juniper and pinyon with little or no herbaceous

plants are difficult to burn. The areas become more

difficult to burn as the percentage of juniper increases

and pinyon decreases. With large fire lines, stands

with over 300 trees per acre (741 or more per hectare)

can be burned on hot, windy days (Blackburn and

Bruner 1975; Truesdell 1969). These areas may require winds in excess of 35 mi per h (56.4 km per h) to

carry a fire. The hazards of an escaped fire prevent

most resource managers from burning under these

conditions. However, in unusual situations where excellent natural fire breaks were present, prescribed

fires have been successfully conducted under those

conditions (Truesdell 1969). The following prescription is recommended (Wright and Bailey 1982) for

burning closed stands of juniper-pinyon: (1) prepare a

10 ft (3.0 m) fire line around the area to be burned. On

the downwind side, 500 ft (152.4 m) in from the outside

boundary, construct a similar fireline parallel to the

first. The downwind strips can be chained and windrowed; (2) windrows are to be burned in early spring or

summer when vegetation of adjacent areas is still

green. This burning should occur with an air temperature of 60 to 75 ∞F (15.6 to 23.9 ∞C), relative humidity

of 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 prepared

in 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 debris

against the windward side of the standing trees. These

fuels should be allowed to cure for 2 to 3 months; and

(4) conduct the main burn in the summer with an air

temperature of 80 to 95 ∞F (26.7 to 35.0 ∞C), relative

humidity less than 10 percent, and windspeed greater

than 8 mi per h (12.9 km per h). The fire intensity is

built up in the windrows and carries through the

adjacent standing trees.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 117

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Davis (1976) suggested chaining as an alternative

method of preparing firelines in closed juniper-pinyon

stands. The firelines would be chained in the winter,

and in the spring when adjacent unchained areas had

moderate conditions and green vegetation, the chained

areas would be burned. Bryant and others (1983)

stated that recently chained or dozed juniper (less

than 100 days) can be safely burned if herbaceous fuel

is less than 445 lb per acre (499 kg per ha), windspeed

is less than 6 mi per h (9.7 km per h), relative humidity

is above 45 percent, and air temperature is less than

86 ∞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 without

a pretreatment that increases flammability or continuity. These areas require firelines and hot, dry,

windy conditions. The distance between windrows

may need to be reduced to only 250 ft (76.2 m). The

difficulty in broadcast burning these areas may require large fire crews to ignite the scattered piles and

windrows. Flammability may be increased by mechanical treatments or possibly with herbicide treatments on the area, or parts of the area, to be burned.

The fuel continuity may be increased by one-way

chaining the area with a relatively light chain. This

treatment uproots very few trees but moves them to a

fairly horizontal posture. This greatly reduces or eliminates the distance between trees and enables the fire

to spread much easier.

More recent research into techniques of burning

mature Ashe juniper in Texas with crown fires has

added more information and suggestions (Bryant and

others 1983). They studied the effect of dozed and

windrowed juniper as an aid to igniting adjacent

standing trees. Dozed trees left where they fell were

ineffective in igniting a crown fire in the adjacent

standing trees. Windrowed plots produced the best

result for igniting the adjacent crowns when canopy

cover exceeded 35 percent; windspeed exceeded 10 mi

per h (16.1 km per h); air temperature was 73 to 91 ∞F

(22.8 to 32.8 ∞C); relative humidity was 20 to 35

percent; and juniper leaf water content was 58 to 60

percent. Crown fires stopped when the distance between juniper trees exceeded 26 ft (7.9 m). Burning

into less dense areas and using livestock to reduce fine

fuel loads of fire lines was also effective (Bryant and

others 1983). This method is limited to times and

places with high winds, hot temperatures, and dense

juniper stands, and has not been tested on juniperpinyon communities of the Intermountain area. Nevertheless, it should be of considerable importance

when it can be used.

Open Stands of Juniper-Pinyon With Grass

Understory—In these communities, the fine fuel is

used 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 fuel

if 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 be

killed unless the fine fuel load is sufficient to ignite the

tree canopies.

Prescriptions for burning open juniper-pinyon stands

containing a grass understory are similar to those for

grasslands. However, additional precautions should

be taken to reduce the potential for spotting. Information from Jameson (1962) and Dwyer and Peiper

(1967) was used to prepare the following prescriptions: (1) prepare a 10 to 12 ft (3.0 to 3.7 m) wide fireline

around the area to be burned. Use strip headfires to

prepare a 100 ft (30.5 m) blackline on the downwind

sides (Wright and others 1979). This is best done in the

morning or early evening during spring and (2) ignite

main fire with an air temperature of 70 to 74 ∞F (21.1

to 23.3 ∞C), relative humidity of 20 to 40 percent, and a

windspeed 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 mortality

following fire under four sets of environmental conditions. All the sites studied had sufficient herbaceous

fuel or sagebrush cover to carry the fire through the

juniper stands. He subsequently suggested the following prescription for burning: (1) prepare a 200 ft

(61.0 m) fireline on the downwind side of the area to be

burned. Use backfires and short strip headfires to

burn the fireline and (2) ignite the main headfire with

an air temperature of 65 to 80 ∞F (18.3 to 27.8 ∞C),

relative humidity of 17 to 23 percent, and a windspeed

of 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, mixed

Utah juniper single leaf pinyon stands in Nevada

without the use of firelines. They developed a simple

index to aid in determining where and when these

burns should be attempted. This index consists of total

tree and shrub cover, air temperature, and maximum

windspeed. 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, air

temperature = 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 relative

humidity is less than 25 percent. The index must equal

or exceed 110 for a fire to carry and kill large pinyon

and juniper trees. At values less than 125, reignition

may be necessary; above 130, conditions are too hazardous to burn.

This method is safe, economical, and useful for the

areas in which it was designed. This prescription was

developed on a series of fires that carried upslope into
118 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

Table 4—Probabilities of successfully applying prescribed fire in aspen forests according to

vegetation fuel classes and the influence of grazing and quantities of downed woody

materiala

.

Vegetation, fuel class

Aspen Aspen Aspen Mixed Mixed

Condition shrub tall forb low forb shrub forb

Ungrazed, light downed wood Good Fair Poor Good Fair

Ungrazed, heavy downed wood Good Fair Poor Good Good

Grazed, light downed wood Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair

Grazed, heavy downed wood Good Poor Poor Good Fair

a

Adapted from Brown (1985a).

ravines. Ignition was aided by the upslope, thick stand

of juniper-pinyon, and the high percentage of pinyon

(greater than 90 percent) in the vegetation. Firelines

were not required because of the sparse vegetation

outside 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 difficult to burn (fig. 1, 8, and 13). Fuel loads and flammabilities of these communities vary greatly. Careful

selection of locations where fuels are sufficiently flammable to offer a high probability of success is critical in

aspen communities. Fortunately, some quantitative

Table 3—Vegetation classification of aspen fuels and flammabilitya.

Vegetation and fuel characteristics

Characteristics 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 Poa

a

Adapted from Brown (1985a).

guidelines have been developed for burning in aspen

communities. Brown (1985a) states that at least 80

percent aspen top kill was necessary to achieve effective suckering following burning. He also stated that

flame lengths averaging 1.3 ft (0.4 m) were a minimum

flame size for sustained spread and for consistent

aspen top kill.

Flammability of aspen and aspen-conifer communities varies with leaf litter abundance, downed woody

material, herbaceous vegetation (table 3), shrubs, conifer reproduction, slope, grazing intensity, fuel water

content, crown closure, and pocket gopher activity

(Brown 1985a). Aspen communities can be separated

into five fuel classes (table 4) with respect to potential

for prescribed burning (Brown 1985a).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 119

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning

The probability of successful burning of the aspen

and aspen-conifer communities can be better predicted when grazing and the amount of woody fuel are

considered. Using the probability of successful burning information (table 4) developed by Brown (1985a)

allows concentration on sites with the greatest likelihood of success. These probabilities can be greatly

modified by factors such as aspect, slope, fuel continuity, and fuel water content.

Once a potential site is selected, fuel water content

should be carefully considered. The best indirect indicator of live fuel water content is time of year (Brown

1985a). In most aspen communities, the snowpacks do

not completely melt until the spring greenup. Summers are usually dry in the Rocky Mountain aspen

region, and fuels dry through late summer and fall

(DeByle 1985b). As fall approaches, the probability of

a major precipitation event increases (DeByle 1985b).

The most reliable time to burn aspen communities is

often after live vegetation is cured, and prior to fall

precipitation.

Live Aspen—Burning live aspen forests usually

requires relative humidity below 35 percent. Wright

and Bailey (1982) stated that acceptable burning

conditions and a proven prescription for aspen

parklands in Alberta are: (1) relative humidity of 15 to

30 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; at

least 14 days since the snow melted in adjacent grassland or 3 drying days since the last rain; and a surface

duff water content of less than 20 percent; (2) prepare

a 500 ft (152.4 m) fireline on the leeside and a 100 ft

(30.5 m) fireline on the remaining sides; and (3) strip

headfires are the best ignition method. When burning

in aspen parklands, where groves of trees are surrounded by grassland, the grassland can be burned to

provide a fireline for the aspen fire.

Dead Aspen—Aspen forests can be killed with an

herbicide and burned 2 years later under fairly moderate conditions (Wright and Bailey 1982). Under

these conditions, burning should not occur when

relative humidity is less than 35 percent because the

dead aspen bark becomes a dangerous firebrand.

Wright and Bailey (1982) recommended the following

prescription for burning dead aspen forests: (1) relative humidity of 35 to 50 percent; temperature 40 to

75 ∞F (4.4 to 23.9 ∞C); 2 to 12 mi per h (3.2 to 19.3 km

per h) windspeed; at least 10 days since the snow

melted or three drying days since the last rain; and

a surface duff water content of less than 20 percent;

(2) prepare a 400 ft (121.9 m) fireline on the leeside

and a 100 ft (30.5 m) fireline on the remaining sides;

and (3) strip headfires are the best ignition method if

a person can walk around the perimeter of aspen

groves. In a continuous forest, perimeter firing is

recommended because strip headfiring is too dangerous in a dead forest.

When a dead aspen forest is totally surrounded by

live aspen forest, a 1 m (3.3 m) fireline can be constructed around the perimeter of the dead forest.

Relative humidity should be 40 to 50 percent (Wright

and Bailey 1982). More detailed information on prescribed burning of aspen communities can be found in

Brown (1985a).

Management After Burning _______

The success of any wildland rehabilitation project is

largely determined by postfire management (Young

and others 1985). Judicious application of management practices based on the unique attributes of the

resource with consideration for additional concerns

created by burning are the key to successful wildland

rehabilitation. The recommendations made by

Pechanec and Stewart in 1944 are still appropriate for

managing western rangeland after burning. They

stated: (1) protection of burned areas from trailing by

livestock during the first fall at least; (2) protection of

burned areas from grazing for one full year; (3) light

grazing for the second year, and thereafter no heavier

than the range can support permanently; (4) the same

grazing management for burned and reseeded areas

as for areas not in need of reseeding; (5) for areas with

more than half the understory in cheatgrass, special

protection against recurrent accidental fires; and (6)

for accidentally burned areas, at least as good management after burning as that demanded for the best

results from planned burning.
120 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 11 Vegetative Manipulation with Prescribed Burning
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 121

12

Selection and Use of Adapted Species _______________

Selection and use of seeds of different species must be carefully

considered in range and wildland improvement projects. The

selection of species to be planted in any restoration program

usually takes place after the decision has been made to restore or

rehabilitate an area, and the objectives of the project have been

determined. However, availability of seed and planting stock can

delay and alter seeding programs. Seeding and planting involves

an introduction of seeds and plants to a site that alters existing

plant communities and influences successional processes. Most

seeding projects are conducted only once, and the plant communities that ultimately develop are dependent upon the initial success

of the plantings. In contrast to natural seedings that normally

produce only a few new seedlings each year and may or may not

alter plant composition, artificial seedings, if successful, create a

dramatic and immediate change in community composition.

Stephen B. Monsen

Richard Stevens

Seedbed Preparation

and Seeding

Practices

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

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Successful site improvement projects are based on

the selection of adapted plant materials (Stevens

1981). There is no substitute (manipulation, management) for proper species selection (fig. 1). The

factor that most often leads to project failure is the use

of unadapted species. Seeded species must be able to

establish and maintain themselves, whether growing

alone or in mixtures with native or introduced species,

often under various management systems. Some primary factors that influence species establishment are:

(1) germination attributes, (2) initial establishment

traits, (3) growth rates, (4) compatibility, (5) seedling

tolerances, (6) persistence, and (7) grazing impacts.

These and other characteristics are ranked by species

in tables found in chapter 18. Some species are very

site specific, whereas many others have a wide range

of adaptation (Ferguson 1983; Hassell and others

1983). Following proper selection, seeds and plants

must be planted using techniques and practices that

provide them every possible advantage to establish.

New plantings should be protected to insure perpetuation of the developing community.

Guides to Species and Ecotype

Selection ______________________

Numerous factors can be used to identify species

that are adapted to a planting site. Native species are

normally reintroduced in many plantings. If native

species have been eliminated and sites are infested with

weeds, it may be difficult to determine the most adapted

species to seed. If seedings are designed to alter or

change the composition of the existing plant communities, the selection process can become more complex.

Following are a number of guides that can be used in

selecting adapted species.

Figure 1—Planting adapted and compatible

species in mixtures is essential in any restoration project.

Species Compatibility and Planting

Objectives

Introduced grasses, including crested wheatgrass,

pubescent wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass,

smooth brome, orchardgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and

Russian wildrye, have been able to withstand adverse

climatic conditions, fires, and severe grazing, and yet

provide excellent forage (Cook 1966; Plummer and

others 1968; Ross and others 1966). Plantings of crested

wheatgrass have remained productive for over 45

years on foothill ranges in Utah (Vallentine 1989).

Hard fescue, pubescent wheatgrass, and timothy are

also adapted to many sites. The excellent survival,

forage attributes, and ground cover values of these

and other introductions have prompted their use.

This universal use of introduced perennial grasses

for most range, watershed, and wildland seedings has

created some serious problems (Bentley 1967). The

establishment and persistence attributes of many

introduced grasses have resulted in the elimination

and decrease of desirable native species. Crested wheatgrass and pubescent wheatgrass formed almost

closed communities 6 years after seeding on Utah

foothill ranges (Cook 1966). Intermediate wheatgrass

establishes more slowly, but is able to restrict growth

of oakbrush and maintain nearly complete dominance

of the understory (Plummer and Stewart 1944;

Plummer and others 1968). Smooth brome slowly

increases in dominance, and forms nearly a complete

sod on many ranges, restricting native grasses and

broadleaf herbs. Plantings of crested wheatgrass have

slowly gained dominance in many pinyon-juniper seedings, restricting the recovery of natives (Davis 1987;

Stevens 1987b; Walker and others 1995). Monsen and

Shaw (1983c) reported that both intermediate and

crested wheatgrass seeded as an understory with

antelope bitterbrush prevented natural recruitment

of shrub seedlings.

Davis (1987) found no negative seedling establishment interactions when crested, intermediate and tall

wheatgrasses, smooth brome, orchardgrass, Russian

wildrye, sainfoin, hard fescue, cicer milkvetch, alfalfa,

yellow sweetclover, and small burnet were seeded

together on a pinyon-juniper site in Utah. This study

indicates these species, all introductions, are adapted

to similar environments and are compatible as seedlings. However, Stevens (1987b), and Walker and

others (1994), reported that where similar species

were seeded on a central Utah pinyon-juniper site the

cover of native perennial grasses decreased from

50 percent to about 30 percent as the introduced

species attained maturity.

Incompatibility of introduced perennial grasses with

native species, particularly shrubs and broadleaf herbs,

reduces the desirability of seeding these grasses as a
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 123

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

principal portion of a seed mixture if restoration of

native communities is a goal. Where shrubs and other

natives are desired, the use of introductions must be

carefully regulated. Although introductions have excellent traits, they should be used for special situations. Studies currently in progress indicate that seeding introduced grasses at low rates may enhance the

recovery and presence of native species (Davis 1987).

Most long-term ecological studies, however, indicate

that many introductions slowly gain dominance, and

low seeding rates simply tend to delay the process.

Various introduced grasses are currently the most

useful species for controlling weeds that infest and

occupy extensive rangelands (Plummer and others

1970b; Vallentine 1989; Young and others 1984c).

Introduced perennial grasses are considered better

able to control cheatgrass, medusahead, halogeton,

and many summer annual weeds than releases or

wildland collections of most native species currently

being planted. Native species and undisturbed communities can control weeds, but various introductions

have been most successful when seeded on weed infested sites. Until the problems associated with weeds

can be better addressed, and the availability of adapted

native plant materials increases, the use of some

introduced grasses will probably be relied upon.

Few native species have been developed for seeding

most western rangelands, particularly the arid regions occupied by salt desert shrub communities. Consequently, introduced grasses have dominated the

seed mixtures of many range and wildland rehabilitation programs. Many important shrublands and

herblands have been converted to introduced grassdominated communities. Some seedings have been

justified because of the lack of native seed (McKell

1975), and problems associated with the establishment of natives (Vallentine 1989). In many situations

these problems have been corrected. The use of appropriate native species can be attained through better

planning, buying, and stockpiling of seeds.

Species that are seeded together must be compatible as young, developing plants or certain individuals

will succeed and others will fail (Samuel and DePuit

1987). The amount of seed sown will affect the degree

of competition, and the number and composition of

seedlings that survive. Seedlings of some native broadleaf herbs and shrubs are less aggressive and succumb to competition from more rapidly developing

species (Hubbard 1957; Stevens and others 1985c).

Not all native species are slow growing, and many can

be used as rapidly developing plants. Seeding heavy

rates of the slower developing species will not offset

losses from competition. Seeding slower growing species in rows separate from fast-growing herbs will

result in the most favorable stands.

Drill seeding causes species in a mixture to be placed

in potentially competitive situations. Seeds in a mixture that are broadcast planted are not placed in as

close 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 each

other and with existing species that occur on the

planting site. Few plantings are conducted on areas

void of other plants. It is important to recognize that

existing species can help as well as suppress new

seedlings. In many situations, the presence of overstory plants improves seedbed conditions, entraps soil

moisture, and protects seedlings from frost (fig. 2).

Existing stands of Gambel oak, quaking aspen, antelope bitterbrush, and numerous other species enhance

the establishment of understory seeded species unless

the density of the overstory is excessive.

Many species improve soil fertility by fixation of

nitrogen, and other species benefit by this association. Both legumes and nonleguminous species are

able to increase soil nitrogen, and can be used to

improve vigor and growth of associated plants. In

some situations, various nonnitrogen-fixing species

appear to enhance the growth of associated plants.

Plants of Utah sweetvetch and Sandberg bluegrass

are often seeded with other species because they appear to improve stand density of associated species.

Seeding a compatible mixture is often necessary to

moderate seedbed conditions, and aid in the establishment of species that otherwise may not be able to

establish alone. Many large, expansive burns in semiarid ranges are subjected to winds that dry the seedbed

and remove snowcover. Big sagebrush and other smallseeded species do not establish very well on dry,

barren surfaces. To establish these species, it is often

necessary to establish a cover or nurse crop.

Figure 2—The presence of overstory plants

can improve the establishment of seedlings.
124 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Plant Community Indicators

Most areas selected for restoration or rehabilitation

have been seriously altered, and usually support only

remnant numbers of native species (fig. 3). Weeds

have often invaded, and dominate the areas. Less

disturbed and comparable areas usually exist nearby

and can be inventoried to determine the original

composition of the native communities. Remnant plants

are important indices to use in determining the native

vegetation. Considerable information is available to

assist 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 used

to identify the major plant associations that once were

present. The occurrence of less abundant species cannot always be determined by the presence of one or

two remnant species, but the principal plant associations can be identified. Major plant communities that

occur in the Intermountain Region are described in

chapter 2. Species adapted to these communities are

listed with guides for seeding mixtures.

Plants that have been successfully used in range and

wildlife habitat rehabilitation programs have been

chronicled for most major plant communities that

occur in the West (Hafenrichter and others 1968;

Horton 1989; Plummer and others 1968; Sampson and

Jespersen 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b; Thornburg 1982).

Most native plant communities have been classified

and grouped with specific soil types, climatic conditions, and aspect. The classification system developed

by Hironaka and others (1979) identifies site differences and relationships of different plant types that

occur within the big sagebrush communities. This and

other classification systems can be used to determine

the potential of individual sites to support different

plant species. The presence and distribution of different plant communities that occur throughout a proposed project area can be mapped and used to develop

species mixtures.

Some severely disturbed sites may not be capable of

supporting the original native species, and substitute

species may be needed.

Climatic Conditions as a Guide

The amount of precipitation an area receives, and

the season or periods when moisture is available,

influence seed germination, seedling establishment,

and persistence (Frasier and others 1987; Jordan

1983). Seasonal and annual precipitation are very

unpredictable in arid regions, and planting sites may

not receive sufficient moisture to facilitate seedling

establishment every year (Bleak and others 1965).

Once established, plants can usually persist during

dry years, but reproduction is often delayed until

periods of favorable moisture. Attempting to foretell

years when artificial revegetation will be successful is

quite difficult.

Sites receiving in excess of 11 inches (280 mm) of

annual precipitation can be successfully planted in

most years. Many sites in the 9 to 10 inch (230 to

250 mm) zone are seeded, but success is less likely

(Cook 1966; Plummer and others 1968; Reynolds and

Martin 1968).

Many introduced grasses have been used in rehabilitation projects because of their establishment attributes. Most are able to establish under dry, unfavorable climatic conditions, and are well adapted to a

broad range of sites (Hughes and others 1962). Standard crested and fairway crested wheatgrass have

been the most reliable species to establish on sites

receiving 8 to 10 inches (200 to 300 mm) of moisture

(Hull and Klomp 1966; Shown and others 1969). Consequently, introductions have gained considerable

popularity, and frequently are relied upon when planting droughty sites.

Selection and breeding programs continue to provide

native and introduced species with improved establishment traits. For example, improvements in seedling

vigor of Russian wildrye and forage kochia have been

reported by Asay and others (1985), McArthur and

others (1990a), and Monsen and Turnipseed (1990).

Additionally, selections of Sandberg bluegrass, Indian ricegrass, bottlebrush squirreltail, and Lewis

flax with excellent establishment attributes have

also been developed and can better establish under

arid situations. Erratic stands of some native species

often develop partly because of poor seed quality and

germination characteristics. However, improvements

in seed collection, cleaning, and storage now provide a

greater number of native species adapted to arid sites.

Figure 3—Native species recovering with

proper management and lack of competition

from neighboring species.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 125

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

It is not advisable to use species or ecotypes on sites

that are more arid than the collection site from which

the seed was obtained. Ecotypes of antelope bitterbrush, fourwing saltbush, and many other species,

have failed when seeded on sites that are more arid

than the native collection location (fig. 4). Although

some ecotypes have become established, they will

most likely succumb to adverse climatic conditions.

Moving ecotypes of fourwing saltbush, Indian ricegrass,

and gooseberryleaf globemallow from warmer climates

to more frigid environments has not been successful.

In most cases, movement of plant materials from

southern desert communities to northern regions is

not advised. Some exceptions do occur, as a few southern collections of winterfat, desert bitterbrush, Nevada

ephedra, and Apache plume have persisted following

establishment in colder northern environments.

Many rangelands receiving less than 8 to 10 inches

(200 to 250 mm) of annual rainfall are infested with

cheatgrass and other weeds. Various native and introduced species have been seeded in an attempt to

control the weeds. Selections of big sagebrush, rubber

rabbitbrush, bottlebrush squirreltail, western wheatgrass, and other species have been seeded to control

weeds and initiate successional changes in the plant

community (Romo and Eddleman 1988; Young and

Evans 1986a). In some situations the ecotypes that

were seeded exhibit aggressive establishment capabilities, but are not fully adapted to the arid sites.

They may establish well, but fail to reproduce and

ultimately succumb. Considerable efforts have been

made to eliminate weeds and create favorable seedbeds in arid regions to aid seedling establishment

(Ogden and Matthews 1959). These practices increase

planting success, but do not ensure survival of the

planted species. The serious infestation of annual

weeds on arid rangelands continues to promote seeding of marginally adapted species and ecotypes. This

situation will likely continue. However, it is inadvisable to use marginally adapted species or ecotypes in

any area.

Soils and Parent Materials as a Guide

In general, planting sites consist of a mosaic of variable soil types that support an array of plant communities. Plants that are adapted to the different soil

types and physical conditions should be sown. Seeding

species mixtures has been the most practical approach

to establish diverse communities (fig. 1).

Both native and introduced species have evolved on

specific soils. Some ecotypes are not adapted to a wide

range of soil conditions. When using native species, it

is advisable to obtain seed from soils similar to the

planting location. For example, antelope bitterbrush

collections grown on acidic soils in central Idaho are

not adapted to the basic soils of the Great Basin

(Plummer and others 1968). Selections of fourwing

saltbush, Indian ricegrass, Russian wildrye, and alfalfa have also been reported to differ in adaptability

to soil conditions (Hassell and Baker 1985; Heinrichs

1963; Lawrence 1979; Stutz 1983). Nearly all native

species consist of an assembly of different populations

that have evolved under different environmental conditions. Certain ecotypes will grow over a wide range

of sites. However, the range of adaptability of most

native species has not been well documented. Consequently, it is advisable to plant species and sources on

sites similar to their origin. It is particularly important to use plant materials acquired from specific soil

types when seeding areas with unique soils or parent

materials. For example, seeding fourwing saltbush on

sandy, deep, well-drained soils should be done using

seed produced on bushes growing on a similar site. On

soils that have uniquely different soil textures, pH

levels, drainage conditions, and fertility, specific ecotypes should be used.

Woodward and others (1984), working in Utah,

found that dicotyledons (broadleaf herbs) tend to take

up divalent ions more efficiently than monocotyledons

(grasses), but monocots take up more monovalent

cations than dicots. Also, the root cation-exchange

capacity values for dicots were significantly larger

than for monocots. The characteristic of root cationexchange capacity helps to explain the differential

distribution of grasslands and shrublands in common

climatic zones. Differences in root cation-exchange

capacity result in intense competition between monocots and dicots for certain minerals. This suggests that

plants that are similar in root cation-exchange capacity coexist best. However, seeding grasses on soils

Figure 4—Death of maladapted New Mexico deficient in magnesium but with adequate potassium

fourwing saltbush seeded in southern Idaho.
126 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

would not be recommended, as it is unlikely that

grasses would persist on these soils. In extensive areas

where soils differing in mineral content exist, the use

of adapted species is necessary.

Soils from the desert communities typically contain

high levels of salts and have high pH levels. Few plants

are adapted to these sites and only well-adapted species should be used. Attempts to convert these

shrublands to grasses have not been successful. However, some grasses such as Russian wildrye and tall

wheatgrass have proven adapted to specific sites and

have been seeded to provide additional forage.

Planting introduced species and their varieties requires careful consideration of plant growth requirements. It is important that adapted species are planted,

and marginally adapted substitutes are not planted.

Also, it is unwise to convert unique plant communities

to other species and growth forms following a major

disturbance such as a wildfire.

Soil conditions directly affect seedbed features, which

in turn influence planting success. Sites may be capable of supporting certain plant communities, but

once the original vegetation has been removed or

destroyed, the suitability of the site is altered. Native

species that have evolved on the site may not be able

to reestablish due to unstable soil conditions. It is not

always correct to assume that native species can be

easily established. For example, saline and alkaline

soils, common in many valley bottoms, present unusual problems in preparing and maintaining a suitable seedbed. These soils absorb water slowly, are

usually sticky when wet, and crust when dry (Pearson

1960). High levels of salt can cause physiological

drought (Bernstein 1958). If vegetation is removed

from these sites, they are extremely difficult to revegetate. Seedbed preparation methods often degrade

soil structure. If soils are plowed, tilled, and left

exposed, heavy crusting will occur and can prevent

seedling emergence. Although these soils are capable

of supporting a specific group of species, modifications to the area can reduce the success of artificial

revegetation.

Disturbances on riparian sites also illustrate areas

where disruption of the soils can alter the suitability

of the site for establishing desired species. Disturbance of the vegetation can significantly affect soils

and seedbed conditions, restricting the ability of certain species to establish (Platts and others 1987).

These sites are usually flooded in the spring for long

enough periods to damage the seedbeds. Also, many

disturbed sites are subjected to siltation or erosion,

creating unstable seedbeds.

Soil conditions directly influence species adaptiveness by affecting seedling establishment. Soils that

are 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 and

winterfat have been difficult to establish on large open

areas disturbed by fire due to disruption of the soil

surface (Monsen and Pellant 1989).

Species Origin

Native Species—In general, native species have

been more difficult to establish in large project plantings

than selected introductions. Kilcher and Looman (1983)

conclude that the factors limiting the use of natives

are: (1) the lack of seed of local origin; (2) the variability in seed germination; (3) the physical difficulty in

processing and seeding some native species; (4) unreliable emergence and establishment; (5) susceptibility

to winter injury, especially with seed harvested outside the immediate area; (6) limited ability to compete

with weeds during establishment; (7) low seed yields;

and (8) comparatively high cost of seed. In most situations the limitations listed by these authors have and

are being overcome, and the culture and use of native

plants continue to increase in importance.

Recent plant selection programs have provided a

wide complement of species for restoration or revegetation. Important advances have resulted in: (1) a

larger number of native shrubs, broadleaf herbs, and

grasses for artificial revegetation; (2) identification of

specific ecotypes having important features and the

determination of their areas of adaptation; (3) improvement of planting practices and seeding techniques; and

(4) availability of better quality native seeds.

Native species can be recommended and used on

range, watershed, and wildland sites with more confidence than in the past (see Section VII). Many important native shrub and forb species, ecotypes, and

populations have been identified and can be recommended for planting. Notable advances have been

made with some shrubs including big sagebrush, black

sagebrush, fourwing saltbush, rubber and low rabbitbrush, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleaf mountain mahogany, Martin ceanothus, antelope bitterbrush,

winterfat, skunkbush sumac, and green ephedra.

Antelope bitterbrush has received the most attention

(Ferguson 1983), but seed collection and sales from

specific 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 native species, and selections have been used to enhance

germination and establishment attributes, growth

rates, growth habits, forage production, and quality

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1989). Currently,

ecotypes of many important species can be recommended for seeding specific locations with different

climatic and edaphic conditions. Programs have also

been employed to propagate and increase ecotypes

with important traits.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 127

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Figure 5—Site of origin for Lassen antelope bitterbrush.

Hybridization between varieties, ecotypes, and taxa

have been used to enhance specific attributes of a

number of woody species. Selection programs have

been employed to promote features of fourwing saltbush, big sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush (fig. 5), low

and rubber rabbitbrush, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleaf

mountain and true mountain mahogany, and black

sagebrush (McArthur and Welch 1986; Shaw and

Monsen 1990; Tiedemann and Johnson 1983;

Tiedemann and others 1984b). The importance of

maintaining ecotypes with a broad genetic base has

been recognized by Stutz (1985). Genetic diversity has

been investigated through planting a number of populations or ecotypes at a problem site, and allowing

natural selection to occur. This procedure has not been

widely used, but represents an important consideration in planting native species over a wide range of

sites.

New techniques for culturing many plants have

significantly aided in their use. Regional seed companies now market seeds of a number of native species.

In addition, seed vendors have developed more reliable collection, processing, and storage techniques to

aid in providing a more stable supply of native seeds.

Various wildland collection sites are now managed to

produce seeds of different ecotypes. Consequently,

seeds of a wider array of native species and a better

and wider selection of species, advanced cultivars, and

ecotypes are available for planting. The increased

availability of seed has significantly reduced costs,

and continued reductions can be expected. More reliable seed germination tests have been developed and

standardized by seed laboratories (Stevens and Meyer

1990). Seed purity and germination standards have

been developed to aid in seed marketing (Allen and

others 1987; Kitchen and others 1989).

Seed Dormancy—Seeds of many native species

collected from wildland sites germinate erratically

depending upon year of collection, seed origin, and

stratification treatments (Kitchen 1988; Silvertown

1984; Stevens and others 1981a). Seeds of many native

species have embryo dormancy or impermeable

seedcoats or both (Moore 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b).

These features may delay and regulate germination

and plant establishment (Meyer 1990). Seed dormancy

is normally an advantage and aids in natural establishment of the species (Meyer and others 1990b).

Dormancy may prevent seeds from germinating during periods when the chance of survival is low. Seeds

of many species are not conditioned to germinate the

first year after development, but persist, creating a

seedbank from which new seedlings may occur over a

number of years. Sporadic germination hinders development of uniform stands. Seeds of sumac, snowberry,

Woods rose, and hawthorn, are difficult to germinate

even if pretreated for extended periods. Seeds of other

species are less difficult to germinate, but require

quite different pretreatments to promote uniform germination. Unless adequately stratified, certain seedlots

germinate so erratically that satisfactory stands generally fail to establish.

Seed dormancy obstacles in a number of native

species have been overcome through selection and

planting at appropriate seasons. Selections of ‘Bighorn’ sumac, ‘Montane’ mountain mahogany, ‘Rincon’

fourwing saltbush, and ‘Cedar’ Palmer penstemon

have been developed, in part, for their favorable germination attributes (McArthur and others 1982). In

addition, seeds from certain native collection sites are

selectively harvested and sold because of favorable

germination features. Land managers may not be

aware of individual differences in germinability of all

seedlots, but seeds can and should be tested to assure

use of germinable sources. In addition, records should

be maintained to document sources used in successful

seedings.

Rate of germination is also an important attribute

for planting success. The length of time required for

seeds to germinate appears important to the establishment of species under arid situations.

Drought Tolerance—The success achieved in

seeding arid, semiarid, and subalpine sites is most

often dependent upon soil moisture conditions at the

time of seedling emergence. Quite often soil moisture

is only moderately favorable, and seedling survival is

dependent upon the drought tolerance and physiological growth of seedlings (fig. 6). Considerable emphasis

has been directed to the selection and use of droughttolerant strains and ecotypes as many plantings are

conducted in semiarid communities (Asay and

Johnson 1980; Johnson and others 1982). Differences
128 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

in seedling tolerance to drought varies significantly

among collections, strains, and cultivars (Ford 1988;

Wright and Brauen 1971).

If drought problems are anticipated, planting techniques should be used that help conserve moisture and

assure protection of the less tolerant species. Establishment problems cannot be entirely rectified simply

by planting the most adapted ecotypes. Seedlings of

some species are especially sensitive to drought. Land

managers should be aware of this and assure the

creation of suitable seedbeds.

In the Intermountain area, drought frequently causes

extensive dieoff of many plants (Harper and others

1990; Wallace and Nelson 1990). However, native

species that have evolved under these circumstances

express considerable tolerance of arid conditions.

Selections of western wheatgrass and winterfat commonly used in wildland seedings are able to persist

through periods of extended drought. Western wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, purple three-awn, Idaho

fescue, and bluebunch wheatgrass survived and increased during the drought periods of 1986-1989 in

central Utah, when density of cheatgrass was significantly reduced. Certain introduced species, including

Russian wildrye, also express excellent drought tolerance, and can be relied upon for seeding arid sites

(Asay and Knowles 1985b).

Species seeded in arid sites must be adapted to

periods of low moisture. Substitute species that are

marginally adapted should not be used.

Growth Rates

Range and wildland seedings are currently based

upon the use of species that have demonstrated the

ability to establish and attain a reasonable stand in a

relatively short time. In most seeding projects, species

with rapid development are planted to furnish needed

cover and forage (Davis and Harper 1990). Species that

are capable of growing rapidly and can attain a mature

stature in a short time are recommended in most

seeding projects (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990). Plants

with the ability to establish and grow quickly generally are better able to compete with weeds and survive

periods of drought. Species that grow more slowly

should be seeded separately from more aggressive

species.

Species growth rate is important in maintaining

plant composition and perpetuation of established

stands. Seedling recruitment is required to perpetuate many species, and new seedlings must be able to

compete with established plants. Species that are able

to reproduce when growing with other plants usually

are the ones that ultimately survive. Introducing aggressive and dominating plants to a composition of

natives may not allow regeneration of the natives, and

would not be recommended.

Cold Tolerance—Cold tolerance and resilience to

frost generally are desired features of most plant

species selected for revegetation in the Intermountain

West. Cold tolerance is particularly important in young

plants as seedlings usually emerge in early spring.

Many young seedings are weakened or killed by spring

frosts. Species with sensitive seedlings cannot be

arbitrarily deleted from all seedings, but more coldtolerant ecotypes should be seeded in areas where

frost is a major problem. Seed sources of big sagebrush, winterfat, fourwing saltbush, and alfalfa are

known to be highly sensitive to frost, and the most

adapted ecotypes should be planted (Plummer and

others 1968). Species with obvious intolerance to cold

should be sown in late spring, if possible, to lessen

losses from early spring frosts.

Palatability—Palatability and resilience to grazing are important features that can influence seedling

establishment. Unmanaged grazing has frequently

eliminated the more desirable species from mixed

seedings. Unfortunately, only species having similar

palatability traits are planted in some projects to limit

problems associated with grazing management. Although this is a solution to grazing problems, the most

appropriate species needed for other resources may

not be planted.

New seedings normally attract concentrated use by

many animals. Small mammals, insects, rodents, and

often large game animals selectively graze small seedlings (Evans and others 1983). Young seedlings are

extremely sensitive to heavy and repeated grazing.

Livestock use can be regulated to protect new plantings. Wildlife populations are not as easily controlled,

but reduction in animal numbers may be necessary to

protect new plantings. Protection from heavy use

must be provided until seedings are well established.

Figure 6—Big sagebrush seedlings. Drought

tolerant and rapid rate of top and root growth is

required for establishment in arid areas.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 129

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Some species require 2 to 7 years to fully establish and

attain a stature that is able to persist with moderate

use (Davis and Harper 1990; Monsen and Shaw 1983a).

Less desirable ecotypes of certain shrubs and forbs can

be sown to discourage grazing, but this may not be in

line with the rehabilitation goals. In some situations,

more resilient, but palatable, species might be sown to

attract grazing and defer use from less resilient species. Seedings of alfalfa (fig. 1), yellow sweetclover,

small burnet, orchardgrass, and mountain rye have

been useful in providing desirable herbage from new

plantings. It is most important that, whenever possible, areas seeded should be of sufficient size to

dissipate grazing and lessen animal use. This may not

be practical in all situations, especially on sites where

wildfires or related disturbances determine the acreages to be seeded.

Animal use of emerging seedlings and young plants

usually is not a problem on sites that support a

remnant stand of native species. Remnant plants

normally recover quickly following treatment. As these

plants recover and produce new growth they attract

use and aid in dispersing grazing pressure.

Persistence—Species that are able to persist under varied and often adverse climatic conditions, competition, and management impacts should be planted.

Attempting to maintain a noncompatible composition

of plants is ill-advised. Seeding aggressive, introduced understory herbs into many native communities has frequently resulted in the loss of most native

species, coupled with a progressive increase of the

seeded herb. The changes in plant composition may

occur slowly, requiring many years to stabilize. Most

problems have occurred when introduced species make

up the major part of seed mixture. Although some

introductions can enhance native communities, it is

important that a natural balance in species composition is attained.

Value of Maintaining a Broad Genetic Base—

In some situations, plants with desirable attributes

are planted exclusively. Some strains have been developed through breeding or selection processes that may

narrow the genetic base of the species, and eliminate

other adaptive traits. Maintenance of a broad genetic

base is recommended when seeding native species.

Extensive dieoff of plantings attributable to the use of

narrowly developed strains has not been widely detected. However, planting of a single seedlot or ecotype

over a broad range of sites has often resulted in

discernible patterns of success and failure. It should

not be assumed that strains or selections with certain

favorable traits are universally adapted to all sites.

Plantings should not be confined to the use of seed

from one very restricted population, or from only a

limited number of individuals.

Seeds of many native species are often gathered

from small, confined areas where soil moisture or

other conditions favor seed production. Considerable

amounts of seed are often collected from favorable

sites, yet may not include the diverse attributes of the

broader population.

Native species grown under cultivation may also

have been propagated from seed of a few individuals.

Seed that is commercially sold is normally collected or

reared from bushes that are high seed producers and

are easily harvested. These features may not represent the most desirable traits necessary to assure

survival of the species.

Land managers cannot regulate or maintain direct

control over the collection and sale of all seeds, but

attention should be given to the origin of the seed

acquired, and conditions at the rearing locations.

Adaptability of Released Cultivars—All plant

cultivars have been developed for specific planting

conditions. All have particular attributes or features

that differ from the norm and encourage their use

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1989b). The selection and development of ‘Rincon’ fourwing saltbush

was instigated, in part, because of the small utricles

and early, uniform germination attributes. Stand

establishment of ‘Rincon’ is usually more predictable

than for other ecotypes (Monsen and McArthur 1985).

However, it is not advisable to seed this cultivar on

sites where it is not adapted. Also, it is obvious that

cultivars are not universally superior in all traits to all

other selections or collections of a species. Seedings

should not be restricted to released cultivars, but seed

sources should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Planting of ‘Rincon’ fourwing saltbush on low arid

sites has not been successful, and the ecotype has not

proven as well adapted to these areas as native ecotypes.

Similar results have been recorded when Lassen antelope bitterbrush and ‘Hatch’ winterfat were planted on

sites to which they are not adapted.

All cultivars have been carefully evaluated and

their performance can be predicted. The quality of

certified seed is usually good. However, each cultivar

should be examined and used for the purpose for

which it was developed. (See discussion of individual

species and their cultivars in chapters 18-23.)

Seeding Mixtures or Single

Species________________________

Wildland restoration projects are usually conducted

to reestablish native plant communities. This is not

always possible as seeds or planting stock of many

species are unavailable, and knowledge or techniques

required for planting some species is lacking. Also,
130 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

costs currently limit certain planting measures. However, advances in methodology continue to permit use

of a greater complex of native species. As techniques

are further developed, complete reestablishment of

native plant communities may be possible.

Not all revegetation work is designed to reestablish

native plants. In many range plantings introduced

species are primarily used to increase forage yield and

quality, and to accommodate management practices.

In these situations, only a limited number of introduced species may be used.

Rehabilitation programs that are designed to provide livestock forage, watershed, and wildlife values

have, to date, included a preponderance of introduced

grass and broadleaf herbs. Introduced species are

more readily available, seedlings establish more successfully, and forage values are better understood.

In most range seedings the trend has been to seed

single species or simple mixtures. Revegetation efforts

to satisfy wildlife, watershed, and reclamation needs

include a wider array of species, and rely upon the

restoration of native plants. In general, the advantages reported for seeding a single species or a limited

number of plants apply primarily to the use of introduced forage grasses, and do not apply to seeding

other species. Hughes and others (1962), Hull and

Holmgren (1964), and McIlvain and Shoop (1960)

reported that single species or simple mixtures are

more easily managed if species with similar palatability, growth response, and grazing tolerance are used.

However, native rangelands consist of a complex array

of species that have persisted with natural use. Communities are only upset when seriously mismanaged.

Harris and Dobrowolski (1986) concluded that species mixtures in range seedings planted in northeast

Washington are unstable, and that monospecific

populations of suitable species, selected to fit seasonal

grazing, should be seeded separately. Plantings should

be fenced and used separately in a managed grazing

system. Their studies reported that hard fescue eventually dominated most planted mixtures. Cook (1966),

Currie and Smith (1970), Hull (1971a), and Vallentine

(1989) concluded that the relative palatability of the

species used determines the future of species in a

mixture. Grazing animals tend to concentrate use on

more palatable species, eventually reducing or killing

them. Regulating the grazing season and period of use

has not prevented the selective loss of more palatable

species. Cook (1966) also concludes that seeding mixtures to furnish palatable species throughout the grazing season generally failed because all of the species

cannot be maintained.

These conclusions are based on the assembly of

forage grasses planted primarily for grazing by cattle.

The implications are not directly applicable to wildlife or multiple uses. In addition, the results have

Figure 7—Big sagebrush interseeded into crested

wheatgrass to increase forage quality and quantity

for livestock and big game.

questionable application to range seedings where different species are planted. Van Epps and McKell

(1977) found that interseeding shrubs with grasses on

semiarid ranges improved the quality of forage consumed by livestock, particularly in the fall and winter

(fig. 7). Gade and Provenza (1986) found that sheep

grazing on shrub and grass pastures in central Utah

increased their forage intake by 36 percent and the

forage consumed contained about 35 percent more

crude protein than when the sheep grazed crested

wheatgrass alone. The response of species when seeded

in mixtures is directly related to grazing pressure and

livestock management. Revegetation of most wildland

occurs on sites having a variety of aspects, soils, and

moisture conditions; mixed seedings are necessary to

populate the area (Plummer and others 1968).

Rechenthin and others (1965) reported that native

rangelands in good condition are best seeded to native

species at approximately the same ratio as found in

the native community.

Regardless of the problems inherent in the use of

mixtures, it is apparent that combinations of species

should be seeded. Balancing the use of introduced and

native plants must be considered on a case-by-case

basis. As additional information is gathered, more precise species mixtures will, undoubtedly, be developed.

Following are some specific considerations for selecting and using species mixtures, or using a single or a

limited numbers of species.

Advantages of Planting Mixtures

Maintenance of Diverse Plant Communities—

Most seedings are conducted on sites that have diverse microclimates, with varied soil and moisture

conditions (Gifford 1975). Different plant communities appear, and different species are used to restore
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 131

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

various plant communities. Soil temperatures, fertility, and aspect differ among microsites, and different

plant species are adapted to the various microsite

conditions. Therefore, a number of species are needed

to adequately populate the entire area.

Many areas have been dramatically abused, and

some native species have been eliminated. Neither

existing plants nor a seedbank remain to repopulate

the site. Consequently, plant communities must be

reconstructed by seeding or planting.

Encouraging Successional Changes—Most

plant communities are created through successional

changes (Eckert and others 1987). Although some

species and communities can be established directly

by seeding, natural shifts in species density and composition occur. Seedings of crested wheatgrass and

intermediate wheatgrass establish quickly and persist for extended periods. In contrast, plantings of

timothy and mountain brome establish quickly, but

weaken after a number of years and may be invaded

and replaced by other species. Seedings of Wyeth

eriogonum, Lewis flax, and Pacific aster establish

moderately well, but gain in importance even amid

considerable competition. Many native shrubs establish slowly, but after attaining maturity may dominate the site.

Planting species that may restrict natural successional processes is not advised. Also, misuse of planting sites can disrupt successional changes. Desired

changes can be adversely affected if weedy species

are not removed or reduced at the time of planting,

and desired species are unable to establish. The composition of species that initially establish following

seeding sets the stage for future changes in species

composition. Although restoration plantings are designed to restore entire communities, the proper assembly of species and seeding rates are not known.

Plantings are currently being conducted using the

most desired species expecting natural succession will

ultimately result in a natural grouping of species.

Improves Weed Control—Seeding a mixture of

species usually improves the control of undesirable

weeds. Many individual species are extremely aggressive, and if planted alone can quickly control weedy

plants (Torell and Erickson 1967). However, mixtures

normally enhance weed control over diverse sites.

If plantings are designed to control annual weeds,

early growing species usually must be planted (Foster

and McKay 1962). Certain summer annuals are not

entirely controlled by early spring species. Plants that

establish and grow during late spring and early summer are more competitive with these weeds.

Seeded species must be able to restrict seedling

establishment of weedy plants, and must be able to

reduce or prevent spread by vegetative reproduction.

Many perennial weeds may not be quickly eliminated

by competition from seeded species, but their density

and spread can be contained.

Reduces Risks of Establishment—Seeding a

number of species together helps to ensure the establishment of a desirable stand. Many species, including

Canada bluegrass, small burnet, slender wheatgrass,

bottlebrush squirreltail, and crested wheatgrass have

excellent establishment attributes. Consequently, any

one of these species can be seeded alone. Few species

establish as well as these plants, and seeding combinations increases the chance of success. Climatic conditions are often so erratic that seeding a single species over a wide variety of sites may result in poor

stand establishment.

Mixtures should not be indiscriminately assembled,

but a desirable number of species should be sown.

Although weak stands may appear, mixed plantings

generally improve over time.

Satisfy Multiple Uses—Use of a number of species

provides the vegetative base necessary to support a

variety of resource needs (Cook 1962). Revegetation

and restoration efforts may be designed to enhance

watershed, wildlife, or aesthetic conditions. In most

situations, a single species is not able to provide such

diverse needs. Even when the objective is to furnish

forage for livestock, multiple species mixtures should

be used. Seeding with multiple species provides longer

periods when succulent forage is available (table 1).

Land uses often change, and forage and cover requirements also change. Revegetation and restoration goals

should not be limited to immediate uses, but should

take into consideration future needs. Once a seeding is

established, it becomes expensive and difficult to

change.

Watershed and ground cover—Planting combinations of species having different growth habits furnishes a storied array of species that usually provides

better ground cover throughout the entire year

(USDA Soil Conservation Service 1954). Shrubs and

trees with an upright stature entrap snow and delay

snowmelt and runoff. Herbaceous plants normally

furnish dense ground cover. Mixtures also contribute

to a variety of plant litter, which provides soil protection and site stability.

Wildlife habitat—Game and nongame habitat consists of a variety of forage and cover plants. Species

should be planted that can furnish seasonal cover as

well as nutritious herbage at different seasons. Not all

plantings will be designed to furnish a mixture of

resources, but each planting site contributes to the

overall needs of wildlife. Consequently, it is important

to assure that all aspects of wildlife habitat are enhanced by rehabilitation measures. Sites that provide

seasonal wildlife habitat should be seeded to assure

animal needs are satisfied.
132 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Table 1—Duration of succulence for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

Periods of succulence

Species Mar-May Jun-Aug Sep-Nov Dec-Feb

Grasses

Brome, smooth xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxa 0000b

Fescue, hard sheep xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00

Fescue, red xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

Orchardgrass xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0000000000

Ricegrass, Indian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 00000000

Rye, mountain xxxxxxxxxxx 00000000

Timothy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 000000000

Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 00000

bluebunch

Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 0000000

crested

Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxxxx 00000

standard crested

Wheatgrass xxxxxxxxxxx 000000000000

intermediate

Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxxx 00000000

pubescent

Wheatgrass, xxxxxxxxx 0000000

tall

Wildrye, xxxxxxxxxxxx 000000

Great basin

Wildrye, Russian xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000

Forbs

Alfalfa 000000xxxxxxxxxxxx000000000000000000000000000000000

Balsamroot, xxxxxxxxxxx

arrowleaf

Burnet, small 000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000000000

Flax, Lewis 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000000000

Geranium xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx000000000

Globemallow xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

Goldeneye, showy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx000000

Milkvetch, cicer 000000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

Penstemon, Palmer 0000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000000000

Penstemon,

Rocky Mountain

Sainfoin 0000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

Sweetvetch, Utah xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx0000000000000000000000000000

Shrubs:

Bitterbrush, 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000

antelope

Cliffrose, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

stansbury

Ephedra, green xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mountain xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mahogany, curlleaf

Mountain xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

mahogany, true

Rabbitbrush, 00000xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx00000000000000000000

rubber

Sagebrush, big xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sagebrush, black xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Saltbush, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

fourwing

Shadscale xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Serviceberry, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Saskatoon

Winterfat xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

a

XXXX = Most leaves and seed stalks are green.

b

0000 = Only basal or overwintering leaves remain green.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 133

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Certain sites may offer limited wildlife benefits, and

less diverse plantings will suffice. However, few sites

are void of some form of wildlife, and species mixtures

are usually necessary.

Forage production and quality—Grazing animals

seek diversity. Forage resources are generally improved by selection of species mixtures. Certain sites

may not support many species and a single species

may be sown to ensure persistence of an adapted cover.

However, mixed plantings usually provide more herbage, and seasonal production is greatly enhanced

(Gade and Provenza 1986; Hughes and others 1962).

Mixed plantings also improve forage quality (Gomm

1964; Van Epps and McKell 1977). For example, planting shrubs with herbs enhances both winter and summer forage conditions. Where possible, mixtures should

be used to extend the season of use, increase herbage

yields, and improve seasonal quality of forage.

Aesthetics—Nearly all rehabilitation efforts affect

the appearance of the area treated for extended periods. Planting species that are compatible with adjacent undisturbed sites is recommended. It is usually

necessary to seed mixtures to reestablish a significant

density and distribution of species that will blend with

adjacent areas.

Little research has been done on the use of revegetation to improve aesthetics. Planting native communities is usually regarded as the best method to reestablish natural appearance. However, some sites

and circumstances do not facilitate reestablishment

of natives. Thus, plant communities must be reconstructed using species that closely resemble the natives.

Adding species to a mixture to assure improvement

of aesthetics may reduce forage production or lessen

other resources. However, in most seedings forage

species usually dominate, and aesthetic values are not

fully considered—a practice that should be corrected.

Factors Suggesting Use of a Single

Species

Certain plantings favor the use of one or only a few

species. Normally, single-species plantings are restricted to specific sites, soil conditions, or to satisfy

specific resource needs. In some situations, only a few

species may be capable of growing on the planting site

(McArthur and others 1987b). Soil or climatic conditions may limit the number of adapted species (Blaisdell

and Holmgren 1984). Planning a broad complex of

species on these sites is usually a waste of seed and

effort.

Sites that could support a number of species are

frequently seeded to only a few, but this should be done

only after careful consideration of all circumstances.

Some factors do influence the decision to plant only a

few species. Following are some reasons for limiting

the number of species used.

Ease of Planting—Seeding a single or only a few

species is usually much easier than planting a complex

mixture. If only two or three species with similar seed

size, germination, and establishment attributes are

sown, planting techniques are simple (Vallentine 1989).

Planting methods that are available and can be used

often determine the species used. The use of a number

of seeding practices is often rejected as being too

complex and difficult. In many cases only one seeding

practice (drilling, broadcasting, interseeding) is selected and employed. Species that cannot be included

in a common mixture and planted in one operation are

thus eliminated from the revegetation plan. Although

planting one or two species may be quite simple, it is

important that the species selected and procedures

used are not dictated by convenience.

Planting Costs—Selection of site preparation and

revegetation methods used on wildland sites are often

restricted by the costs involved. Using a number of

species may require using two or three planting practices. It is costly to treat small areas with one piece of

equipment, and then use different equipment on adjacent sites. A project must often be quite large, and

resources values high, to justify using a number of

revegetation practices.

Aid in Seedling Establishment—Not all species

can be established satisfactorily when seeded in mixtures (Horton 1989). Certain species of shrubs are

particularly sensitive to competition from broadleaf

herbs and grasses. These shrubs should be seeded

alone or with a limited amount of understory herbs.

Also, the presence of weedy plants often reduces establishment of seeded species, and only the most competitive plants can be sown in some situations (Jordan

1983).

Shrub-Herb Plantings ____________

Species Compatibility

Most wildlife habitat improvement projects and restoration plantings differ from the typical livestock

range improvement programs since a wider number of

species having different growth forms are planted.

Generally, most projects include a mixture of woody

and herbaceous species. In contrast, range seedings

emphasize the use of a limited number of herbaceous

plants, principally grasses. Most species of grasses

used in range and wildlife plantings establish well and

develop rapidly. These traits are beneficial, and encourage the use of these plants. However, aggressive

growth habits of many seeded herbs may create

problems if slower developing species are also planted.
134 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

The problem is further complicated when seedings are

conducted on steep, rocky, or inaccessible terrain where

site preparation and seeding practices are limited.

Mixed plant communities occupy most wildland

sites. Plant composition of these sites undoubtedly

developed through various stages of plant succession.

Natural changes in plant communities are not fully

understood, and attempts to duplicate successional

changes through artificial restoration are not always

successful.

Seedling Status—The primary factor influencing

species compatibility is the degree of competition

exerted upon small, developing seedlings. If seedlings

or young transplants are able to establish, their presence is most likely assured. However, if competition

restricts or limits survival, plant density and composition are critically affected. Few species have been

carefully evaluated to determine their compatibility

with other commonly seeded plants. However, guidelines related to the establishment attributes and competitive traits of some species have been developed,

and the ratings and evaluations are provided (table 2;

also, tables in chapter 17). Matching the most compatible species together is essential for the success of

mixed plantings. Species that are able to establish

well and compete in mixtures are generally the most

widely recommended species used. Seed mixtures recommended for various plant communities are presented in chapter 17. These recommended mixtures

have been developed based upon compatibility among

species during stages of community development.

Some species of grasses, including Indian ricegrass,

and western wheatgrass establish slowly and are less

competitive with seedlings of other species. Their

presence, or addition to seed mixtures, better assures

the establishment of associated species than if more

aggressive grass species are sown.

Competition in Mature Communities—Natural

regeneration and change in species composition occur

after plants gain maturity. Many species are longlived, but natural reproductive or vegetative spread

are essential to their survival. New seedlings must be

able to establish and survive amid competition within

mature communities (fig. 8). The entry and survival of

new seedlings are often dependent upon disturbances

caused by rodents, climatic events, and fires. These

disturbances may “open up” small areas and favor

seedling establishment.

Seedling establishment of some species may benefit

from the presence of associated plants. Competition

may limit natural seedling recruitment, even though

some seedlings are able to establish in most years.

During years of favorable conditions, seedling survival may be quite high. Monsen and Shaw (1983c)

found throughout a 40-year period that natural reproduction of antelope bitterbrush occurred regularly on

sites supporting an understory of native grasses and

broadleaf herbs. A sufficient number of shrub seedlings established to maintain stand density. Monsen

and Pellant (1989) reported that the presence of

Sandberg bluegrass significantly improved the natural

reproduction of winterfat on sites with a preponderance of cheatgrass.

The seedbed and soil surface conditions created by

existing plants frequently benefit seedling establishment. Soil microsites beneath the crowns of undisturbed big sagebrush shrubs are favorable to seed

entrapment and establishment of small seedlings

(Eckert and others 1987). The overstory canopy and

litter provided by Gambel oak, quaking aspen, and

Rocky Mountain maple enhance seedbed conditions

for understory herbs (Plummer and others 1968).

Species that are highly ranked in regard to natural

spread are plants that can increase in density amid

mature plant communities (tables 2; also, tables in

chapter 17). Plants with unusual ability to spread are

not restricted to species normally growing under the

most favorable climatic conditions. Seedlings of Apache

plume, and black sagebrush are able to spread quite

well in somewhat arid environments.

Natural reproduction and changes in species composition are related to climatic conditions, and seedling

establishment may occur quite erratically. Seedling

establishment is not always confined to years or seasonal periods of high moisture. From 1988 to 1990

considerable increases in density of perennial grasses

occurred in southern Idaho and central Utah on sites

previously dominated by cheatgrass. This increase

occurred during years of drought when annual weeds

were unable to establish and produce seed crops.

Benefits of shrub-herb associations—In situations

where shrubs and herbs normally occur together,

there are benefits in maintaining these associations.

Species that have evolved together undoubtedly benefit by the relationship, or are sufficiently compatible

to survive. In addition to the benefits derived from

favorable seedbeds provided by associated plants,

mixed communities also influence other factors related

to perpetuation of a seeded community. The presence

of compatible understory herbs frequently prevents

the invasion of weeds that can upset natural regeneration processes. Understory plants of Idaho fescue,

purple three-awn, bluebunch wheatgrass, Thurber

needlegrass, and western wheatgrass are capable of

preventing the invasion of annual grasses and summer annual broadleaf weeds. Maintaining a healthy

understory of perennial herbs has been essential to

the natural reproduction of stands of antelope bitterbrush, big sagebrush, Stansbury cliffrose, winterfat

(fig. 9), and curlleaf mountain mahogany.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 135

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Table 2—Seeding requirements and seedling characteristics of some major species.

Date Method Depth Compatability Seedling

of of of with other Seedling growth

Species seedinga seedingb seedingc speciesd vigore ratef

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg F-S A-B A 5 4 4

Brome, mountain F-S A-B B 5 5 5

Brome, smooth F-S A-B B 4 4 3

Canarygrass, reed F-S A-B B 4 2 4

Dropseed, sand F-S A-B C 2 3 4

Fescue, hard sheep F-S A-B B 3 3 3

Needlegrass, green F-S A-B B 3 3 3

Oatgrass, tall F-S A-B B 4 4 4

Orchardgrass F-S A-B B 4 4 4

Ricegrass, Indian F A-B D 3 3 3

Rye, mountain F-S A-B B 5 5 5

Squirreltail, bottlebrush F-S A-B B 4 5 4

Timothy F-S A-B B 4 4 4

Wheatgrass, bluebunch F-S A-B B 2 2 3

Wheatgrass, crested F-S A-B B 2 2 3

Wheatgrass, standard crested F-S A-B B 5 5 4

Wheatgrass, intermediate F-S A-B B 5 5 5

Wheatgrass, pubescent F-S A-B B 4 5 4

Wheatgrass, western F-S A-B B-C 3 3 3

Wheatgrass, tall F-S A-B B-C 3 4 4

Wildrye, Great Basin F A-B B 2 2 2

Wildrye, Russian F-S A-B B 3 2 2

Forbs

Alfalfa F-S A-B-C-D B 4 4 5

Aster, blueleaf F-S Ag

-B-C-D A 4 4 4

Balsamroot, arrowleaf F A-B-C-D B-C 2 3 1

Burnet, small F-S A-B-C-D B 4 5 5

Crownvetch F A-B-C-D B 3 3 3

Flax, Lewis F-S A-B-C-D A-B 5 4 4

Globemallow F A-B-C-D B 3 3 3

Goldeneye, showy F-S A-B-C-D A-B 4 2 2

Lupine F A-C-D B-C 3 4 4

Milkvetch, cicer F A-B-C-D A-B 4 4 3

Penstemon, Palmer F A-B-C-D A-B 5 4 3

Penstemon, Rocky Mountain F A-B-C-D A-B 4 4 3

Sainfoin F-S A-B-C-D B-C 4 4 3

Sweetclover, yellow F-S A-B-C-D A-B 5 5 5

Sweetvetch, Utah F A-B-C-D B 3 2 3

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope F B-C-D B-C 4 5 4

Chokecherry F B-C-D B-C 2 2 2

Cliffrose, Stansbury F B-C-D B-C 3 3 2

Currant, golden F A-B-C-D A-B 5 3 5

Elderberry, blue F B-C-D A-B 2 2 3

Ephedra, green F B-C-D B 3 2 2

Greasewood, black F B-C-D B 2 3 2

Kochia, forage F-S A-B-C-D A 5 5 3

Mountain mahogany, curlleaf F B-C-D B 3 3 3

Mountain mahogany, true F B-C-D B 3 3 3

Oak, Gambel F C-D C 1 2 2

Rabbitbrush, low F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 5 54

Rabbitbrush, rubber F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 5 54

Sagebrush, basin big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 44

Sagebrush, black F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 54

Sagebrush, mountain big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 4 54

Sagebrush, Wyoming big F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 3 44

Saltbush, fourwing F A-B-C-D A-B 3 4 4

Shadscale F B-C-D B 2 2 2

Serviceberry, Saskatoon F C-D B 3 3 3

Sumac, skunkbush F C-D B 2 2 2

Winterfat F-S A-Bg-Ch-Dh A 4 53

a

F = fall to winter; S = early spring.

b

A = aerial or ground broadcast; B = drill; C = surface compact seeding; D = browse interseeder.

c

A = 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. d

1 to 5 with 5 being highly compatible.

e

1 to 5 with 5 having high seedling vigor.

f

1 to 5 with 5 having the highest rate of growth.

g

If cleaned to 60 percent or greater purity.

h

If cleaned to 30 percent of purity.
136 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Figure 8—Natural recovery of native species.

New seedlings must be able to survive amid

competition from established plants.

Value of legumes in species mixtures—Legumes have

been widely used as agricultural crops and in cultivated pastures. The addition of legumes to grass

seedings has resulted in an increase in herbage production and an improvement in forage quality (Gomm

1964; Hughes and others 1962). Legumes supply

soil nitrogen that can be used by associated plants

(Derscheid and Rumbaugh 1970; Holland and others

1969; Nutman 1976). For these reasons legumes have

been actively promoted for range and wildlife plantings.

Many introduced and native legumes have been

evaluated for rangeland and disturbed land plantings.

Legumes do occur in most native communities, and

should be planted in restoration projects. They may be

important in the recovery of native communities, but

are more commonly used to provide forage or restore

harsh mine sites or related disturbances.

Species of alfalfa, including common alfalfa and

sicklepod alfalfa, have been the most successful broadleaf herbs for range and wildland seedings (Dahl and

others 1967; Kilcher and Heinrichs 1966b; Lawrence

and Ratzlaff 1985). Alfalfa is primarily used for its

forage value. Nitrogen fixation has been observed to

benefit associated plants, but rangeland varieties have

not been developed for this characteristic. Few other

species are comparable to alfalfa for establishment

traits and forage value (Lorenz and others 1982). Most

strains are adapted to sites receiving at least 12 to 14

inches (305 to 355 mm) of annual moisture. Once

established, alfalfa survives periods of drought and

considerable grazing (Rosenstock and others 1989).

Root-proliferating or rhizomatous cultivars have

proven well adapted to semiarid regions (Berdahl and

others 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 root

systems are able to recover from root damage caused

by gophers. ‘Nomad’, ‘Rambler’, and ‘Ladak’ have been

the most widely used strains throughout the Intermountain Region. ‘Ladak’ has preformed extremely

well in pinyon-juniper, mountain brush, and big sagebrush sites in Utah. It is not considered a decumbent

form, yet it withstands grazing and persists much

better than cultivated field varieties (Heinrichs 1975).

Berdahl and others (1986) concluded that the slow

regrowth after grazing, and dormancy during long dry

and cold periods are traits that contribute to the

survival of dryland types.

Alfalfa provides excellent forage to all classes of

grazing animals and is widely planted to provide high

quality, palatable forage (Rumbaugh 1983). It has

been planted in the foothills to draw big game animals

away from cultivated farms and residential areas and

is particularly well adapted to seeding with grasses.

It establishes well, but seedlings are vulnerable to

spring frost. Alfalfa is also very compatible with native

herbs and grasses. It has usually been seeded in mixtures at rates up to 2 lb per acre (2.25 kg/ha). More

recently, seeding rates of 2 to 5 lb per acre (2.25 to

5.63 kg/ha) have been used, with the amount of grass

seed in the mixture being decreased significantly. In

some earlier seedings, alfalfa was sown at 0.25 lb per

acre (0.25 kg/ha). At this low seeding rate the plants

were excessively grazed. Increasing the seeding rate

to 2 to 4 lb per acre (2.25 to 4.5 kg/ha) significantly

increases the density and forage production, and reduces concentrated grazing. Using alfalfa at these

higher rates has not restricted the recovery of native

herbs and shrubs. In fact production has been increased by higher seeding rates.

Kilcher and others (1966) concluded that on dryland sites in the northern Great Plains, seeding more

than one grass with alfalfa had little advantage; however, reliance on one or two species for most range or

wildland plantings is not advisable. Alfalfa has been Figure 9—Aerial seeded winterfat stand and

considerable natural spread that followed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 137

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

eliminated by selective grazing when seeded in mixtures with grass and grazed with livestock. Use of

alfalfa in range and wildlife planting in the Intermountain Region has improved yields, and with proper

management the legume has persisted even under

heavy use by game, livestock, rodents, and insects

(Rosenstock and others 1989).

Other exotics, including cicer milkvetch, crownvetch, birdsfoot trefoil, and sainfoin have improved

grass plantings, but their areas of adaptation are more

limited than alfalfa (Hafenrichter and others 1968;

Heinrichs 1975; Nichols and Johnson 1969; Plummer

and others 1968; Townsend and others 1975; Wilton

and others 1978).

Kneebone (1959) concluded through extensive trials

that native legumes offer little promise for range use.

However, considerable use has been made of Utah

sweetvetch in range and wildland seedings (Ford 1988).

Establishment features have been improved, and nitrogen fixation and areas of adaptability have also

been evaluated and selections developed with superior

attributes (Redente and Reeves 1981). The release

‘Timp’ is now available.

Seeding some native legumes has resulted in improvement of stand density, vigor, and forage production of associated species (Dahl and others 1967;

Johnson and others 1983). In addition to Utah

sweetvetch, plantings of silky lupine have been successful. Excessive animal use has not occurred with

either of these two forbs, and they have demonstrated

excellent longevity. Other native legumes are very

important but have not been widely planted.

Considerable progress in development of other native

forbs has resulted in the wide use of Lewis flax, Palmer

penstemon, globemallow, showy goldeneye, sweetanise,

arrowleaf balsamroot, Rocky Mountain penstemon,

nineleaf lomatium, and Pacific aster. Contrary to

earlier reports (Heinrichs 1975; Kneebone 1959;

Vallentine 1989) native herbs have been found to have

excellent forage characteristics. Many selections cure

well and provide useful year-around herbage. In general, these species are easily established and current

revegetation projects can be seeded with the appropriate herbs.

Some nonleguminous plants, including various

shrubs, are associated with nitrogen-fixing organisms

and improve soil fertility (Becking 1977; Hoeppel and

Wollum 1971; Klemmedson 1979; Nelson 1983; Rose

and Youngberg 1981). The list includes various species of alder, buckbrush, cliffrose, elaeagnus, and

buffaloberry. Various woody legumes fix nitrogen,

and understory species benefit from association with

these shrubs (Becking 1970; Bermudez-DeCastro and

others 1977). Including these species in range and

wildlife plantings improves stand establishment and

long-term productivity.

Seeding Rate ___________________

Sufficient seed should be used to assure the development of a good stand, yet at the same time prevent the

waste of seed. Use of excessive seed amounts is needless and expensive. It can result in considerable seedling competition within and among seeded species,

and can lead to high seedling mortality and even

seeding failures. On the other hand, skimpy seeding

may jeopardize establishment of good stands or individual species. This is not economically wise when considerable money has been spent to prepare the site.

Hull and Holmgren (1964) listed three disadvantages

of low seeding rates: (1) a longer period is required for

the seeding to reach maximum productivity; (2) thin

stands are more subject to invasion by undesirable

species; and (3) robust and unpalatable plants tend to

develop, plant distribution is irregular, and subsequent use is uneven.

Seeding rate can be influenced by species included

in the mixtures, seed size (table 3), purity, viability,

type and condition of seedbed, method of seeding,

amount of competing vegetation present at time of

seeding, and project objectives. Ease of establishment

varies greatly among species. Number of seedlings

established from a given number of seeds can be

greater for fairway crested wheatgrass, alfalfa, small

burnet, and smooth brome than for cicer milkvetch,

Russian wildrye, western wheatgrass, and arrowleaf

balsamroot.

Seed Quality

The amount of seed sown is influenced by the quality

of seed to be planted. Seeds of many species are grown

under cultivation, and acceptable seed purity and

germination standards have been established. Both

State and Federal seed certification standards have

been established to assure that viable, high quality

seed is sold and planted. Seed is certified on a Stateby-State basis, and administered by an agency organization such as the Crop Improvement Association, the

State Department of Agriculture, or the Agriculture

Extension Service (chapter 27).

Various strains and varieties of individual species

that have superior attributes have been developed

through selection and breeding programs. These

items may be released for sale as named cultivars.

Numerous cultivars are currently available for range

and wildlife plantings. Seed that is produced and sold

as certified seed has been produced under specific field

conditions to insure genetic purity, and has been

cleaned and processed to meet minimum standards of

germination, purity, and the absence of weed seeds.

Certified seeds are grown, processed, and sold under

supervision of State regulatory agencies. They are
138 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

bagged and labeled with identifiable tags and sealed

to prevent the bags from being opened unofficially.

The tags provide information of State certification,

crop variety name, and the grower’s lot number. The

certified seed must also include a label showing germination, date tested, weed seeds, and so forth. Seed

certification and labeling laws have worked well to

assure the availability of high quality seed.

Considerable amounts of noncertified seed are also

grown and sold, but are not likely to be a genetically

pure line, variety, or cultivar. Noncertified seed should

also be tested and labeled to indicate the germination

and purity of the seedlot. In addition, seed should

meet standards related to the presence of noxious

Table 3—Number of seeds per pound for selected grasses, forbs, and shrubs as compared to number

of seeds per pound in fairway crested wheatgrass.

Pounds of seed

required to equal the number

of seeds in one pound of

Species Number of seed per lb fairway crested wheatgrass

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 percent purity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grasses

Bluegrass, Kentucky 1,525,000 0.21

Brome, mountain 135,600 2.46

Brome, smooth 106,000 3.00

Fescue, hard sheep 633,500 0.50

Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ 600,000 0.53

Ricegrass, Indian 188,300 1.70

Wheatgrass, fairway crested 319,600 1.00

Wheatgrass, intermediate 88,100 3.63

Wheatgrass, pubescent 102,800 3.11

Wheatgrass, standard crested 192,800 1.66

Wildrye, Great Basin 130,700 2.45

Wildrye, Russian 210,000 1.52

Forbs

Alfalfa 213,800 1.49

Balsamroot, arrowleaf 55,200 5.79

Burnet, small 55,100 5.80

Flax, Lewis 278,300 1.15

Milkvetch, cicer 113,700 2.81

Penstemon, Palmer 609,700 0.52

Sainfoin 26,300 12.15

Sweetclover, yellow 258,600 1.24

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope 20,800 15.36

Cliffrose 64,600 4.95

Kochia, forage 520,000 0.61

Mountain mahogany, birchleaf 55,000 5.80

Mountain mahogany, true 59,000 5.42

Rabbitbrush, whitestem rubber 693,020 0.46

Sagebrush, basin big 2,576,000 0.12

Sagebrush, mountain big 1,924,000 0.16

Sagebrush, Wyoming big 2,466,000 0.13

Saltbush, fourwing 55,400 5.78

Winterfat 112,300 2.85

weed seeds. Noncertified seed is referred to as “commercial” or “common” seed and is often advertised as

meeting certified seed standards. However, seed that

has not been certified will probably not be genetically

identical to a certified variety.

Harvesting and sale of native species has grown

rapidly in recent years, creating a new series of problems related to seed quality standards and verification of seed origin. Seed quality standards are being

constantly updated to standardize seed laboratory

testing, and provide uniformity in the procedures and

techniques used to determine seed germination, viability, and purity.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 139

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

To assure that seeds from specific wildland locations

are harvested and sold, regulatory agencies have established a seed certification program to inspect and

verify the origin and sale of source-identified collections. This program complements the more traditional

seed certification process (Young and others 1995).

Seeds of native species will vary a great deal in

quality among collection sites and among years of

collection (Toole 1940, 1941). Seed quality is affected

by climatic conditions, insects, previous browsing,

the timing of seed harvest, methods of collection,

seed cleaning, and storage conditions. Seeds that

ripen irregularly such as many berry crops are often

harvested before the seeds have fully matured. Seeds

of antelope bitterbrush, arrowleaf balsamroot, and

Martin ceanothus are often damaged by insects

(Ferguson and others 1963; Schopmeyer 1974b), and

seedlots must be carefully inspected to assure that

viable seeds are planted. The cleaning processes used

to clean fruits of mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush,

lomatium, and winterfat may damage the seed. Removing seed appendages from rabbitbrush or winterfat can reduce seedling establishment success (Simpson

1952; Stevens and others 1986). Seeds of fourwing

saltbush, redstem ceanothus, and various other species are subject to insect damage during periods of

storage.

To maintain viability, seeds should be stored under

cool, dry conditions (Stein and others 1974). Some

seeds, particularly forage kochia, must be dried to a

specific moisture content of about 7 percent or seed

viability declines rapidly.

Seed germination percentages do not always reveal

quality of the seed. Seeds may germinate normally,

but seedlings may not grow satisfactorily. Erratic

performance of the seedlings may result from being

damaged during cleaning, or because seeds were

harvested before they were mature. Good seedling

vigor is essential to survival of young plants. Tests are

not currently available to fully discern the potential

vigor of the seedlings. In general, larger seeds within

a seedlot usually produce the most vigorous seedlings,

germinate and emerge sooner, and often have higher

germination (Green and Hansen 1969). However, attempting to separate and seed only large seeds is not

considered a practical procedure for field plantings. It

is important to select and use seeds from collection

sites or varieties that consistently express good seedling vigor and germination features.

Seedlots often contain a high percentage of inert

material. Seedlots of sagebrush, rabbitbrush, winterfat,

aster, needlegrass, alder, and many other species

cannot be easily cleaned to a high purity. Such species

are normally processed by screening, chopping, or

related treatments to condition the material to pass

through most conventional seeders. Thus, seedlots are

frequently sold and used that have only 10 to 20

percent purity. Seeds of these and other small-seeded

species would have to be diluted with an inert carrier

to facilitate seeding if the seed was cleaned to a purity

approaching 40 percent.

Seed acquired from wildland collection sites should

be submitted to certified seed laboratories for germination and purity tests. All seeds should be properly

labeled with germination and purity percentages, date

tested, and location of collection. As possible, information related to the conditions of the collection site

should be made available by the vendor.

Seeding rates should be based upon the amount of

pure live seed (PLS) (table 4) within the seedlot.

Percent PLS is determined by:

PLS = 

percent Germination percent Purity

100

x

Selling seed on a PLS basis is much more practical

than attempting to market bulk seedlots. Seed

germination of individual seedlots is an important

factor, and seedlots with unusually low percentages

should be avoided. Seedlots with high germination

percentages and low purity may still produce excellent

healthy seedlings.

Table 4—Computing seeding rates and number of seeds sown.

PLS of Bulk seed Seeds per

Species 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 9.8

Western wheatgrass 19 2.5 72 2.95 115,000 6.6

Idaho fescue 15 2.0 88 2.24 497,370 22.8

Needlegrass 15 2.0 81 2.38 94,895 4.4

Arrowleaf balsamroot 15 2.0 85 2.30 55,245 2.5

Eaton penstemon 12 1.5 94 1.59 351,085 12.0

Mountain big sagebrush 2 0.2 .20 0.36 1,924,000 8.8

Total 100 15.27 66.9

a

Pure live seed.
140 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

The condition of the seedlot is important to consider. Seedlots that contain considerable debris that

will not flow through a seeder should be avoided.

Extraneous material may be small enough to pass

through a seeding mechanism, but too light in weight

to flow under its own weight. Adding a carrier may be

necessary to facilitate seeding. Seed cleaning processes may cut small stems and sticks into particles

having rough and ragged ends. These small particles

become clogged in the seedbox, drop tubes, and small

gates of a seeder. Seed processing and cleaning should

remove stems, weed seeds, leaves, and other debris

that interfere with seeding, reduce bulk and handling,

absorbs moisture, or causes heating in storage. Most

seeds can be processed to facilitate seeding. Only a few

lightweight, fluffy seedlots present unusual problems.

Determining Seeding Rates

Seeding rates for range and wildlife plantings have

generally evolved through experience gained from

seeding agronomic grasses. Studies in New Mexico by

Springfield (1965), and in Idaho by Mueggler and

Blaisdell (1955) reported that seeding crested wheatgrass at rates ranging from 2 to 6 lb per acre (2.3 to

6.8 kg/ha) produced nearly the same plant density,

herbage yield, and plant sizes 5 to 6 years after

seeding. However, this grass establishes very easily

and seeding other perennial grasses at slightly

higher rates varying between 5 to 12 lb per acre

(5.6 to 13.5 kg/ha) has been recommended (Cook and

others 1967; Hull and Holmgren 1964; Hull and Klomp

1967; Keller 1979; McGinnies 1960b; Plummer and

others 1955; Reynolds and Springfield 1953).

Usually 8 to 16 lb per acre (9 to 18 kg/ha) for a total

mixture is suggested for seeding game ranges to a

diverse mixture of species. Actual volume depends on

the individual sites and whether seeds are drilled or

broadcast. As additional species are added to a seed

mixture, the total weight of the mixture may or may

not increase. If additional species of grasses are added

to a mixture, the total amount sown is usually not

increased. This is accomplished by reducing the amount

of seed of each species in the mixture. If additional

species of broadleaf forbs are added to a mixture, the

total amount sown may or may not increase depending

upon the other species in the mixture and the competitive problems that may occur. Sufficient seed of each

species should be added to assure uniform and adequate distribution during planting.

As seeds of additional species are added to a mixture, the amounts of other species may often be reduced. However, the reduction is not necessarily proportional to the amounts added. Number of seeds per

pound varies greatly between species (table 3). When

seeds of a number of species are planted, usually more

than one method of seeding is used. Some seeds may be

broadcast sown, and others drilled or planted in separate furrows.

Total seed used is based upon the number of live

seeds applied per square foot. Numbers vary somewhat, but approximately 20 live seeds per square foot

(211 seeds/m2

) is recommended (Bryan and McMurphy

1968; Rechenthin and others 1965).

Light seeding rates normally require longer periods

for complete stands to develop, whereas moderate

rates produce a full stand in a shorter period (Mueggler

and Blaisdell 1955). However, when weeds are not a

problem, light seeding rates result in better recovery

of native plants and a better chance for all species

sown to establish. Higher seeding rates control weeds

better (Hull and Klomp 1967), which is desirable since

poor initial stands may not develop dominance if

weeds exist (Launchbaugh and Owensby 1970). Hull

and Holmgren (1964) concluded that irregular plant

distribution and uneven grazing results from thin seedings. Hyder and Sneva (1963) reported that planting

wheatgrass in rows not over 12 inches (30 cm) wide

increased the proportion of vegetative shoots and

palatability. Irregular plant spacings have been observed to be more conducive to the establishment of a

greater number of species than close, uniform, row

plantings.

When seeding grasses for range or pasture purposes,

planting approximately 20 seeds per ft2 (211/m2

) is an

appropriate standard. However, species that establish and spread quickly by tillering, rhizome expansion, or natural seeding may be seeded at rates as low

as 6 seeds per ft2 (60/m2) (Hughes and others 1962).

Increasing the seeding rate for slower developing

species and species producing weaker seedlings is

appropriate (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 sagebrush, Canada bluegrass, western yarrow, Pacific

aster, or various species of penstemon will normally

contain more than 20 seeds per ft2 (211/m2

). These

species have between 1 to 3 million seeds per lb (2.2 to

6.5 million/kg). Seeding just 1 pound of seed containing 2 million seeds per lb would result in nearly 46

seeds per ft2 (485/m2). It is often impractical to reduce

seeding rates below 0.5 lb per acre (0.56 kg/ha) just to

maintain a 20 seed per ft2 (211/m2) standard. It is

difficult to uniformly spread very small amounts of

seed in large-scale projects. Small amounts can be

sown if a carrier is added to provide the volume

necessary to handle and distribute the material. Adding small amounts of seed of certain species to a

mixture with other species also provides a means of

mixing, handling and dispensing the material.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 141

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Seeding rates should be based upon plant density

and distribution patterns desired. When a number of

species are sown, the distribution and density achieved

are based upon survival of the seedlings. Usually a

greater density of grasses and broadleaf herbs is

desired than shrubs when mixed seedings are conducted. Often only one shrub may be required for each

100 sq ft (9.2/m2), amounting to approximately 435

plants per acre (1,074/ha). The percent success of seed

sown is often influenced by the species and amount

of seed sown. Richardson and others (1986) reported

that slightly more than 2,200 plants of mountain big

sagebrush, 2,788 rubber rabbitbrush, and 1,040 antelope 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 dropped

to 81 plants of mountain big sagebrush, 116 rubber

rabbitbrush, and no antelope bitterbrush plants per

acre (200, 287, 0/ha) when perennial grasses were

seeded at 12 lb per acre (13.5 kg/ha) with the shrubs.

Increasing the seeding rate of the shrubs to 20 lb per

acre (22.5 kg/ha) and grass to 18 lb per acre (20.3 kg/

ha) resulted in increased establishment of sagebrush

and rabbitbrush seedlings, but no antelope bitterbrush

seedlings survived.

Mueggler and Blaisdell (1955) reported that when

crested wheatgrass was seeded alone, exceptionally

heavy seeding rates did not cause stand failure from

excessive competition among seedlings. Similar results have been obtained when individual native

grasses and herbs are seeded as single species. However, when mixtures are seeded, increasing the seeding rate of individual species affects the survival of

others sown. When aggressive grasses are seeded

with broadleaf forbs or shrubs, the seeding rate of

the grasses should not exceed 2 to 4 lb PLS per acre

(2.25 to 4.5 kg/ha). Certain circumstances may alter

this amount, but grass seed should be limited to assure

survival of other species.

The seeding rate of alfalfa when sown with grasses in

irrigated and nonirrigated pastures has usually been

between 0.5 and 2 lb (PLS) per acre (0.56 to 2.25 kg/ha)

(Allred 1966; Kilcher and Heinrichs 1968; Rumbaugh

and others 1965). Seeding rangelands with as much as

5 lb per acre alfalfa (5.6 kg/ha) has resulted in excellent stands. Seeding rates of other broadleaf herbs

are quite different from alfalfa. Small-seeded species

such as western yarrow, Pacific aster, and Lewis flax

can be seeded at much lower rates. However, higher

rates are required to attain similar results for largeseeded species such as Utah sweetvetch, arrowleaf

balsamroot, or silky lupine.

Results from seeding a single species indicate that

increasing the seeding rate usually increases the number of seedlings that emerge, but reduces the number

of plants established per 100 seeds sown (Cook and

others 1967; Launchbaugh and Owensby 1970;

McGinnies 1960b; Vallentine 1971). When mixtures

are seeded, increasing the seeding rate will normally

result in an increase in number of seedlings that

emerge, but seedlings of certain species will survive

better than others. For example, increasing the amount

of Lewis flax, sulfur eriogonum, and alfalfa seeds sown

usually results in a proportional increase in plants

that establish and survive. In contrast, increases are

less apparent for arrowleaf balsamroot and

gooseberryleaf globemallow.

Determining Seeding Rates Based Upon

Methods of Seeding—The amount of seed sown also

depends, in part, on the planting methods and equipment used. Certain practices are more efficient than

others. Approximately 50 to 75 percent more seed has

been recommended when broadcast seeding is used

compared with drilling (Cook 1966; Plummer and

others 1955). However, evaluations of numerous aerial

broadcasting and anchor chaining projects of pinyonjuniper sites in Utah have shown that an increase of

about 20 percent is necessary for development of

satisfactory stands. Aerial seeding usually distributes

seeds very uniformly, and chaining provides adequate

coverage. Unless broadcast seeds are covered or incorporated in the soil many do not germinate or become

established. Broadcast seeding is not advisable unless

some method of seed coverage is used. Increasing the

seeding rate will not substitute for poor planting

techniques. Drilling usually results in more uniform

placement of the seed in the soil than broadcasting

followed by harrowing or chaining. Seeds of certain

species, particularly small seeds, establish better from

shallow or surface placement, and broadcast planting

followed by light harrowing provides an ideal seedbed

for smaller seeds (table 5).

Seeding rates for mixed seedings can usually be reduced if the seedbox is partitioned into separate compartments, and seeds of similar sizes are grouped and

seeded in separate rows from seeds with different sizes

or shapes (Wiedemann 1975). If this is done, the

seeding rates can be more precisely metered and more

uniform distribution is also achieved. If planting depths

can be separately adjusted for each furrow seeder,

better seed placement will result and a higher percentage of the seed will establish. Various seeders, including drills and imprint planters, have multiple seedboxes

and can simultaneously plant seeds of different species in separate rows and at different rates and depths.

Seeding grasses, broadleaf herbs, or shrub seeds in

alternate or separate rows increases the chance of

success as seedling competition is reduced

(Hafenrichter and others 1968; Plummer and others

1968). Species mixtures seeded in alternate rows maintain their original composition better than when mixed

in each row (Gomm 1964; McWilliams 1955). Seeding

in alternate or separate rows also allows greater
142 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

flexibility in spacing and seeding rates. Certain shrubs

can be seeded separately from grasses, and a greater

percent of the shrub seed sown will establish (fig. 10).

Various seed agitators and regulating mechanisms

now exist that more uniformly plant seeds of irregular shape and size (Wiedemann 1983; Wiedemann and

others 1979). Seed loss due to irregular plantings has

been decreased with the use of new seeders, and seed

is more efficiently planted.

Interseeding into existing stands is often employed

to improve stand composition (Stevens 1985a,b). In

addition, seeding some species in strips, rows, or

selected spots is commonly done (Welty and others

1983). Species are often seeded using single row planters or Hansen Seed Dribblers mounted on wheeled

tractors or track-driven “cats”. These seeders may be

used to plant areas where broadcast or drill seeding

is also being used. Seeding individual species using

separate items of equipment can greatly reduce the

amount of seed planted. Shrub seeds that are sown in

furrows spaced 10 to 20 ft (3.1 to 6.1 m) apart often

provide an acceptable cover, and subsequently furnish

an adequate seed source for natural seeding. If furrows 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 actually

sown. Seeding rates and amount of seed sown at

different row spacings are presented in tables 5 and 6.

Spot seeding is a practical method of seeding many

species, particularly with highly expensive seed or

species that may require specific seedbed conditions.

Spot seeding following chaining on pinyon-juniper

sites is a useful and successful practice. Certain browse

seeds can be hand planted into the pits and depressions

created where trees are uprooted. These depressions

or catchment basins are favorable sites for seedling

establishment.

Table 5—Pounds of seed per acrea required to seed one, five,

and 10 seeds per linear foot (0.3 m) (drilled) or

square foot (0.01 m2

) (broadcast).

Number of seeds

per linear foot

One Five Ten

Species seed seeds seeds

- - - - lb Seed/Acre - - - -

Grasses

Brome, smooth 0.32 1.6 3.2

Dropseed, sand 0.008 0.04 0.08

Fescue, hard sheep 0.08 0.40 0.8

Needlegrass, green 0.27 1.35 2.7

Orchardgrass 0.09 0.45 0.9

Ricegrass, Indian 0.27 1.35 2.7

Rye, mountain 0.77 3.85 7.7

Timothy 0.03 0.15 0.3

Wheatgrass, bluebunch 0.30 1.5 0.3

Wheatgrass, fairway crested 0.14 0.7 1.4

Wheatgrass, intermediate 0.50 2.5 5.0

Wheatgrass, pubescent 0.50 2.50 5.0

Wheatgrass, Siberian 0.20 1.0 2.0

Wheatgrass, slender 0.33 1.65 3.3

Wheatgrass, standard crested 0.23 1.15 2.3

Wheatgrass, tall 0.56 2.8 5.6

Wheatgrass, western 0.38 1.9 3.8

Wildrye, Great Basin 0.33 1.65 3.3

Wildrye, Russian 0.25 1.25 2.5

Forbs

Alfalfa 0.20 1.0 2.0

Balsamroot, arrowleaf 0.77 3.85 7.7

Burnet, small 0.77 3.85 7.7

Flax, Lewis 0.16 0.8 1.6

Globemallow, gooseberryleaf 0.09 0.45 0.9

Goldeneye, showy 0.04 0.2 0.4

Lupine, mountain 3.45 17.25 34.5

Milkvetch, cicer 0.38 1.9 3.8

Penstemon, Palmer 0.07 0.35 0.7

Sainfoin, common 1.67 8.35 16.7

Sweetvetch, northern 1.30 6.5 13.0

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope 2.8 14.0 28.0

Ceanothus, redstem 0.37 1.85 3.7

Chokecherry, western 10.0 50.0 100.0

Cliffrose, Stansbury 0.68 3.4 6.8

Ephedra, green 1.75 8.75 17.5

Kochia, forage 0.08 0.4 0.8

Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 0.83 4.15 8.3

Mountain mahogany, true 0.71 3.55 7.1

Rabbitbrush, low mountain 0.06 0.3 0.6

Rabbitbrush, white rubber 0.06 0.3 0.6

Sagebrush, basin big 0.02 0.1 0.2

Sagebrush, black 0.05 0.25 0.5

Sagebrush, mountain big 0.02 0.1 0.2

Sagebrush, Wyoming big 0.02 0.1 0.2

Saltbush, fourwing 0.77 3.85 7.7

Serviceberry, Saskatoon 1.0 5.0 10.0

Winterfat 0.38 1.9 3.8

a

Based on seeds per pound at 100 percent purity (table 1). Figure 10—Seeding of whitestem rubber rabbitbrush in alternate rows with fairway crested

wheatgrass.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 143

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Table 6—Seeding requirements for some Intermountain shrubs. Shown are pounds of pure live seed required per acre, for four

seeding rates, at each of four different row spacings.

Number seeds per linear foot

Five Ten

Row spacings ft

Purity/ No. 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Species germination PLS per lba Amount of seed sown, PLS lbs per acreb

Percent

Bitterbrush, antelope 95/90 15,370 2.83 1.42 1.0 0.71 5.67 2.84 1.98 1.42

Ceanothus, Martin 98/75 82,900 0.53 0.26 0.18 0.13 1.05 0.53 0.37 0.26

Ceanothus, redstem 98/85 131,860 0.33 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.66 0.33 0.23 0.17

Chokecherry, black 98/80 4,150 10.50 5.25 3.67 2.63 11.00 5.50 7.35 2.75

Cliffrose, Stansbury 95/85 64,615 0.67 0.34 0.24 0.17 1.34 0.67 0.47 0.34

Currant, golden 95/65 356,180 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.06

Elderberry, blue 95/50 216,770 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.42 0.21 0.14 0.11

Ephedra, green 95/85 24,955 1.75 0.88 0.61 0.44 3.50 1.75 1.22 0.88

Eriogonum, Wyeth 95/75 141,310 0.31 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.62 0.31 0.22 0.16

Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 90/80 51,865 0.84 0.42 0.29 0.21 1.68 0.84 0.59 0.42

Mountain mahogany, true 90/80 59,030 0.74 0.37 0.26 0.19 1.48 0.74 0.52 0.37

Rabbitbrush, 15/75 693,220 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.03

whitestem rubber

Rose, Woods 95/70 45,300 0.96 0.48 0.34 0.24 1.92 0.96 0.67 0.48

Sagebrush, big basin 12/80 2,575,940 0.02 0.01 0.006 0.005 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01

Sagebrush, black 12/80 907,200 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02

Saltbush, fourwing 95/50 55,365 0.79 0.40 0.28 0.20 1.58 0.79 0.55 0.39

Serviceberry, Saskatoon 95/85 45,395 0.96 0.48 0.34 0.24 1.92 0.96 0.67 0.48

Shadscale 95/35 64,920 0.67 0.34 0.24 0.17 1.34 0.67 0.47 0.34

Snowberry, mountain 95/80 54,065 0.81 0.41 0.28 0.21 1.62 0.81 0.56 0.41

Sumac, smooth 94/40 62,430 0.70 0.35 0.24 0.18 1.40 0.70 0.49 0.35

Winterfat 50/85 112,270 0.39 0.20 0.14 0.10 0.78 0.39 0.27 0.20

Number seeds per linear foot

Fifteen Twenty

Row spacings ft

Purity/ No. 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Species germination PLS per lba Amount of seed sown, PLS lbs per acreb

Percent

Bitterbrush, antelope 95/90 15,370 8.50 4.25 2.98 2.13 11.34 5.67 3.97 2.83

Ceanothus, Martin 98/75 82,900 1.58 0.79 0.55 0.39 2.10 1.05 0.74 0.52

Ceanothus, redstem 98/85 131,860 1.0 0.5 0.35 0.25 1.32 0.66 0.46 0.33

Chokecherry, black 98/80 4,150 31.49 15.75 11.00 7.87 41.98 20.99 14.69 10.49

Cliffrose, Stansbury 95/85 64,615 2.02 1.0 0.71 0.50 2.68 1.34 0.94 0.67

Currant, golden 95/65 356,180 0.37 0.18 0.12 0.09 0.50 0.25 0.17 0.12

Elderberry, blue 95/50 216,770 0.60 0.30 0.21 0.15 0.80 0.40 0.28 0.20

Ephedra, green 95/85 24,955 5.24 2.62 1.83 1.31 7.00 3.50 2.44 1.75

Eriogonum, Wyeth 95/75 141,310 0.93 0.46 0.32 0.23 1.24 0.62 0.43 0.31

Mountain mahogany, curlleaf 90/80 51,865 2.52 1.26 0.88 0.63 3.36 1.68 1.18 0.84

Mountain mahogany, true 90/80 59,030 2.21 1.10 0.78 0.55 2.96 1.48 1.03 0.74

Rabbitbrush, 15/75 693,220 0.19 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.06

whitestem rubber

Rose, Woods 95/70 45,300 2.89 1.44 1.01 0.72 3.84 1.92 1.35 0.96

Sagebrush, basin big 12/80 2,575,940 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01

Sagebrush, black 12/80 907,200 0.14 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.10 0.07 0.05

Saltbush, fourwing 95/50 55,365 2.36 1.18 0.83 0.59 3.15 1.57 1.10 0.78

Serviceberry, Saskatoon 95/85 45,395 2.88 1.44 1.01 0.72 3.84 1.92 1.34 0.96

Shadscale 95/35 64,920 2.01 1.00 0.70 0.50 2.68 1.34 0.94 0.67

Snowberry, mountain 95/80 54,065 2.42 1.21 0.85 0.60 3.22 1.61 1.13 0.81

Sumac, smooth 94/40 62,430 2.09 1.04 0.73 0.52 2.80 1.40 0.98 0.70

Winterfat 50/85 112,270 1.16 0.58 0.41 0.29 1.55 0.78 0.54 0.39

a

Number of PLS/lb is determined on the number of pure live seeds per pound.

b

Amount of seed sown is computed in pounds of pure live seed.
144 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Spot seeding also allows for more careful control of

the number of seeds sown. Ferguson and Basile (1967)

reported that a lone seedling of antelope bitterbrush

is less likely to survive than if a group of seedlings

emerge together. Seedlings grouped together provide

mutual protection from heat and aid in breaking of a

soil crust during emergence. Evans and others (1983)

reported rodent depredation of planted antelope bitterbrush seeds is reduced if seeds are not placed on a

continuous, uniform row. Also, placing seeds at different depths in the soil and seeding fewer seeds

together in a spot reduced the chance of rodents being

able to locate and destroy the seeds.

Compensating for Seed and Seedling Losses—

A high percentage of seeds sown fail to emerge or

establish. Seed and seedling losses normally result

from poor seedbed conditions, unfavorable moisture

conditions, frost, animal depredation, damage by insects and disease, and competition. Less than 10 percent of viable wheatgrass seeds sown produce seedlings (Cook and others 1967). Luke and Monsen (1984)

reported from plantings in southern Wyoming that

seedling establishment of different species of shrubs

varied between 0.01 to 3.30 percent of all seed planted.

Plantings of fourwing saltbush in central Nevada

have resulted in established plants from over 10 percent of the seed sown (Monsen and Richardson 1984).

Big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush exhibited excellent ability to establish amid considerable competition, but less than 3.5 percent of the seed sown for each

of these two species produced seedlings. Seedling

density is apparently regulated by site factors, and

overseeding is not necessary.

Rodents feed on the seed of numerous species (Everett

and Monsen 1990). These animals frequently destroy

nearly entire plantings by foraging upon the seeds and

seedlings (Nelson and others 1970; Nord 1965; Sullivan

and Sullivan 1982). Although rodents consume the

majority of seeds produced each year, their caches are

also instrumental in plant recruitment (McAdoo and

others 1983; West 1968). Rodent caches benefit species that respond favorably to grouped seedings

(Ferguson and Basile 1967).

Deer mice eat or dig up seed of commonly seeded

species equal to approximately one-third of their body

weight daily (Everett and others 1978b). The amount

of seed taken in the field is proportional to the amount

available (Sullivan 1978). Thus, animals quickly gather

and use planted seeds (fig. 11).

Rodents apparently operate under an “optimal factor” strategy where they harvest seed from dense

patches or clumps rather than dispersed seeds (Price

and Jenkins 1986; Pyke and others 1977). However,

seeds broadcast on the soil surface are nearly entirely

consumed even though located in a random pattern

(Nelson and others 1970). Buried seeds are less preFigure 11—Mouse excavation of planted

antelope bitterbrush seed.

ferred because of the energy spent in digging (Price

and Jenkins 1986). Rodent mining for seeds has been

reported to occur if seeds are concentrated in rows

(Nord 1965), and high losses can result if seeds are

placed at uniform depths. Drilling may place seeds in

fixed horizontal and vertical planes. Therefore, if seeds

can be randomly located in the soil, losses to rodents

can be reduced. Rodents favor large seeds over small

seeds (Everett and others 1978b; Howard 1950;

Standley 1988), because they are more easily located

(Price and Jenkins 1986). Large seeds may be preferred as the relative number required to meet daily

energy demands is less (Kauffman and Collier 1981;

Reichman 1977).

Rodents are able to locate buried seeds by olfactory

search image (Sullivan 1979). The size and planting

depth of the seed affects detection (Reichman and

Oberstein 1977). Evans and others (1983) found that

seeds of antelope bitterbrush planted in groups of 2,

10, 45, or 100 were much more easily located and

consumed by rodents than if one seed was planted

per spot. Also, rodents never dug up one bitterbrush

seed, but if two were planted together, over 75 percent

were removed. Over 98 percent were taken if more

than two were planted. Rodents were able to detect

most bitterbrush seeds if planted at normal seeding

depths. Planting fewer seeds per spot or randomly

placing desirable seeds in the soil are procedures that

can be used to lessen losses to rodents.

Although sacrifice foods have not been fully tested

as a means to protect range seedings, laboratory and

field trials suggest millet, sunflower, and rolled barley

as potential sacrifice foods (Everett and Monsen 1990;

Kelrick and MacMahon 1985; Kelrick and others 1986).

Feeding sunflower seeds as sacrifice food to rodents

increased conifer survival from 5 to 70 percent (Sullivan

1979).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 145

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Various repellents have been applied to seeds to

reduce animal depredation. Endrin has been the most

successful (Plummer and others 1970b), but use of

this compound has been prohibited because of environmental concerns. Everett and Stevens (1981) found

that alpha-naphthylthiourea (ANTU) reduced deer

mice consumption of bitterbrush seed more than other

chemicals tested. Passof (1974) reported that the chemical effectively doubled seedling stocking rates of conifers.

Late fall or winter seedings are recommended to

reduce the loss of seeds to rodents. At this time rodent

activity has declined. Rodent populations are at their

lowest point in the early spring, but spring seedings

are not the most desirable.

Modification of Seeding Rates—Seeding rates

and planting procedures can be modified when necessary. In high risk areas where soil stability, aesthetics,

or habitat are of prime concern, increasing seeding

rates and intensifying planting may be justified. Using

high quality seed, and delaying planting until conditions are ideal for seeding are useful practices that can

increase success (Phillips 1970).

Using high seeding rates and planting techniques

that may be less than optimal may be justified in

certain situations. For example, aerial seeding of big

sagebrush, winterfat, and rubber rabbitbrush followed

by chaining or harrowing may not produce as many

seedlings as using a modified ground seeder. However,

satisfactory stands can be achieved, and savings in

seeding costs more than compensate for losses of seed

by broadcast seeding.

Low seeding rates can also be justified at some locations. If weed invasion is not a problem, some pinyonjuniper chainings can be lightly seeded to allow more

complete recovery of desirable species. Although the

planting sites may initially appear weedy or support a

weak ground cover, the ultimate plant community

usually forms a diverse, acceptable cover.

Effects of Seed Characteristics on Seeding

Rates—Seed size occurring in different seedlots of

many species may vary enough to require adjustments

in seeding. Differences in seed size of fourwing saltbush (Foiles 1974), black chokecherry (Grisez 1974),

curlleaf mountain mahogany (Deitschman and others

1974a), and bottlebrush squirreltail necessitate considerable adjustment in computing seeding rates and

operation of seeding equipment.

The percent moisture in seedlots of fourwing saltbush, winterfat, Apache plume, and vegetable-oyster

salsify can also affect the amount of seed needed.

Also, the amount, size, and shape of debris in seedlots

can determine the choice of equipment, planting methods, and seeding rates used. Seedlots of Apache plume,

Rocky Mountain maple, and western virginsbower are

difficult to clean, and the methods used to collect and

clean the seed often determine the methods that can

be used in planting.

Seeds extracted from berries or dry fruits sometime

have portions of the fruit attached to the seed. The

rough surface of the attached material reduces the

flow of the seed through most seeders. Seed regulatory

gates or control openings must be opened wide to

accommodate movement of the seed through the

seedbox and dispensing mechanisms. In doing so,

seeding rates become difficult to regulate. Such seed

must often be diluted to prevent overseeding.

Seeds of extremely different size, shape, density,

and purity often cannot be seeded together without

modification of planting equipment. Seeds of big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, and winterfat are commonly seeded with other species and this may necessitate improvisations to permit seeding. Additions of

very small or extremely large seeds to a mixture can

be accommodated by using materials to reduce planting rates. Some seeding equipment, particularly pickertype seeders or fluted seeders and are designed to

plant irregular sized and mixed seedlots. However,

trashy seedlots are not easily planted. In most situations extremely trashy seedlots must be planted

separately with special equipment. Spending time to

clean seed to a desired condition is usually well worthwhile. Some time should be spent calibrating the

selected seed dispensing mechanism to achieve the

rate of seeding desired.

Treating Seeds to Improve Establishment

Preconditioning Seeds—Various treatments

have been employed to pretreat seeds that are difficult

to germinate. Seeds with thick, impermeable seedcoats or structures can be mechanically fractured to

promote germination (Stein and others 1974). Hammermilling utricles of fourwing saltbush and shadscale fractures the tough wall and allows seeds to

germinate quickly and more uniformly. Hard seedcoats or fruit structures can also be treated with

sulfuric acid (Brinkman 1974g; Krugman and others

1974), but this treatment is difficult to apply, particularly to large seedlots.

Pretreating some seeds with various chemicals can

relieve dormancy and allow seeds to germinate. Antelope bitterbrush and Stansbury cliffrose are two species that respond to treatment with hydrogen peroxide

or thiourea (Everett and Meeuwig 1975; Young and

Evans 1983). Breaking seed dormancy with chemical treatment facilitates seeding in the spring. However, seeding success is not as good as with fall seeding, and this practice is not usually recommended.

Priming seeds to hasten germination is a technique that appears practical to improve seedling

establishment (Bleak and Keller 1972) particularly
146 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

when seeding in semiarid communities. Hardegree

and Emmerich (1992) reported seed priming can be

used to regulate seed germination of perennial grasses

and enhance seedling establishment when seeded in

areas occupied by cheatgrass.

Seed processing—Improving seed cleaning and seeding practices has significantly increased planting success. Removing fruit and floral structures by improved

cleaning techniques greatly enhances seeding and

helps ensure that seeds are correctly placed in the soil.

However, removal of tissue attached to seeds of rabbitbrush and winterfat can reduce seedling establishment (Booth and Schuman 1983; Stevens and others

1986). Slight heating of seeds of Utah sweetvetch by

grinding to open or remove the pod is very damaging.

In this case, the seeds are not visually damaged, but

germination is greatly reduced. Planting techniques

and equipment have been developed to plant seedlots

having trashy, lightweight, and fluffy seeds (Carlton

and Bouse 1983; Hardcastle 1983; Stevens and others

1981b; Weidemann 1983). These advances have reduced

cleaning and conditioning processes that often damage some seeds. Seed cleaning techniques have also

been devised to condition seeds of sagebrush, alder,

forage kochia, buckwheat, aster, and numerous other

species without damage to the seed (Dewald and

others 1983).

Seed inoculation—Seeds of all legumes should be

treated with a commercial inoculate prior to planting.

Lowther and others (1987) reported strains of rhizobia have limited distribution in the Intermountain

West and those present have low nitrogen fixation

capabilities. Thus, strains of the rhizobia specific for

the legume being planted should be used. Pretreated

seed can be purchased from most vendors. Strains of

adapted inocula are available for some native legumes

including Utah sweetvetch (Ford 1988).

At present, 162 species in 19 genera in 7 families of

woody plants are known to form actinomycete-type

root nodules (Bond 1976; Heisey and others 1980;

Righetti and Munns 1980). Certain species of western

shrubs of the Rose family function as symbiotic nitrogen fixers (Klemmedson 1979; Lepper and Fleschner

1977; Vlamis and others 1964; Wagle and Vlamis

1961). Nelson (1983) reported that actinorhizal root

nodulation occurs with Stansbury cliffrose, desert and

antelope bitterbrush, and curlleaf mountain mahogany,

but procedures to inoculate the seeds have not been

developed (Becking 1977; Nelson and Schuttler 1984).

Seed pelleting—Various methods have been tried to

improve success from broadcast seedings. Techniques

have been employed to substitute for harrowing, dragging, or chaining to eliminate the costs associated with

seed coverage. Pelleting seed has been extensively

tested for range, wildlife, and forestry seedings, but

plantings have not been very successful (Hull and

others 1963). Pelleted seeds require seed coverage or

creation of a seedbed as does nonpelleted seed

(Chadwick and others 1969). Seeds that establish

from surface or shallow planting depths are best

adapted to this method of seeding.

Monsen and Pellant (1989) reported that pellet

seeding of winterfat significantly aided in aerial

distribution of this lightweight seed. Seedlings

established well from this method of planting, but

success was not an improvement over broadcasting

nonpelleted seed. Although pelleting of lightweight,

trashy seed can enhance the flow and distribution of

the seed through conventional drills and aerial seeders, pelleting is a difficult and expensive process.

Pelleting does not overcome problems created by small

sticks or other debris that cause material to cluster or

lodge in the seeder.

Increasing the seeding rate of pelleted seed has not

improved seedling establishment (Bleak and Hull

1958; Hull 1959) and no improvement in rodent deterrence has been detected with treated seed. Application

of fungicides has been proposed as an added benefit

with pelleted seed, but results have not been conclusive. Also the costs of pelleting, and the added shipping and handling fees are very high (Chadwick and

others 1969).

Treating seeds to control pathogens—Treating seeds

and soil to prevent damage by pathogens may be

beneficial, but it is not widely done in range or wildlife

seedings. Seed collected from wildland stands is often

infested with seedborne pathogens (James 1985;

James and Genz 1981), and various treatments have

been tested to eliminate or reduce pathogenic organisms, particularly on conifer seeds (Barnett 1976; James

and Genz 1981; Trappe 1961; Wenny and Dumroese

1987). Treatments have included the use of 100 percent ethanol or sodium hypochlorite with lowered pH,

and soaking seeds in a 2 percent aqueous suspension

of thiram for 24 hours (Maude and others 1969; Sauer

and Burroughs 1986). Dodds and Roberts (1985) discuss the sterilization of seed using a 1 to 3 minute soak

in a 70 percent ethanol solution, followed by a soak in

sodium hypochlorite. Hot water treatments have also

been employed without reducing seed germination

(Baker 1962a,b), and the use of a microwave oven to

heat water to the desired temperature (Lozano and

others 1986).

Damping-off fungi are particularly damaging to

antelope bitterbrush, winterfat, and fourwing saltbush seedings (Ferguson and Monsen 1974). Organisms can be transitted through ingestation of the seed

or potting media. Treatment with a mixture of Benlate

(methyl 1-[butylcarbamcyl] -2 benzimidazole-carbamate)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 147

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

and Dexon [p-dimethlamino] benzenediazo sodium sulfonate has been successful as a drench. Treatment of

nursery beds using a soil drench (Pawuk and Barnett

1974) has been effective in controlling fusarium fungi

that are responsible for seedling mortality (Landis

1976) due to damping-off and rootrot.

Pretreating seeds may be effective in reducing seed

disease problems, but the use of disease-free seeds is

preferable, whenever possible. Nelson (1984) cautions

that fungicidal treatments to prevent seedling diseases often only suppress the pathogen which will

later induce further disease. However, sufficient seed

damage from pathogens has been observed in various

wildland plantings to suggest that control measures

would be beneficial to some species. Heavy losses

occur with lupine, balsamroot, Utah sweetvetch,

antelope bitterbrush, serviceberry, and blue elderberry. Seeds should be pretreated if disease problems

are likely to be serious.

Seedbed Preparation and

Seeding _______________________

An ideal seedbed for range or wildlife seedings: (1) is

free of competitive weeds (seeds and plants) that may

prevent establishment of seeded species; (2) has a

friable structure that allows infiltration of moisture

and does not puddle or become compacted by seeding

equipment or rainfall; (3) can be easily worked to

incorporate seed into the soil; (4) has a firm soil

beneath the seeding depth; and (5) contains sufficient

surface mulch to prevent rapid drying. The principal

purpose of seedbed preparation is to control weeds

and condition the soil for seeding. A minimum number

of tillage or treatment operations are used on most

wildland sites. Access is often limited; debris, rock, or

terrain limit the techniques that can be used. Often

only one or two techniques are used to control weeds,

prepare, and seed a site.

Control of Competition

Seedings have been most successful when existing

competition has been eliminated (Cox and others 1986;

Holmgren 1956; Hubbard and Sanderson 1961). Most

control measures are designed to remove existing

vegetation and seedbanks. These procedures are particularly important in semiarid and arid regions where

moisture is critical to seedling establishment

(Vallentine 1989), and in vegetative types where competition is severe. Adequate weed control is usually

difficult to accomplish, particularly on sites infested

with annuals (Plummer and others 1955).

Weed control or reduction of competition is necessary to (1) allow seeded species to establish; (2) release

existing, but suppressed desirable plants; and (3) allow

Figure 12—Well designed pinyon-juniper chaining. Allowances given for aesthetics, thermal, escape and travel cover, and sufficient edge effect.

the spread of native and seeded species. To facilitate

seeding, weed control measures are necessary for

at least one season and sometimes for 1 or 2 years

thereafter.

Control measures do not always require complete

elimination of all plants (fig. 12). Chaining of pinyonjuniper stands, dense patches of oakbrush, or thick

stands of big sagebrush usually leave considerable

vegetation, but the overstory plants are suppressed

and seeded species are able to establish (Aro 1971;

Davis 1987; Plummer and others 1968). Plant control

measures are most critical in areas receiving limited

rainfall (Houston 1957). Complete elimination of

black greasewood or low rabbitbrush is not as critical

if normal amounts of moisture are received following

treatment. These plants are not overly competitive

and some can be left in place. However, rainfall is too

often unpredictable and leaving a high number of

plants in place is risky.

Cook (1966) reported that complete removal of brush

on low foothill ranges in the Intermountain area allowed seeded species to reach maturity in 5 years.

Seeded stands required 10 to 11 years to attain full

potential when brush control was only 60 to 80 percent. The time required for seeded stands to attain

maturity is not as critical as the chance of having

seedlings fail to establish. Control measures should

be designed to assure stand establishment. Maturation and productivity levels may be delayed but can be

tolerated.

Planting sites that are infested with annual weeds

usually requires complete weed control (fig. 13). Cheatgrass, medusahead, and most summer annuals offer

serious competition to seeded species (Evans and

Young 1978; Hull 1963a; Hull and Pechanec 1947;

Robertson and Pearse 1945; Rummell 1964). Decreasing the density of annuals does not always reduce the

deleterious competitive effects of the remaining plants.
148 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Nearly complete removal of all annual plants and seed

is necessary to establish new seedlings of most seeded

species (Hulbert 1955; Robertson and Pearse 1945;

Young and others 1969a). Annual weeds compete

directly with natural seedlings of Stansbury cliffrose

(Cline 1960), and shrub seedlings succumb in the late

spring and early summer as soil moisture is depleted.

Summer annuals are also highly competitive (Haas

and others 1962), particularly when mixed stands of

Russian thistle and pepperweed exist with annual

grasses.

‘Hycrest’ crested wheatgrass (Asay and Knowles

1985a,b), forage kochia (Monsen and Turnipseed 1990),

bottlebrush squirreltail, and ‘Appar’ Lewis flax are

species able to compete as seedlings with a moderate

population of annual weeds. However, direct seeding

into unprepared weedy seedbeds should be avoided. In

general, shrub seedings are less competitive with

annual grasses than are most commonly seeded herbs

(Hubbard 1964).Seedlings of antelope bitterbrush are

better able to compete with summer annuals than

with cheatgrass (Holmgren 1956). Monsen and Pellant

(1989) found that seedlings of winterfat competed better with perennial native grasses than with cheatgrass.

If cheatgrass cover approached 10 to 15 percent, few

winterfat seedlings survived.

Giunta and others (1975) reported differences in

establishment success among several shrub species

seeded on a pinyon-juniper site in central Utah, when

various size clearings were used to reduce cheatgrass

competition. Most shrub seedlings required clearings

that were 30 and 40 inches (76 to 102 cm) wide to

establish (fig. 13). Holmgren (1956) reported similar

sized openings were required in cheatgrass-infested

ranges in Idaho to assure the establishment of seeded

antelope bitterbrush. From studies in California

(Hubbard 1964) and Idaho (Medin and Ferguson 1980)

clearings of 30 to 40 inches (76 to 102 cm) were recommended for antelope bitterbrush seedling establishment.

In more mesic sites where annual rainfall exceeds

14 to 16 inches (360 to 410 mm), herb seedings are

usually more successful, and weed control is not as

difficult. However, even here shrub species cannot be

established without seedbed preparation. Mountain

snowberry, Saskatoon serviceberry, Martin ceanothus,

and true mountain mahogany are commonly seeded in

these sites, but are sensitive to the competitive effects

of associated herbs. Weedy or competitive plants must

be controlled for 1 to 3 years to allow seedlings time to

establish.

Dense stands of highly competitive perennial sod and

annual weeds occur on high summer ranges and require control measures (McGinnies 1968). Treatment

of cluster tarweed (Hull 1971b) is essential for seedling establishment of seeded species. Seeding of inland

saltgrass and disturbed meadow sites also requires

extensive weed control.

Riparian disturbances often require considerable

control measures to eliminate persistent and competitive weeds (Platts and others 1987). Disturbances

are often occupied by rhizomatous sod and rootproliferating noxious weeds. These plants must be

eliminated or dramatically reduced. Treatments such

as deep plowing or disking may not kill the plants

without repeated treatments (Platts and others 1987;

Plummer and others 1968). These measures leave the

surface subject to serious erosion from spring runoff

and storm events. However, such extensive control

measures are necessary to seed many sites (Neiland

and others 1981).

Conservation of Moisture

Site preparation treatments should be designed to

conserve and aid in storage of soil moisture. Most

mechanical practices—plowing, railing, disking—tend

to dry the soil surface, and should be done when

moisture loss is kept at a minimum.

The most practical means of providing the maximum soil moisture to the seedbed is to treat sites at

the right season. Site preparation and seeding should

be conducted prior to the season when most precipitation is received. In most situations, late fall treatments are most successful. Disturbance to the soil can

reduce infiltration and cause crusting and moisture

loss. Disturbances should be limited in both seedbed

preparation and seeding. Hyder and others (1955)

found that rolling loose seedbeds improved seed placement and seedling emergence. Rolling, after broadcast

seeding, was also a reliable method of covering seed

and firming the seedbed, but rolling can also compact

some soils, reducing seedling emergence.

Within the Intermountain area, seeding and weed

control conducted in the fall allows spring-germinating

species a better opportunity to use winter moisture

stored in the soil. Stored moisture, coupled with spring

Figure 13—Antelope bitterbrush seeded into clearings where competition has been removed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 149

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

rainstorms, provides the most favorable conditions for

seedling establishment.

Fall or spring treatment of annual weeds, particularly

cheatgrass, is helpful in eliminating annual growth

(Klomp and Hull 1972). Treatments must be conducted after cheatgrass plants have germinated and

emerged (Evans and Young 1978; Plummer and others 1968; Young and others 1969a).

Weed seeds normally are not eliminated unless the

soil is deeply plowed and seeds are planted too deep to

emerge. Light or shallow cultivation in the spring or

fall can normally kill small seedlings (Bement and

others 1965; McGinnies 1968).

Summer fallowing can be used to control plant

growth and prevent the development of a seed crop

(Harris and others 1972; Hart and Dean 1986). Summer fallowing is a useful technique to conserve soil

moisture in areas of low annual rainfall, but fallowing practices are often quite expensive. Fallowing over

a 1- to 2-year period is often necessary to control sod in

mountain meadows.

Pitting, trenching, deep-furrow drilling, and creation

of catchment basins have been used to intercept and

accumulate 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 are

uprooted (fig. 14). These spots also collect additional

soil moisture that aids seedling establishment.

Treating soils that are wet can cause compaction

and crusting. This reduces infiltration and may interfere with seedling emergence. On the other hand,

treating sites when the surfaces are dry and loose can

cause serious wind erosion. Such sites should not be

left barren for long periods. Loose soil surfaces also dry

rapidly, and site preparation treatments that leave a

protective surface mulch should be used to conserve

moisture (Hyder and Bement 1969).

Maintaining surface mulch and a standing crop to

protect the soil surface improves seedling establishment (Malakouti and others 1978). Most planting

sites contain some surface litter or mulch. This material should be kept in place, if possible, to lessen

surface evaporation, provide protection to small seedlings, and reduce soil crusting (Herbel and others

1973). Mulch is particularly important for soils that

dry rapidly, and may be subjected to fluctuating

temperatures.

Deep furrow drilling using 12 to 16 inch (30 to 41 cm)

row spacings has been a method used to concentrate soil

moisture and improve seedling density (Anderson and

others 1953; Artz and others 1970; Fisser and others

1974; Neff 1973; Wight and White 1974). Deep furrows

have been reported to increase soil moisture during

the period of spring germination by an average of 50

percent and sometimes up to 100 percent (McGinnies

1959). The deep furrows reduce soil moisture loss from

evaporation, allow seedlings to use deeper stored moisture, and reduce temperatures near the seedling

(McGinnies 1959). Deep furrow drilling should not be

done when soils are dry, as sloughing normally occurs,

causing seeds to be buried too deep.

Entrapment of winter snow cover is essential to

seedling establishment of many small-seeded, surface

germinators. Meyer and others (1990a) reported that

entrapment of winter snow on the planting site until

the time of seed germination in the spring resulted in

a significant increase of sagebrush seedlings from

plantings in Idaho, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming.

Entrapment of snow by standing plants, particularly

shrubs, is important to natural seedling establishment in arid and semiarid sagebrush communities of

the Intermountain area. Maintaining some erect or

standing plants can improve the soil moisture for

new seedlings. Downed pinyon and juniper trees resulting from chaining trap snow and greatly improve

seedling establishment in the affected areas. The tree

litter remains effective for over 25 years.

Seedbed Firmness

Most undisturbed seedbeds are loose enough to be

drill-seeded or seeds can be incorporated in the soil by

chaining or harrowing. Sites that have been plowed or

disked may require mechanical compaction to reduce

moisture loss (Hyder and others 1961) and the problem of seeding too deep. Loose soil surfaces normally

result in seeds being planted too deep and at irregular

depths (Hyder and others 1955). Also, loose soil has

poor moisture-holding capacity (Vallentine 1989). In

contrast, firm seedbeds retain moisture near the seed

zone and are much easier to plant at the desired depth.

A loose or friable soil with an underlying firm soil is

ideal for seeding. These surfaces are easy to plant at

the proper depth.

Figure 14—Chaining can create excellent seedbeds, pits, and small depressions.
150 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

Figure 15—Result of aerial seeding forbs,

grass, and shrubs on top of snow.

Most drill seeders are equipped with packer wheels

to compact the seeded furrow and lessen the depth of

the soil overlying the seed. Rollers and other compaction equipment are available to pack or compress loose

soils prior to seeding (Anderson and others 1953;

Hyder and others 1955; Hyder and others 1961).

Rolling or compaction before drilling allows for better

seed placement (Hyder and others 1961). Cultipacker,

roller type, or press seeders can be used to seed loose

surfaces (Anderson and others 1953; Booster 1961;

Richardson and others 1986). These seeders do not

plant at depths exceeding 0.5 to 1.5 inches (1.3 to

3.8 cm). Depth bands and other modifications are

used on many conventional drills to aid in suspending

or preventing the disk from digging and planting too

deep (McGinnies 1962). Hydraulically supported furrow openers and no-till seeders are also designed to

control seed placement.

Offset furrow openers, or disks, are used to cut into

dense litter and hard surfaces (Asher and Eckert

1973). Front-mounted rippers and no-till seeders are

designed to plant firm seedbeds. Anchor chain modifications, pipe harrows, and chain harrows are effective

implements used to seed and prepare firm or hard

surfaces (further information related to the function of

seeders is presented in chapter 9).

Seeding—Seeding is normally intergrated with the

seedbed preparation. Often, chaining or drilling accomplishes both practices. To be successful, both practices must be conducted during the appropriate season

or period. Seedbed preparation and seeding may be

completed in the fall or early winter. During the

interval between seeding and seedling emergence, the

seedbed may be altered. Soil sloughing may bury some

seeds too deep, or wind erosion can expose planted

seeds. Dry, loose seedbeds can be expected to settle,

which may result in satisfactory or unsatisfactory

stands depending on the methods used in planting.

Planting Season

Fall or early winter seeding is necessary to provide

seed stratification for many species (fig. 15). Most

native shrub seeds require a cold, moist period to

adequately overcome embryo dormancy (Shopmeyer

1974b). Seed germination may not occur until after

stratification of 100 to 150 days for some species.

Prestratified seed is frequently spring planted at nurseries, but gauging the stratification period to coincide

with spring weather conditions is extremely hazardous. Pretreating seeds of antelope bitterbrush and a

few other shrub species with hydrogen peroxide or

thiourea can induce germination, but is not a satisfactory means of seeding large projects (Alexander and

others 1987; Everett and Meeuwig 1975; McConnell

1960; Neal and Sanderson 1975; Pearson 1957; Young

and Evans 1983). Different seedlots of antelope bitterbrush respond differently to the chemicals; some germinate quickly and uniformly and others do not. Spring

plantings of naturally dormant seeds should be avoided.

Seeds of alfalfa and certain collections of winterfat

and fourwing saltbush and many commonly seeded

grass species are nondormant, and may be spring

sown at certain locations. However, fall seedings generally provide more favorable stands of most species

particularly under arid situations (Cook and others

1967; Plummer and others 1968). Alfalfa seeds that

are fall sown often germinate in the early spring and

many are killed by frost. Spring planting in early

April, on a fall-prepared seedbed, usually reduces the

problem. Spring planting may also reduce seedling

losses to frost for some ecotypes of fourwing saltbush

and winterfat. Seedlings of most grasses are quite

frost tolerant, and stands normally are not lost to

spring frosts.

Recent studies have demonstrated considerable

variability in seed dormancy and germination requirements among ecotypes of different native species

(Kelsey 1986; Kitchen 1988; Meyer and Monsen 1990;

Shaw and Haferkamp 1990). Plantings of mountain

big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush seed obtained

from areas having relatively warm winters show different germination and emergence responses from collections acquired from cold winter locations (Meyer and

Monsen 1990). Seeds of big sagebrush and rabbitbrush collected from areas with warm climates did

not survive well from fall plantings in more northern

regions. Collections from warm climates that were fall

sown germinated quickly, usually in the late fall and

winter, but were unable to survive beneath the snow.

Germination requirements undoubtedly vary for many

species, seedlots, or ecotypes, and these requirements

should be understood before extensive seedings are

made.

Vallentine (1989) concluded that range seedings

should be made prior to the period of longest favorable
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 151

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

moisture conditions. Within the Intermountain Region between 45 to 65 percent of the annual precipitation is received in the winter months. Rapid drying

normally occurs following germination and seedling

emergence in the spring. At most elevations late fall

or early winter seeding is recommended. Seeding should

be delayed long enough in the fall to prevent germination until the following spring (Gates 1968; Harris and

others 1972; Plummer and others 1968; Vallentine

and others 1963). Seeding early in the fall can be

successful if sufficient moisture is available to germinate and maintain seedlings until cold temperatures arrive. Generally, sufficient soil moisture is not

maintained for the entire period, and seedlings often

succumb.

Jordan (1983) concludes that sites seeded in the fall

to cool-season species should receive on the average 3.5

inches (89 mm) of precipitation through the months of

November, December, January, and February. The

average annual precipitation should be a least 10

inches (250 mm).

In the Southwest and the southern portions of the

Intermountain Region where summer rains are common, spring seeding is advised for species having

nondormant seed. Jordan (1981) recommended that

warm-season species be seeded in the spring. Ideally,

sites seeded in the late spring to either warm- or coolseason species should receive an average of 5.0 inches

(127 mm) of moisture through July, August, and

September. The average annual precipitation should

be at least 11 inches (280 mm).

With respect to precipitation, Jordan (1983) reported

that average annual precipitation values are often used

to characterize range sites, but they are not adequate

to describe the potential for reseeding. He developed

a predictive model to determine the potential of a site

for seeding based on precipitation, the arid or semiarid

boundary, and the average annual temperature. In

addition, the soil texture and water holding capacity of

the soil is used to determine the availability of stored

moisture. The predictive model developed by Jordan

has not been widely applied to the germination and

establishment of all species normally seeded in the

Intermountain area, but it appears useful in defining

areas that may or may not be seeded with success.

Fall seedings are more reliable for low valley and

foothill communities where the annual precipitation

would be less than 12 to 14 inches (300 to 260 mm).

These sites normally dry quite rapidly in the spring

and are subjected to a long, dry summer. Slow developing seedlings are often too small and weak to survive

a dry summer period. Seeding in the spring on a fallprepared seedbed is most successful if planting occurs early in the season. However, soils may be too

wet and muddy to permit early spring seeding. If sites

are allowed to dry, additional rain will be needed to

germinate and maintain the seedlings. Usually, only

a short period exists in the spring when conditions

favor seeding (Evans and Young 1987a). Attempting

to seed large areas in the spring is therefore, often

impractical.

Considerable fluctuation occurs in both temperatures and soil moisture of the seedbed in the spring.

Vallentine (1989) reported wet periods may last

only 2 days, but seeds of most grasses that do not

germinate are able to survive. If the wetting period

lasts 5 days or longer, most seeds germinate and

seedlings are able to survive subsequent drought periods of 5 to 7 days. Wester and Dahl (1983) reporting on

studies in west Texas, concluded that alfalfa requires

at least 0.4 inches (10 mm) of moisture at 75 ∞F (24 ∞C)

to give high germination. Metabolic processes were

initiated with only 0.2 inches (5 mm) of moisture, but

seeds dried rapidly enough to halt germination before

seed energy was spent if no additional moisture was

received. Alfalfa seeds germinated and emerged in 3

days, and seedlings were able to survive 7 to 9 days if

watered each of 2 days with 0.4 inches (10 mm) of

moisture. Because alfalfa emerges so quickly, followup rain is needed sooner than for most grasses. Allen

and others (1994) reported that seeds of some species

may be able to accumulate germination events across

periods interspaced with drying, and that continuous

moisture is not necessary to sustain germinating seeds.

Evans and Young (1987a,b) studying soil moisture

conditions in arid regions of the West, found that soil

moisture in the first centimeter of soil may decrease to

–1.5 MPA and below in less than a week. Natural soil

moisture depletion often coincides with the period of

active seedling emergence.

Most seeds are conditioned to germinate in the

spring after fall plantings. Fall sown seeds usually

have imbibed necessary moisture, and exist in a moist

medium under the snow. Seeds in this state can

germinate quickly as the snow recedes. Seedlings that

emerge first in the spring are better able to survive the

dry summer period.

Seed Coverage and Planting Depths

Seed should be in firm contact with the soil to

increase moisture availability (Stevens and Van Epps

1984), thus a majority of seeds require some amount of

soil coverage (table 2). Soil can also act as an anchor to

hold or maintain seed in a proper position, especially

seeds with hairy or fluffy appendages that are carried

or moved by wind (Booth and Schuman 1983; Stevens

and others 1986). Proper depth of planting is generally

governed by the size of the seed. However, the seed or

fruit structure that is sown does affect planting depth.

Care should be taken to distinguish between fruits

and seeds. For example, dewinged utricles of fourwing
152 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

saltbush are normally sown. The wings that are attached to the bracts are often quite large, as is the

structure that encloses the small seed (utricle). Cleaning usually removes most of the wings. This dewinging

reduces the size of the structure by three or four

times. The degree or amount of wings, awns, or attached appendages removed in cleaning can affect the

planting depth. In most cases, the entire structure

must be incorporated in the soil to reduce or prevent

differential drying.

Generally seeds of most species should be covered

about 2.5 to 3 times the thickness of the cleaned seed.

For small seeded grasses this would be more applicable to length than diameter. Ragsdale and others

(1970) suggest not planting any deeper than seven

times 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 0.5

inches (1.7 cm) are suitable for Idaho fescue, and 1 inch

(2.5 cm) for larger seeds such as mountain brome and

western 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 influence planting depth. There are few points of contact

between the soil particles and the seedcoat with coarsetextured soils. Seeds have more points of contact with

finer textured soils. The moisture is held tightly to the

clay particles, but the soil capillaries are much finer

(Young and others 1987).

Clay soils that expand and contract during wetting

and drying may leave seeds in a pedestaled situation

that is a harsher environment than is provided by a

sandy seedbed (Koller and Hadas 1982). Clay soils

generally hold more water than sandy soils, and

rewetting is not required as often to maintain soil

moisture for germination. Generally, seeds should be

planted deeper in sandy soils than in clay or loamy

soils.

Determining the appropriate seeding depth presents a paradox. The closer a seed is located to the

surface, the less energy is required for emergence and

initiation of photosynthesis. However, greater diurnal

fluctuations in temperature and soil moisture occur

near the surface that dry the soil and seed. The soil

particles and soil atmosphere act as an insulation

barrier to lessen changes in soil temperature and

water availability (Chippendale 1949). Having at least

some soil covering the seed prevents or lessens drying.

The ideal seedbed is one in which the seed is firmly

enclosed within soil particles to provide hydraulic

conductivity of moisture to the seed (Collis-George

and Sands 1959). Seed should be placed deep enough

to prevent rapid drying but shallow enough to allow

natural emergence.

Some seeds must be seeded on or near the surface

because of physiological restrictions. Young and others (1987) list four principal physiological systems

involved: (1) germination requires light or specific

light quality; (2) seeds require fluctuating temperatures for germination; (3) nearly complete lack of seed

reserves make rapid establishment necessary; and

(4) other undefined physiological requirements that

precondition germination to the surface seedbeds.

Seed placement in or on the soil influences germination through factors other than the availability of

soil moisture. As mentioned, some seeds require light

to germinate and burial in the soil restricts germination (Young and others 1987). In addition, soil temperature also regulates germination. Positioning seed

at different depths in the soil allows seeds to germinate at different times due to differences in soil temperature. Young and others (1987) reported that soil

temperature regimes have different effects upon the

germination of ‘Fairway’ and ‘Nordan’ crested wheatgrass, ‘Covar’ and ‘Carbar’ canby bluegrass, and Russian wildrye.

In most situations seeding depth is based on the

size or germination requirements of the primary species sown. Too often, seed mixtures are sown at one

depth, based primarily on the requirements of grass

species included in the mixture. If shrub and many

forb seeds are sown with the grasses, different planting depths are required. Springfield (1970a) suggests

that winterfat seed should be sown at a shallow depth,

about 0.17 inch (0.42 cm). In his studies no emergence

was achieved below 0.5 inch (1.27 cm). The optimum

seeding depth for antelope bitterbrush is 0.5 inches

(1.27 cm) (Basile and Holmgren 1957).

Planting seeds too deep has been a major reason for

seeding failures. Forage kochia, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, Lewis flax, Palmer penstemon, and winterfat

generally do best when seeded on top of disturbed soil

(Stevens and Van Epps 1984). Most conventional drills

place seed of these species too deep. Depth rings have

been developed for use on the rangeland drill to control

planting depth (Larson 1980). Depth rings, however,

are fairly ineffective in loose soils and are not able to

maintain shallow depths. Beside placing seed too

deep in loose soil, drilling generally places the seed in

the bottom of small furrows. Unstable furrows can fill

in with soil following seeding before seedlings emerge.

As a result seed drilled in loose seedbeds can be

covered many times too deep.

With proper attention, seeds can be placed at a

shallow depth when drill seeded. Also, seed can be

placed at the bottom of stable furrows where moisture

and temperature conditions are most favorable and

seedlings ultimately appear (Hull 1970). In semiarid

regions, planting in the bottom of deep but stable

furrows is a useful technique as soil moisture is
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 153

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

greater at this position in the seedbed (Tischler and

Voigt 1983). Deep furrow drilling should be avoided on

soils that are loose and unstable causing sloughing of

the furrows.

Some soil compaction at the time of seeding can be

helpful in regulating planting depths, especially in

loose soils. Cultipacker seeders of various kinds have

been developed (Larson 1980) to be used in seeding

loose soils and planting at controlled depths.

Various drills and special furrow openers are now

available and can be used to more closely control

seeding depths (Baker 1976; Baker and others 1979;

Haferkamp and others 1987; Hauck 1982; Monsen

and Turnipseed 1990; Nyren and others 1981;

Wiedemann 1987). Punch seeding and compact seeders are particularly useful in seeding loose soils and

planting on the surface or at shallow depths.

It is essential that seeds having different depth

requirements be sown separately at the appropriate

positions in the soil. Where mixed seedings are planted,

drill seeders should be used that can dispense seeds

of different sizes in separate rows and at appropriate

depths. Broadcast seeding followed by anchor chaining or harrowing plants seed at different depths in the

soil, and is an appropriate technique for seeding mixtures. Two or more planting methods may be necessary to properly seed all species. Unless seeds can be

correctly sown the chance of establishment is usually

quite low. Overseeding or seeding heavily is not a

corrective measure that can be used to substitute for

improper seed placement.

A discussion of seeding machinery is presented in

chapter 9.

Row Spacing

Row spacing recommendations have generally been

developed for seeding irrigated and nonirrigated

pastures, primarily with grasses. Most range-type

drills use row spacings of 8 to 14 inches (20 to 36 cm).

Maximum forage production of herbaceous species is

not significantly affected by row spacing between

10 and 18 inches (25 to 46 cm) (Bement and others

1965; Conrad 1962; McGinnies 1960b; Springfield

1965). Consequently, most drill seeders have been

designed to seed rows at these intervals. Wider row

spacings on semiarid sites are generally recommended,

particularly when native forbs and shrubs are seeded.

Increasing the distance between rows is beneficial to

the survival and growth of certain species. Plantings

of globemallow, lupine, and Utah sweetvetch benefit

from row spacings of between 15 and 18 inches (38

and 46 cm).

Narrow row spacings normally result in greater

initial production (McGinnies 1960b; Sneva and

Rittenhouse 1976), but differences disappear in later

years. Narrow spacings usually foster better weed

control (Cook and others 1967; McGinnies 1960b),

particularly during the initial stages of community

development.

Shrub seedings are becoming more important in

range and wildlife projects. In general, row spacings

for shrubs depend on the mature stature of each species

sown. Normally, seedings of big sagebrush, winterfat,

Martin ceanothus, fourwing saltbush, and antelope

bitterbrush planted in rows are not adversely affected

by high seedling density or close row spacings. However, seedlings of green ephedra, Saskatoon serviceberry, Stansbury cliffrose, curlleaf mountain mahogany, and skunkbush sumac are more easily

stunted by severe intraspecies competition. The density of plants occurring within the seeded row has a

greater affect on shrub establishment than does row

spacing. In general, shrub rows should be at least as

far apart as the maximum height of the shrub seeded.

Separate Row Seedings

Seeding individual species in separate rows is a

useful technique (fig. 6 and 10) when using a number

of species with different seedbed and establishment

requirements. Seeding a mixture of grasses in certain

drops of a drill, and individual forb or shrub species in

other drops or furrows, allows all species a better

chance to establish. Alternate row seeding has been a

successful method of planting grasses with legumes or

grasses with shrubs (Hafenrichter and others 1968;

Leyshon and others 1981). Slow developing species

benefit from being planted alone, particularly when

seeded in arid situations. Grasses and legumes have

been seeded in alternate rows as a means of increasing

herbage production (Kenno and others 1987) and

maintaining desired species composition (Gomm 1964;

Kilcher 1982). Alfalfa has been most productive when

seeded in separate rows from grasses on semiarid

pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush ranges in Utah.

Kilcher (1982) found that alfalfa comprised a greater

percent of the plant composition when seeded in cross

or alternate rows than in mixed rows with grasses—40

percent compared to 15 percent. Various native shrubs

also exhibit better growth in separate row seedings

than when seeded in mixtures with grasses.

The spacing of separate row seedings affects subsequent natural reproduction. Monsen and Shaw

(1983c) found that antelope bitterbrush seedlings established better from mature shrubs originally spaced

10 ft (3.1 m) apart than from shrubs having a closer

spacing. Closely spaced mature shrubs apparently

shade or prevent new seedling establishment. Thus,

row spacings may influence the ultimate composition

of seeded species when shrubs and forbs are planted in

alternate rows. Seeding shrubs in close row spacings
154 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 12 Seedbed Preparation and Seeding Practices

will create shading and overstory competition. Understory species that are not able to tolerate shade can

and will be eliminated. Row spacing of seeded shrubs

is an important consideration in all communities.

Individual species can be seeded in alternate or

separate rows with some broadcast-type seeders. The

Brillon seeder has been successfully used in eastern

Idaho to seed shrubs through one portion of the seedbox and herbs through a separate section (Richardson

and others 1986).

Separate row seedings are important in reducing

the amount of seed sown. By seeding individual species in separate rows, the seeding rate can be more

carefully regulated. Drills or seeders that are used

must be capable of metering seed at different rates for

each seed drop. Partitions must be temporarily installed in the seedbox to keep seeds separated. With

some equipment the seeding rates cannot be individually adjusted for each seed drop, and carriers must be

added to dilute the material and regulate the flow

and amount of seed sown.

No single factor—species selection, planting depth, or

planting season—can be ignored when seedings are

made. Each factor is important, and unless all conditions

are favorable seedings will fail. Not properly covering

the seed, or planting at the wrong season because of

scheduling constraints, is unwise. Because seedings

are too often scheduled to accommodate other activities, failures can result and considerable funds may be

wasted. Problems associated with the expenditure of

funds from one year to the next have plagued agencies

for many years and have resulted in numerous seeding

failures. Solving such problems would significantly

improve the success of rehabilitation programs.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 155

Richard Stevens

13

Chapter

Incorporating Wildlife

Habitat Needs into

Restoration and

Rehabilitation Projects

Habitat Concepts_________________________________

Wildlife species richness, densities, and distribution are directly related to the quality and quantity of habitat (Autenrieth

1983; 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; Thomas

and others 1979a,c; Yoakum 1980). Productive big game ranges,

are generally productive livestock ranges. Productive livestock

ranges can, with proper planning and management, be productive wildlife ranges (fig. 1); however, many livestock range

improvement projects have been detrimental to wildlife, particularly to big game and sage-grouse.
156 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Any decision a manager makes that changes or

alters a vegetative community or landscape, alters

wildlife habitats. Range and wildland restoration and

rehabilitation projects that increase habitat diversity

will most likely be beneficial to wildlife (MacArthur

and MacArthur 1961; Roth 1976; Yahner 1988). Rehabilitation projects that result in monocultures of any

plant species or group of species, large open spaces,

minimal edge, limited cover, and scarcity of water are

undesirable and should be reconsidered. A primary

goal of any wildlife or wildlife-livestock rangeland

improvement project should be to improve wildlife

habitat.

Each wildlife species is a product of its environment. If an area has the right combination of habitat

components, it will have the potential to produce the

maximum amount of healthy wildlife. If an area lacks

just one habitat factor, or it is limited in quantity and

quality, then it is hindered in its ability to produce a

good balance of wildlife populations (Caughley 1979;

Dasmann 1971; Maser and Thomas 1983; Russo 1964;

Thomas and Bell 1987; Yoakum 1983). Improving

nonlimiting factors without improving the limiting

factors will do little to enhance the overall habitat or

positively affect the key habitat users.

No two wildlife species are affected by habitat changes

in the same way or to the same degree. Enhancement

of habitat for all species within a given area is not

always practical or possible. Key wildlife species

must be identified and projects designed and implemented to meet the needs of those species. Project

planning and implementation requires information

on the habitat needs of each selected wildlife species.

Figure 1—Productive wildlife and livestock range

rehabilitation project characterized by good diversity, high quality forage, and a good mixture of

grasses, forbs, shrubs, cover, and edge.

If an area provides optimum habitat for a key wildlife species, then wildlife habitat improvement cannot

be used as a justification for a rehabilitation and

restoration project. Wildlife habitat improvement can

be used in assessing costs and benefits of a proposed

improvement project only on those areas that provide

inadequate habitats for the key wildlife species and

where the project will enhance habitat needs.

A key to productive wildlife habitat is diversity in

space, cover, food, and water (Thomas and others

1979a,c) (fig. 2). As diversity in a plant community

increases, so does the diversity and health of the

animal community (Dealy and others 1981; Reynolds

1980; Thomas and others 1979c). If diversity is not

increased, the project most likely will not enhance

wildlife habitat.

Each plant community has its own individual potential as wildlife habitat. What is maximum diversity

and productivity in one community, most likely will

not be in another. Type and amount of diversity and

productivity in a black greasewood community for

example, will be vastly different from that in a mountain brush community.

Habitat improvement projects may be undertaken

for 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 implemented

3-year-old deer and elk rehabilitation project.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 157

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Whatever the basic reason for the project, these

wildlife considerations should be included in the planning and implementation of all projects:

1. Identify wildlife species that use the area and the

time of year the use occurs.

2. Identify wildlife species that would make use of

the area and the time of year the use would occur once

the project is completed.

3. Identify the key wildlife species for which the

project is being designed. Key species are not limited

to big game. Upland game birds, waterfowl, or nongame species might be key species.

4. Identify the types of use that the key wildlife

species make or have the potential to make of an area.

Types of use may include: (a) feeding, (b) sleeping and

resting, (c) security cover, (d) thermal cover, (e) travel

and migration, (f) breeding, (g) nesting, (h) birthing,

(i) rearing, (j) social activities, and (k) watering.

5. Determine the habitat factor(s) that currently

limit the key wildlife species; then plan, design, and

implement projects to ameliorate the limiting factor(s).

Food and Cover

Food and cover are usually interrelated. For some

animal species food and cover are provided by the

same plants. Sage-grouse eat sagebrush leaves, and

use the sagebrush as nesting and hiding cover. Mule

deer will use sagebrush, mountain mahogany, cliffrose,

Gambel oak, and other shrubs only as cover during

the spring and early summer while grazing understory herbs, yet these same shrubs furnish both forage

and cover in the fall and winter. Forage may be

available on an area but may not be used due to the

lack of proper cover.

When planning a rehabilitation project, diversity in

both the vertical and horizontal community, along

with the composition, location, amount, and type of

Figure 3—Two well designed, 1-year-old big

game range rehabilitation projects, on juniperpinyon areas. Allowances are made for security

and thermal cover, travel lanes, maximum edge

area, and quality forage.

cover are major components of wildlife habitat that

need to be considered. Manipulation of plant communities will create gradation in vegetation between

treated, and untreated areas (fig. 3). On some areas

more than one revegetation technique may be necessary, due to variation in site potential over the area.

The use of more than one seed mixture on a site can

result in ecotones between mixtures. Ecotones commonly produce high quality, heavily used security and

thermal cover, as well as forage (Yahner 1988).

The number of species used in seeding or planting

mixtures will vary with site potential, key species

requirements, and economics. For maximum wildlife

value, no single species should make up more than 35

percent (seed per pound, number of transplants) of any

mixture. Seedings that consist of only a few species or

one plant type (grass, forb, or shrubs) generally provide less productive wildlife ranges than do more

varied mixtures. In many cases, wildlife values are

compromised when improvement projects consist of

few plant species and only one plant type.

Multi-species revegetation projects can benefit

wildlife habitat by providing: (a) vertical and horizontal plant diversity, (b) increased forage production,

(c) improved variety and nutritional quality in the

diet, (d) more and better cover, (e) increased edge

effect, (f) increased diversity of the animal communities (Stevens 1986b; fig. 4), and (g) species that will be

resistant to drought, and responsive to normal and

above-normal precipitation. This allows the site to be

productive regardless of climatic conditions. Multispecies mixtures also help to enhance ground cover

and soil stabilization, make the seedings more aesthetically pleasing, and decrease the susceptibility of

the plant community to plant disease and insect problems (Stevens 1986b).

Figure 4—Mixture of native and exotic grasses,

forbs (alfalfa, small burnet, Utah sweetvetch),

and shrubs (mountain big sagebrush, antelope

bitterbrush, and Gambel oak) on a 12-year-old

juniper-pinyon rehabilitation project.
158 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Individual Species Needs _________

Mule Deer and Elk

Daily and seasonally, mule deer and elk use a variety of terrain and vegetation types for cover and

foraging. Migrating animals use lower winter ranges

through spring, then move to higher elevation summer ranges. Fawning and calving usually occur on

upper spring and lower summer ranges. Fall migration is largely influenced by weather. Snow precedes

migration from fall to winter ranges. In light or moderate winters, deer and elk may not move to winter

ranges at all. Elk generally winter at slightly higher

elevations than deer; however, during winters with

heavy and continuous snow, deer and elk may winter

for various periods of time in the same area. Spring

and fall ranges, therefore, need to provide plant species that will fulfill fall, winter, and spring requirements. Both cover and forage in proper quantity and

quality are essential for big game animals (Brown

1987; Leckenby 1984; Leckenby and others 1982;

Leege 1979b; Lyon and others 1985).

All age classes of mule deer and elk require high

quality succulent forage in the spring to recover from

winter stress, replenish body reserves, and to grow

and reproduce at optimal rates. Thus, rangeland improvement projects on fall, winter, and spring ranges

require the establishment of succulent, high quality

forbs, grasses, and browse. Small burnet, Lewis flax,

and Palmer penstemon are semi-evergreen forbs that

provide nearly year round forage. Alfalfa, cicer

milkvetch, nineleaf and Nuttall lomatium, Rocky

Mountain penstemon, and arrowleaf balsamroot provide early spring growth. Utah sweetvetch, sainfoin,

yellow sweetclover, crownvetch, and showy goldeneye

develop later in the season. All of these species are

heavily used in some seasons by all big game. Alfalfa

leaves and seed heads are sought out during all seasons. Sufficient plants of alfalfa or other highly sought

after species must be initially established in high

enough numbers to ensure their survival, as such

highly desirable plants can be killed through over use

(Rosenstock and Stevens 1989). On juniper-pinyon and

sagebrush-grass areas, a minimum of 1.5 to 2 lbs

(0.7 to 0.9 kg) of seed per acre must be applied to

ensure the establishment of a viable stand.

Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, needleand-thread, Russian wildrye, mountain rye, and bottlebrush squirreltail begin growth in early spring. Species that start growth later include crested wheatgrass,

sheep fescue, and orchardgrass. Grasses that begin

growth last include Great Basin wildrye, intermediate, slender, pubescent, and tall wheatgrass, and

smooth brome.

Generally, evergreen shrubs provide more nutritious forage during the dormant season than do

deciduous shrubs. Major evergreen shrubs include

curlleaf mountain mahogany, cliffrose, big sagebrush

(fig. 5), ephedra, rubber rabbitbrush, winterfat, and

forage kochia. Serviceberry, true mountain mahogany,

Gambel oak, bitterbrush, and fourwing saltbush lose

their leaves in the fall and early winter and supply

only twigs for winter forage.

Seed mixes should include species that fulfill seasonal forage quality requirements. Seed of a large

number of species are now available; care must be

used in selecting species and sources that are adapted

to each site and that satisfy animals needs (Asay and

Knowles 1985a,b; Ferguson 1983; McArthur 1983a;

Monsen 1987; Stevens 1983a,b; Urness 1986).

Some winter and spring-fall deer and elk ranges

may have sufficient browse, but lack forbs and

grasses. Succulent herbaceous species can be introduced on these depleted ranges. A pipe-harrow, diskchain, or chain can be used to thin mature depleted big

sagebrush (fig. 6), fourwing saltbush, rubber rabbitbrush, serviceberry, and Gambel oak stands, and to

cover broadcast seed. Spot or strip spraying with

effective herbicides, and selected prescribed burns are

effective methods of reducing and thinning Gambel

oak, aspen, pinyon-juniper, and big sagebrush stands

(Neuenschwander 1980; Wright and others 1979).

Seeding of desirable species should follow. Where a

single species of grass has been seeded on big game

winter or spring-fall ranges, other desirable species

can be established by transplanting or interseeding

into scalps, pits, spots, or strips created by mechanical

or chemical tillage (fig. 7) (Crofts and Carlson 1982;

Monsen and McArthur 1985; Otsyina 1980; Provenza

and Richards 1984; Rumbaugh and others 1981;

Stevens 1981).

Livestock management can be used to increase shrub

density in grass and shrub seedings. Early spring

Figure 5—Mule deer using low elevation mountain big sagebrush.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 159

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Figure 6—(A) A mature basin big sagebrush site with a depleted understory 1 year following diskchaining in strips and seeding. This area serves as habitat for sage-grouse, as well as winter range

for deer and elk. (B) Species seeded (bluebunch wheatgrass, orchardgrass, basin wildrye, alfalfa, cicer

milkvetch, sainfoin, small burnet, yellow sweetclover, and forage kochia) into a disk-chained area. Forage

and cover value of adjacent big sagebrush is retained, and succulent, nutritious, forage, and edge

areas are provided.

A B

Figure 8—Excellent high-elevation summer ranges

offer good diversity in forage and cover.

grazing with cattle can be used to reduce the vigor of

grasses and provide shrubs the opportunity to increase (Stevens 1986 b).

Ideal summer ranges consist primarily of grasses

and forbs (fig. 8). Rangeland improvement projects in

aspen, coniferous forest, and other higher elevation

summer ranges are appropriate in areas that are

depleted of perennials, highly erodible, and support

closed, unproductive vegetative communities (Debyle

1985a; Frischknecht 1983; Lyon and others 1985;

Patton and Jones 1977).

Figure 7—A palatable variety of rubber rabbitbrush transplanted into a crested wheatgrass

field 3 years after planting. Deer, elk, and pheasants moved into and used the area once the

shrubs were established and desirable forage

and cover were available.

Summer succulents are generally lacking on most

desert ranges. Rehabilitation project should include

adapted forbs, grasses, and shrubs. The tendency

has been to convert desert shrublands to single or

few-species grass communities. Many of these conversion projects have decreased wildlife values. Every effort should be made to ensure that adapted forbs

are included in seedings and that a variety of grasses,

forbs, and where needed, shrub species are used.

Elk generally summer in aspen, spruce-fir, ponderosa

pine, lodgepole pine, and subalpine areas (fig. 9). They
160 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

prefer grasses and forbs, wet and semi-wet meadows,

forest openings, and open grass herblands next to

cover (fig. 10). Elk seek out clearcuts and burns in

aspen and conifer forests, especially those with small

openings and irregular edges (Brown 1987).

Fire can be used as an effective tool for improving

wildlife habitat in aspen and conifer stands (Brown

1985b; Canon and others 1987; DeByle 1985b; DeByle

and others 1989). Openings in these stands can be

created by prescribed burns (fig. 11), timber harvest,

fuelwood harvests, and herbicides (Harniss and Bartos

1985). Optimum size of openings for maximum elk use

varies considerably. Factors affecting optimum size

include variation in topography, aspect, vegetative

communities, makeup of adjacent tree communities,

shape of opening, location of roads, and other disturbance sources (Brown 1987; Thomas and others

1979a,c). An opening can be larger if the edges are

Figure 9—Elk on excellent summer range with a

good mixture of succulent forbs and grasses.

Figure 10—Elk prefer openings and meadows

in aspen and conifer forests. Succulent forbs

and grasses are preferred on summer ranges.

Figure 11—Forbs and grasses have responded

to removal and thinning of mountain big sagebrush in this burned forest opening.

irregularly shaped, providing maximum edge effect

and ensuring that maximum distance between edges

at any one point in the opening is less than 500 ft

(152.4 m). Patches or islands of cover within openings

are sometimes desirable (Peek and Scott 1985; Winn

1985). Greatest benefits are realized when islands are

connected to edge by stringers of trees. The Interagency Workgroup (1981a) recommends that patches

or islands be 30 to 60 acres (12.1 to 24.3 ha). Allen

(1971) and Brown (1987) suggested that pattern and

juxtaposition of cutting units and openings may be

more important than number of acres treated.

On many summer ranges, forage is not a major

limiting factor. Lyon and others (1985) working on elk

summer ranges, concluded that selection of habitat for

forage alone was a less specific requirement than

selection for shelter and security. Collins and Urness

(1983) found that elk preferred aspen stands over

adjacent clearcut areas, even though the clearcuts

produced considerably more available and palatable

forage. The proper ratio between cover and forage for

elk differs from area to area and from forest type to

forest type (Brown 1987; Interagency Workgroup

1981a,b; Peek and Scott 1985; Thomas and others

1979c; Winn 1985). Slash left following timber harvest

can adversely affect elk use of clearcuts and adjacent

areas (Lyon 1975). It is recommended that slash be

removed, preferably by broadcast burning to a height

of less than 1.5 ft (0.5 m) (Interagency Workgroup

1981a,b).

Spring and fall ranges for elk are generally in the

mountain brush and lower aspen community. Elk seek

out succulents in the form of green grasses and forbs.

Dry and semi-evergreen grasses and forbs, and some

shrubs, are consumed during fall and spring. Rehabilitation projects in these areas should emphasize species
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 161

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

that green early in the spring and stay green late into

the fall. Escape and thermal cover are especially

important on spring, fall, and winter ranges (Peek and

Scott 1985; Winn 1985). Rehabilitation and restoration projects should leave undisturbed cover in sufficient quantity and quality, strategically placed to

accommodate elk and deer requirements (fig. 3). Known

calving and fawning areas should be left undisturbed.

In the Intermountain West (Idaho, Montana, Nevada,

and Utah), hundreds of thousands of acres of pinyon

and juniper have been chained or burned and seeded.

In the late 1950s and 1960s, projects involved seeding

primarily introduced grasses, a few forbs (alfalfa and

yellow sweetclover), and a few slow-growing shrub

species. Projects usually produced large openings with

little edge and a lack of thermal or security cover. As

these older projects developed with time, deer and elk

use increased (Barney and Frischknecht 1974; Stager

and Klebenow 1987; Stevens 1986a; Tueller and Monroe 1975). Trees that were not killed during chaining

have grown and now provide much needed cover

(fig. 12) (Stevens 1986a; Van Pelt and others 1990).

Introduced and native shrubs have had a chance to

grow, reproduce, and spread (Skousen and others

1986; Stevens 1987b). Many mature seedings are now

providing forage and cover for elk and deer during fall,

winter, and spring. Elk especially are staying on older,

more mature juniper-pinyon improvement projects

the entire year (fig. 13). The question is often asked,

“What are we going to do about the juniper and pinyon

trees that are growing on older chainings?” As far as

big game is concerned, the answer should be, “Very

little or nothing.” Juniper and pinyon trees, especially those over 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, provide excellent

thermal and security cover. As habitat requirements

were better understood and techniques, equipment,

Figure 12—Young pinyon and juniper trees in

an 18-year-old juniper-pinyon chaining. Deer

make extensive use of forage where cover is

available.

Figure 13—Eighteen-year-old juniper-pinyon

project used extensively by elk year round, and by

deer during winter and spring.

seed of additional grass, forb, and shrub species became available, projects improved. Almost immediate

positive effects on mule deer and elk populations

have occurred on more recent, well-planned juniperpinyon chainings and burns. These have incorporated

multi-species mixtures of succulent forbs, grasses, and

rapidly growing shrubs, employed proper treatment

design for maximum edge area (fig. 14), regulated size

of openings, and left travel lanes and escape-andthermal cover within the project area.

Thermal cover becomes very important, and many

times it is the limiting factor for survival of wintering

elk and deer (Fowler and Dealy 1987; Hobbs 1989).

Maximum distance between edges should not exceed

325 ft (99.1 m). Best results have been obtained when

groups or islands of trees have been connected with

corridors and edges, rather than with isolated islands. No more that 50 percent of an area should be

treated. Undisturbed areas should be no longer or no

smaller than disturbed areas. Patches or islands of

trees, and travel lanes (fig. 14) that are left for deer

should be selected carefully. Leckenby and others

(1982) recommend that either evergreen or deciduous

trees and shrubs can be used for thermal cover, but

they should be at least 5 ft (1.5 m) tall, and the crown

closure within the island should be greater than 75

percent. Cherry (1984) recommends that security islands can be from one tree to 100 acres (40.5 ha). The

size of areas left for thermal cover should be at least

2 to 5 acres (0.8 to 2.0 ha). Topographic features are

used for security cover, but have limited value as

thermal cover (Fowler and Dealy 1987; Wood 1988).

Activities of mule deer are associated with vegetation

density (Owen 1980). Security cover requirements are

generally highest during fawning, calving, and hunting seasons. Optimum security cover for mule deer on

shrublands has been defined as vegetation over 24

inches (61.0 cm) tall and capable of hiding 90 percent

of a bedded deer from view at 150 ft (45.7 m) or less
162 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

(Leckenby and others 1982). Security cover requirements are less for bedded fawns, and more for standing fawns and mature animals. Phenological development of plants can influence the effectiveness of an

area to provide cover. During the growing season,

shrubs, trees, and grasses furnish maximum cover.

Cover decreases as leaves drop. Size of thermal and

security cover areas varies with density and height of

vegetation. Areas with vegetation over 5 ft (1.5 m) tall

and fairly dense can be smaller than areas with shorter,

less dense vegetation or where mature conifers are

highlined. Downed trees can be used as cover (Cherry

1984; Short and McCulloch 1977); however, as downed

trees break up and decay their effectiveness as cover

decreases.

Figure 14—Five-year-old range rehabilitation

projects with excellent and intermediate big game

values. (A) A good mixture of succulent, earlygreening grasses and forbs, and fast-growing

(white rubber rabbitbrush, fourwing saltbush,

and big sagebrush) and slower growing (bitterbrush and green ephedra) shrubs. Quality edge

areas and security and thermal cover are available. (B) This seeding mixture was made up

primarily of exotic aggressive grasses on this

area. 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 the

Intermountain West. In many places it is the dominant plant on winter and spring ranges for mule deer

and elk. On many desert ranges it is browsed and

used as cover year round. In the basin big sagebrush

type, where the understory has been lost, the potential

for range improvement is generally high. Big sagebrush can be killed with prescribed fire (Bunting and

others 1987), herbicides, plows, rails, chains, and

disks. Thinning and spot or strip treatments (fig. 6)

are recommended on most big sagebrush ranges. A

large number of grasses, forbs, and shrubs are adapted

to the various big sagebrush types (Stevens 1983b,

1987a). Diversity of food and cover types over short

distances is the key to enhancing mule deer populations

in big sagebrush areas (Holecheck 1981). The distribution and pattern of a shrub stand is generally far more

important than the quantity of brush. If sufficient

sagebrush is available to meet an animal’s cover and

browse requirements, quantity and quality of succulent forbs and grasses become the second most limiting

factor.

Ideal late fall and winter ranges for mule deer

and elk are sites where shrubs extend above the snow

(fig. 15). Elk and deer also make use of most herbs that

are exposed by snowmelt or that extend above the

snow. Austin and others (1983) report that ungrazed

crested wheatgrass is more available and is used more

by deer than are grazed plants. Snow around and on

ungrazed plants melts faster and plants are available

over larger periods of time. On some winter ranges, elk

spend considerable time on open, windswept ridges

where plants are exposed. Great basin wildrye (fig. 16)

Figure 15—Quality deer winter ranges require shrubs

that extend above the snow. Mountain and basin big

sagebrush, black sagebrush, fourwing saltbush, and

rabbitbrush are available during the winter period.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 163

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Figure 16—Elk range rehabilitation project. Great

Basin wildrye was seeded to provide forage that

will extend above snow level.

and, to a lesser extent, tall wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass are three species that can extend

above moderate snow levels. Evergreen shrubs such

as cliffrose, big and black sagebrush, curlleaf mountain mahogany, ephedra, rubber rabbitbrush, forage

kochia, and winterfat (fig. 17), generally provide more

forage than do deciduous shrubs such as fourwing

saltbush, bitterbrush, true mountain mahogany, and

serviceberry. In the absence of snow, or when elk and

deer are able to paw through the snow, they prefer and

will seek out evergreen and semi-evergreen species

such as forage kochia, Lewis flax, small burnet, and

Palmer penstemon. Range improvement projects should

include adapted species that provide nutritious forage

during the dormant season.

Figure 17—Rubber rabbitbrush, mountain big

sagebrush, and forage kochia established by

seeding, provide evergreen forage year round to

elk and deer on an 8-year-old-rehabilitation

project.

Rapid seedling development of a shrub is an important consideration in selecting shrubs for wildlife

plantings (fig. 17). Big sagebrush, fourwing saltbush,

winterfat, rubber rabbitbrush, and forage kochia exceed most other shrubs in their growth rate, rate of

recovery following browsing, and ability of young plants

to survive browsing. Planting these shrubs with slower

growing shrubs is a means of providing forage and

cover very quickly and allowing slower developing

species time to establish (Monsen 1987). Fall, winter,

and spring range improvement projects should be

designed to encourage and increase desirable onsite

shrubs. Bitterbrush, cliffrose, mountain mahoganies,

ephedras, serviceberry, blue elderberry, big sagebrush,

Gambel oak, and rubber rabbitbrush can all be suppressed by pinyon and juniper. Once the trees are

removed these shrubs will respond rapidly, put on

considerable growth, and may reproduce. Smooth anchor chains or cables should be used for chaining

pinyon and juniper with the intent of releasing shrubs.

A smooth chain does less damage to shrubs than does

any other type of chain. Less shrub damage results if

the chain is held taut and the crawler tractors travel

further apart. When sufficient shrubs exist, shrubs

can be left out of the seeding plan. Forbs and a few

grasses may be seeded to fill in the interspaces and

tree root pits to prevent invasion of undesirable annuals and to stabilize soils and reduce erosion.

In most cases, areas heavily used by animals are

sites that are the most difficult and costly to improve.

South and west facing slopes and ridgetops are generally more open and heavily used. They are also most

often depleted of desirable vegetation. Poor access,

less favorable soil temperatures, high evaporation

rates, winds, shallow soils, predominance of annual

weeds, and concentrated use by animals can reduce

the success of improvement projects. Rehabilitation

projects on more favorable sites such as basins, valley

bottoms, and north and east facing slopes will not

compensate for lack of treatment on the more preferred south and west slopes, and ridgetops (fig. 2, 3,

10, 14). It is on these latter sites where big game

naturally concentrate. Many times these areas are the

only sites open and available when other areas are

covered with snow. Rehabilitation projects should be

planned for areas most used by big game. Sites should

not be selected for treatment based on forage potential

(Short and McCulloch 1977) ease of treatment, or

anticipated future use by big game.

Big game depredation problems on agricultural

lands can be reduced, and in some cases eliminated,

by providing game animals cover and an alternate

source of forage. Wildlands adjacent to farm lands can

be used to intercept big game. On agricultural lands

deer and elk generally seek succulent plants. Where

sufficient succulent and highly preferred plants are
164 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

provided along with security and thermal cover, animal use can be diverted from agricultural fields. Range

improvement projects with travel lanes and escape

cover adjacent to agricultural fields encourage big

game to use the fields. Establishment of travel lanes

and escape cover that enhance access to agricultural

fields should be avoided. However, at times, big game

will cross large, open areas to use highly desirable

forage.

Shiras Moose

Shiras moose (fig. 18) are generally found in mountain brush, aspen, mixed conifers, and subalpine communities. In central Utah they use juniper-pinyon and

upper sagebrush-grass areas. As snow melts and

succulent grasses and forbs appear, moose turn from

their browse diet to succulent species. Grasses and

forbs are used abundantly from snowmelt to mid June

and early July. Willows and aspen (Babcock 1981;

Wilson 1971) are major components of their diet in late

summer and early fall. By September their diet is

almost exclusively browse. Willow and aspen are important browse species all winter, along with Gambel

oak, serviceberry, chokecherry, and true mountain,

and curlleaf mountain mahogany. Depending on occurrence and availability, cottonwood, birch, elderberry, snowberry, maple, antelope bitterbrush, and

cliffrose can be important fall and winter browse. It

does not appear that moose use mountain big sagebrush to any great extent.

During summer months, moose require water and

shade in close proximity to succulent forage. Aspen,

aspen-spruce-fir, aspen-lodgepole pine, and willow bottoms are important summering areas. Movement from

summer to fall and winter ranges can mean moving

only from a north or east facing slope, around the hill

to south- or west-facing slopes at the same elevation,

or it can mean movement down a drainage, or from one

drainage to another (Babcock 1981). Time of movement is triggered by the switch in diet from succulents

to browse and not by snow depth. Fall, winter, and

spring ranges are generally shrub communities with

open side hills. Moose generally winter at a higher

elevation 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 to

move.

Beneficial range improvement projects on spring

and summer moose ranges are those that increase

herbaceous succulents. This can be accomplished by

seeding adapted grasses and forbs into depleted openings in aspen, conifer, and subalpine communities

that are adjacent to water and shade. Where summer,

fall, and winter ranges overlap, special consideration should be given to enhancing the availability

and quantity of browse. Projects should never decrease browse quantity.

Figure 18—Moose on a summer range

with a variety of succulent forage.

Fall, winter, and spring range improvement projects

in moose habitat should be designed to increase and

improve browse. Prescribed burning or accidental fire

in aspen, aspen-spruce-fir, and aspen-lodgepole pine

communities can promote sprouting of aspen (DeByle

1985b). Burning closed, mature lodgepole pine stands

does not generally benefit moose. Moose show particular preference for aspen reproduction. On fall, winter,

and spring ranges commercial harvest, chaining, or

any other type of disturbance that promotes aspen

sprouting should be encouraged. Chaining and burning of thick, tall Gambel oak (Stevens and Davis 1985),

willow, chokecherry, and maple stands can result in

more nutritious and available browse. As on all moose

range, no treatment should decrease the amount or

availability of browse.

Antelope

Forage needs, plant size, and species density requirements for pronghorn antelope are specific, and

critical to animal survival (fig. 19) (Yoakum 1983).

Rehabilitation of antelope ranges must include consideration of proper forage and plant structure requirements (Autenrieth 1983; Kindschy and others

1982; Neff 1986; Yoakum 1980, 1983).

In most cases, rehabilitation of antelope ranges is

best restricted to flats, bottoms, and valleys. Open

ridges and slopes on some areas should not be treated,

because plant community structure is generally

adequate. Flat bottoms and valleys are the areas

where forage and plant structure requirements are

generally lacking. These areas frequently have the

highest site potential and provide the best opportunity for rehabilitation efforts that will benefit antelope.

Shrubs are a most important component of antelope

habitat. Availability of shrubs as winter forage has

been directly linked to antelope survival (Barrett
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 165

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Figure 19—Antelope on black sage and Wyoming

big sagebrush range. This community has a good

mixture of grasses, forbs, and low-growing shrubs.

Clear, unrestricted vision is provided.

1982; Bayless 1969; Kindschy and others 1982; Neff

1986; Smith and Beale 1980; Yoakum 1980). Shrubs

are used as cover for young fawns as well as for

adults. Big and black sagebrush, low and rubber

rabbitbrush, winterfat, budsage, and bitterbrush are

all important forage and cover species for antelope.

These shrubs should be protected and managed as a

part of the natural plant community. If necessary,

they should be included in improvement projects on

sites where they are adapted.

Excessively high shrub density can suppress much

needed forbs and grasses (Yoakum 1980, 1983). Shrubs

over 2 ft (0.6 m) tall can impede animal mobility and

provide cover for predators (Yoakum 1983). Yoakum

(1983) suggested that a plant community containing

five to 10 shrub species that comprise 30 to 50 percent

of the ground cover provides optimum vegetation for

antelope. Shrub communities that are too dense or

too tall can be thinned using a pipe harrow, disk-chain

(fig. 6), anchor chain, or rail. Grasses and forbs can be

seeded prior to or in conjunction with the treatment.

Forbs are essential to antelope. Fawns as well as

mature animals use forbs when available. Rehabilitation projects should be designed to encourage and

increase forbs on all antelope ranges. Alfalfa is highly

preferred by antelope. Other forbs that antelope use,

and for which seed is available are small burnet,

Lewis flax, sainfoin, Utah sweetvetch, yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, globemallow, alfileria, western

yarrow, balsamroot, goldeneye, lupine, and Palmer

penstemon.

Monotypic shrublands and grasslands are generally poor antelope habitat. Antelope make only slight

use of pure fairway crested wheatgrass stands. Considerable use is made of areas where alfalfa and other

forbs are found along with fairway crested wheatgrass

(Hall 1985; Kindschy and others 1982; Urness 1986;

Yoakum 1979). Diversity in plant community makeup

enhances antelope ranges. Forbs and grasses can be

incorporated into shrub communities as well as forbs

and shrubs into grass communities.

Rehabilitation projects should be designed to encourage and increase forbs on all antelope ranges.

Prescribed burns are sometimes used as a range improvement technique. Burns should be planned for

seasons when they are the least harmful to forbs.

Livestock management plans should be designed so

that severe competition for forbs between antelope

and livestock is avoided.

Antelope consume grasses year-around in small

amounts (Urness 1986; Yoakum 1980, 1983). Use is

greatest in the spring when new growth is available.

They prefer the less coarse species like the bluegrasses

and fescues. Grasses should be included in rehabilitation projects, but should not make up the majority of

any seed mixture.

Mature antelope generally do not require security

cover; but fawns do. Security to mature antelope is

clear unrestricted vision and rapid mobility. Antelope

prefer low growing vegetation, open valleys, and level

to moderate topography. Antelope will, however, modify

their behavior according to local conditions. In central

Utah, antelope are found in a number of vegetative

communities ponderosa pine, aspen parklands, sagebrush grass, and salt desert shrublands.

Barriers to antelope movement include net wire

fences, large bodies of water, large rivers, deep canyons, rocky ridges, and dense brush and trees. Dangerous and restrictive fences can be removed or rebuilt

and dense shrubs and trees can be removed and

trimmed. An inadequate water supply can restrict

antelope use. Where needed, consideration should be

given to developing and improving water sources.

Bighorn Sheep

Bighorn sheep are generally found in remote, rugged

terrain such as mountains, canyons, and escarpments (fig. 20). The major habitat requirements for

bighorn are forage, water, thermal cover, escape

cover, and adequate rutting and lambing areas.

Bighorn sheep prefer to feed in open areas with low

vegetation, like grasses and low shrubs (Hansen 1980).

Various sagebrush-bunchgrass communities, and wet

and semi-wet meadow communities are preferred.

Successional communities that result from wildfire,

prescribed burns, and seedings are used if location and

composition are suitable. Grass can be the staple of the

bighorn sheep diet. They do, however, use a variety of

shrubs and forbs (Johnson and Smith 1980). Bighorn

sheep are opportunistic foragers, and will adapt their

diet to what is available (Browning and Monson 1980).

They prefer green forage, and will move to different

areas to find more-preferred forage. Bighorn sheep

foraging areas usually have tree and shrub cover of
166 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Figure 20—Bighorn sheep prefer remote, steep,

rugged terrain. (A) Desert bighorn. (B) Rocky Mountain 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 can

affect the use of feeding areas. Foraging areas located

more than 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from escape terrain, and

farther than 1 mi (1.6 km) from water are used very

little (VanDyke and others 1983).

Escape and rutting areas are generally associated

with cliffs and steep, rough, rocky, inaccessible terrain

(fig. 20). Disturbances, and increased human and

livestock use can destroy the value of areas for escape,

rutting, and lambing purposes. Travel corridors between seasonal feeding areas should be protected, and

not disturbed.

Lambing and foraging areas can be improved through

rehabilitation projects and water development. Because escape cover and availability of water are so

important to bighorn sheep, little to no use of improved

areas will occur unless escape cover and water is

available. Water developments can be undertaken to

improve existing sources and to make new sources

available. Development of water near escape cover can

make otherwise unused ranges usable.

Location of a proposed improvement project on

bighorn sheep range should be considered first.

Increasing the amount of open habitat and the quantity of high quality forage should be the primary goals

of bighorn sheep habitat improvement projects.

Fire or chaining can be used in opening up tree and

shrub stands and in improving forage quality and

quantity. Where understory species density and richness is lacking, preferred species can be seeded.

Sage-Grouse

Seventy-five percent of the annual diet of an adult

sage-grouse may consist of sagebrush leaves and shoots

(Autenrieth 1980a). During the fall and winter over

95 percent of the diet may be sagebrush; during the

spring, 85 percent; and during the summer, 40 percent. The species and subspecies of sagebrush used

varies among areas. The birds do, however, make

more use of shrubs where adequate cover is provided.

Forbs are especially sought out by both adults and

young during spring and summer. Insects and forbs

are very important to chicks and subadults (Autenrieth

1980a; Roberson 1986). A chick’s diet for the first 30

days may consist primarily of insects. Brood-rearing

areas, therefore, need to contain a rich diversity of

forbs and shrubs; which in turn will help supply an

abundance of insects. Wet meadows are important

brood-rearing areas, as they provide an abundance of

forbs and insects.

Over the past 150 years, hundreds of thousands of

acres of prime sage-grouse habitat have been disturbed or destroyed by excessive livestock use, construction activities, mining, petroleum production activities, fire, herbicides, mechanical treatment, and

the seeding of grasses (Braun and others 1976, 1977;

Fleischner 1994; Swenson and others 1987). All of

these factors have resulted in fragmentation and reduction of sagebrush communities. Many remaining

sagebrush areas are too small to support viable sagegrouse populations. Populations have been overharvested in many areas. From loss of habitat and

over-harvest, sage-grouse densities have decreased in

many areas, and populations have been completely

eliminated in others (Autenrieth 1980b; Welch and

others 1990).

Range and wildland rehabilitation projects that

take into consideration the habitat requirements of

sage-grouse provide benefits for both wildlife and

livestock. When sagebrush control is being planned,

serious consideration should be given to sage-grouse

habitat requirements. These requirements have been

identified and described by a number of agencies and

authors (Autenrieth and others 1982; Braun and others

1977; Call 1979; Call and Maser 1985; Roberson 1986).

These authors report sage-grouse require year round,

quality sagebrush habitat for breeding, nesting, brood

rearing, loafing, and cover.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 167

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Hens nest almost exclusively under big sagebrush

plants. They prefer tall plants and those with an

umbrella type canopy (Autenrieth 1981; Call 1979)

(fig. 21). Canopy cover requirement for nesting has

been found to be from 20 to 40 percent (Roberson 1984;

USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975). If there is too

much or too little canopy cover, nesting will not occur.

Nest success and early brood survival appear related

to residual cover of grasses and forbs during April

through June (Drut and others 1994; Gregg and others

1994). It has been found (Beck 1977; Patterson 1952)

that winter survival is dependent upon the amount of

sagebrush available from January through March.

Within each range rehabilitation project, the specific

type of use that occurs within the area needs to be

identified.

Sagebrush control, thinning, or other efforts aimed

at reducing shrub density should not occur on wintering areas, within 2 mi (3.2 km) of a lek (fig. 22), when

nesting or brooding habitat is limited, or during periods of nesting and brood rearing. Sagebrush density

should not be reduced when live sagebrush canopy

cover is less than 20 percent (this does not mean an

average of 20 percent of the complete area, but 20

percent where sagebrush reduction is to occur), on

shallow soils, or where sagebrush is less than 12

inches (30.5 cm) high (Braun and others 1977; Call

1979; Call and Maser 1985). Mountain big sagebrush

adjacent to spruce-fir and aspen should be avoided or

treated very sparingly. Ideal brood-rearing areas

should have meadows or herbland openings next to or

within sagebrush stands. Meadows and herblands can

have invading shrubs removed. No sagebrush control

should occur within 300 ft (91.4 m) of meadows,

herblands, and streams (perpetual or intermittent).

Figure 21—Sage-grouse nest under an umbrella canopy of mountain big sagebrush.

Ridgetops and slopes in sage-grouse habitat are

generally not treated because sagebrush is generally

sparse in these locations. Bottoms and meadows are

more likely areas for sagebrush control.

A number of techniques are available for enhancing

meadows, increasing herbs within sagebrush stands,

increasing edge, and changing the vertical and horizontal structure of a sagebrush stand. Sagebrush

stands can be improved for sage-grouse by strict and

proper use of a number of herbicides; however, mechanical control and prescribed burns are the most

desirable techniques.

The most widely used herbicides are 2,4-D and

Roundup. Herbicide application early in the spring,

when the ground is still covered with snow, is preferred as it will kill only those sagebrush plants that

extend above snow level, and not the forbs. Spraying

following snowmelt will increase sagebrush kill and

also kill most emerged forbs (Carpenter 1974). Proper

use of an herbicide will thin dense sagebrush and

release understory forbs and grasses.

Herbicides can also be used to create mosaics in

sagebrush stands and to increase edge area. Care

must be taken when applying herbicides to ensure

that only targeted areas are sprayed. To avoid herbicide drift, spraying should not occur when windspeed

is greater than 6 mi per hr (9.7 km/h). Spraying is best

done with ground rigs and from low-flying helicopters.

When herbicides are used to create openings, only

irregular strip and spot spraying should occur. A total

of no more than one third of any area should be sprayed

(including the area affected by drift). Treated areas

should not be wider than 100 ft (30.5 m) (Klott and

Lindzey 1990; USDA Soil Conservation Service 1975),

and unsprayed areas should be as wide or wider than

the sprayed areas.

When range rehabilitation projects are done on

sage-grouse areas, anchor chaining, and the use of a

pipe harrow is preferable to the use of herbicides. A

pipe harrow can be used to: (1) thin sagebrush

stands; (2) create edge area and mosaic openings;

Figure 22—Male sage-grouse on a lek.
168 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

(3) encourage forb, grass, and meadow communities

by removing competing shrubs; and (4) prepare seedbeds and cover broadcast seed. Meandering strip chaining, pipe harrowing, or light disk-chaining following

terrain features are preferred methods (fig. 6). Block

and checkerboard clearing and thinning of large areas

are 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 than

the untreated areas. When chaining, less damage will

occur to shrubs when the chain is dragged somewhat

tight rather than in a deep U or J shape between the

crawler tractors. Plowing and disking of sagebrush is

very destructive to sage-grouse habitat and is not

recommended. When disturbance does occur, desirable species should be seeded to establish desirable

plant cover and to prevent establishment of annuals.

A number of forb species are available that can be

seeded successfully into various sagebrush and meadow

communities. These include: alfalfa, white and yellow

sweetclover, adapted clovers, birdsfoot trefoil, crownvetch, cicer milkvetch, lupine, sainfoin, small burnet,

Rocky Mountain and Palmer penstemon, western yarrow, Lewis flax, globemallow, vegetable-oyster salsify,

Louisiana sage, alfileria, lomatium, showy goldeneye,

and Nevada goldeneye.

Prescribed burns, when used properly, can be beneficial to sage-grouse. Meadow areas and valley bottoms that are being invaded by sagebrush and other

shrubs can be burned to remove shrubs. Shrub removal can result in meadow enhancement and

healthier insect populations. Fire should occur early

in the spring, prior to forb and grass emergence, or in

the fall after grasses and forbs have dried. In the

spring, snow will leave areas with sparse shrub cover

prior to areas with heavier cover. Fire should be set

only in the snow free areas (meadows and bottoms).

Snow and damp ground can help confine the fire to the

desired areas and can result in an improved mosaic

burn pattern. Forbs and grasses are generally not out

of the ground immediately following snowmelt and

are less harmed by fire (Wright and others 1979). Fire

can create openings that may be used as leks. Call and

Maser (1985) recommended that such lek openings be

of l to 10 acres (0.4 to 4.0 ha).

Wet to semiwet meadows are important to sagegrouse. Those that have deteriorated through livestock use lack forbs and desirable species. Proper

livestock management of riparian sites will significantly benefit sage-grouse.

Columbian Sharp-Tail Grouse

Columbian sharp-tail grouse are absent from 90 percent 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 primarily of hills, benchlands, and rolling topography

dominated by sagebrush and perennial grasses, with

adjacent mountain brush and aspen. They also inhabit

riparian areas extending out into sagebrush-grass areas (fig. 23) (Klott and Lindzey 1990; Marks and Marks

1988).

The diet of Columbian sharp-tail grouse is made up

primarily of seeds, leaves, and floral parts of forbs,

grasses, shrubs, and agricultural crops. During winter, buds from chokecherry, serviceberry, mahogany,

poplar, maple, rose (hips), aspen, and hawthorn are

used extensively (Hart and others 1950; Marks and

Marks 1988; Marks and Marks 1987; Moyles 1981).

Once snow is deep enough to allow sharp-tail grouse

access to sagebrush seedheads, considerable use is

made of the seed, floral parts, and upper leaves.

Snow may, however, cover up this important source

of food and cover. Insects are very important in the

diet of juvenile birds 2 to 4 weeks old.

Cover, feeding, nesting, and brood-rearing areas are

closely associated with edge areas, riparian areas, and

communities having a rich diversity of shrubs, forbs,

and grasses. Lek are very sparsely covered by low

stature vegetation, often having numerous bare areas

(Kobridger 1965; USDA Forest Service 1985; Waage

1989; Ward 1984). Areas of use can vary between

seasons (Marks and Marks 1987; Moyles and Boag

Figure 23—Columbian sharp-tail

grouse on a 5-year-old grass-forb

seeding.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 169

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

1981). Movement to wintering areas can be triggered

by snow depth and availability of food and cover.

Sharp-tail grouse prefer mixed vegetative communities. Shrub communities with a variety of cover

types and a diversity in food items are preferred.

Canopy cover of shrubs should not exceed 20 to 40

percent (Marks and Marks 1987; McArdle 1976). Dense

sagebrush stands can restrict the grouse’s visibility,

adversely affect the desired variety and abundance of

understory forbs and grasses, and provide ideal habitat for predators. Sharp-tail grouse habitat can be

enhanced by proper vegetative manipulation

(Autenrieth and others 1977). Reducing the density of

sagebrush, creating mosaic patterns within various

plant communities, and introducing desirable and

adapted grasses, shrubs, and forbs can all improve

sharp-tail grouse habitat. Plant communities can be

thinned by chaining, disk-chaining, use of herbicides,

and fire. The same precautions and concerns expressed

for the use of herbicides on sage-grouse range apply

to sharp-tail grouse range.

Comparing the effects of chaining, spraying, and

burning on sharp-tail grouse activities, McArdle (1976)

found that sharp-tail grouse showed a definite preference for rehabilitated areas during spring, summer,

and fall, and that chained areas were most preferred.

Cover, edge area, and quantity and quality of food

were greatest on the chained areas. Mosaic patterns

can be effectively created and desirable species seeded

with the proper use of a disk-chain followed by seeding

(fig. 6). DeByle (1985c) reports that sharp-tail grouse

prefer the early successional stages of aspen, which

would suggest that fire or logging can be used to

remove mature aspen and increase sprouting, thereby

increasing sharp-tail grouse use. Variation in vegetative communities, species composition, density, cover,

edge area, and disturbance is especially important

within a 1 mile (1.6 km) radius of leks (Baydack and

Hein 1987; USDA Forest Service 1985; Ward 1984).

Preferred species that can be seeded on favorable

sites include: alfalfa, small burnet, Lewis flax, lupine,

yellow sweetclover, cicer milkvetch, sunflower,

balsamroot, yarrow, showy and Nevada goldeneye,

wheatgrasses, perennial and annual grains, Great

Basin wildrye, and orchardgrass.

Ruffed Grouse

Aspen is the primary home of ruffed grouse in the

Intermountain West. Aspen is heavily used as food

and cover throughout most of the year (fig. 24) (Barber

and others 1989a,b; DeByle 1985c; Doerr and others

1974; Phillips 1965; Roberson and Leathan 1988).

However, an aspen community must possess suitable

density and plant species composition to make it good

grouse habitat.

During the spring, ruffed grouse feed almost exclusively on aspen flower buds, catkins, and leaves (Barber

and others 1989b). As the season progresses, catkins

and leaves of other poplars and willows and leaves of

emerging forbs are consumed. During the summer

months, leaves, fruits, and seeds of forbs, grasses, and

sedges are selected. In the fall, the diet gradually

changes to leaves and flower buds of mature aspen.

Rose hips, and seeds of forbs, especially those of

meadowrue are very important and are used extensively. Winter diets are dominated by buds and twigs

of 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. Chicks

use insects very heavily for the first 5 weeks and then

start to use increasing amounts of vegetative matter

(Barber and others 1989b; DeByle 1985b,c; Gullion

1968; Landry 1980; Phillips 1965).

The home range of males and females is generally

small, 20 to 50 acres (8.1 to 20.2 ha). Small home

ranges are characteristically found in localized, widely

separated patches of suitable habitat, or in areas

with considerable diversity of habitat types.

Ruffed grouse do not generally migrate. They are

the most widely distributed nonmigrating game bird

in North America (Barber and others 1989b). In the

Intermountain West they are found year round in

aspen, spruce-fir-aspen mixes, and in patches of

maple and other shrub species along streams and

around springs.

Preferred habitats are those that have a diversity

of plant communities. The single most important

component of ruffed grouse habitat is brood cover

(Barber and others 1989a,b; Landry 1980). Good

Figure 24—Ruffed grouse.
170 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

brood habitat consists of sapling aspen, intermediate

aged aspen, and aspen intermixed with, or adjacent

to, mountain brush species along streams with sufficient understory of grasses and forbs to supply quality summer food (Barber and others 1989a,b; Gullion

1990; Runkles and Thompson 1989; Thompson 1989).

Summer and fall activities are greatest in sapling

and immature aspen stands; winter and spring activities are greatest among mature aspen.

Well planned and executed vegetative manipulation

can be beneficial to ruffed grouse. The goal in habitat

improvement should be to provide a diversity of aspen

age classes so that food, roosting, and cover requirements are met in a manner consistent with the limited

mobility of this bird (Gullion 1990; Thompson 1989). A

number of recommendations for improving ruffed

grouse habitat have been made (Gullion 1968, 1990;

Landry 1980; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

1978). Recommendations include: aspen saplings 5 to

25 years old, with densities in the range of 3,000 to

8,000 per acre (7,400 to 12,300 per ha); small irregular

clearcuts up to 10 acres (4.0 ha) in size, but no more

than 330 ft (100.6 m) wide; burning of clearcut areas

following cutting; use of cutting cycles and cutting

patterns that will maintain both young and old aspen

in close proximity or interspersed; maintenance of

dense shrub borders and the seeding of clearcuts;

burns; creation of disturbed areas with succulent forbs

(with special emphasis on clovers, vetches, other legumes, and shade tolerant succulent grasses).

Blue Grouse

Blue grouse are migratory. In the summer and fall

they can be found in aspen, mountain brush (fig. 25),

and mountain big sagebrush. In the late fall they

generally migrate up in elevation into Douglas-fir,

subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and other higher

elevation conifers (Roberson and Leatham 1988).

Spring migration is triggered by snowmelt. Birds

move down in elevation when openings in the snow

appear under the aspen, in the mountain brush, and

the mountain big sagebrush communities. Fall movement generally occurs in September (Rogers 1968;

Utah DWR 1978; Weber 1975).

Conifers are used extensively in the winter for cover

and food (Hoffman 1961). In Utah, Douglas-fir needles

are the single biggest winter food item. Considerable

use is also made of currant bushes as cover. In the

summer, adults feed extensively on seeds and leaves

of forbs, especially legumes. As the season progresses

and the forbs dry up, feeding shifts to leaves of shrubs,

particularly serviceberry and snowberry. Juvenile

birds’ major food item for the first 3 months of life is

insects, especially grasshoppers (Weber 1975). Plant

material and seeds become more important as they

grow and mature.

Weber (1975) reports that most nesting occurs under

mountain big sagebrush. Diversity in community

makeup is very important to blue grouse. They prefer

areas with trees, shrubs, open flats, and riparian sites

in close proximity to each other.

Vegetative rehabilitation projects can be beneficial

to blue grouse if planned and executed properly. Items

that should be considered on blue grouse ranges include: creation of small openings or clearcuts up to

5 acres (2.0 ha) in any of the inhabited communities;

creation of openings with maximum edge area; and

seedings that include the maximum number of succulent forbs, with special emphasis on legumes. Openings can be created by clearcutting, prescribed burns,

chaining and proper use of herbicides, plowing, and

disking. All treatment methods should result in a

mosaic treatment pattern.

Chukar Partridge

The chukar prefers arid, rough foothills, and low

mountainous country that consists of steep rugged

ranges with cliffs, bluffs, rocky outcrops, talus

slopes, and brushy creek bottoms and swales (BLM

1970; Bohl 1957; Roberson and Leatham 1988; Young

1981). Areas inhabited by pinyon, juniper, big sagebrush, black sagebrush, bitterbrush, ephedra, rubber

rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, and bunchgrasses

are prime chukar habitat (fig. 26). Cheatgrass can be

the principal understory or interspace species.

Chukar migration is very limited. In early fall,

birds tend to move to lower elevations. When annual

grasses germinate and green up in the hills and

canyons, birds move into these areas. Heavy snow will

move chukars to lower elevations (USDI Bureau of

Land Management 1970; Bohl 1957; Molini 1976).

Cover requirements are generally met with rocky outcrops, talus slopes, cliffs, small trees, and sagebrush.

Figure 25—Blue grouse make extensive use of

conifer and deciduous trees for cover and food.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 171

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Figure 26—Chukar partridge on winter area

consisting of juniper, big sagebrush, and annual

and perennial grasses.

Nesting is on the ground next to or under rocks and

shrubs.

Chukars will eat grains, fruits, berries, and plant

parts including stems, blades, and seeds. Plant material

from perennials and annual forbs and grasses are

consumed (Bohl 1957; Roberson and Leatham 1988).

Alfalfa leaves are highly preferred. Cheatgrass is a

major food item, seeds and leaves are consumed year

round (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1970;

Christensen 1970; Young 1981). Insects, principally

grasshoppers, beetles, crickets, and ants are also consumed. Most feeding occurs within 1 to 2 miles (1.6 to

3.2 km) of water. Availability of water can be important on dry, summer ranges.

Most range and wildland rehabilitation projects are

designed to reduce the density of cheatgrass and

shrubs associated with chukar habitat. Care should

be taken to identify areas important to chukars. When

major chukar populations exist, rehabilitation projects

should not occur that will adversely affect chukar

habitat. Projects that leave islands of shrubs and

cheatgrass, or irregular edges within these types, can

benefit chukars. Seedings in treated areas should not

be composed of any one species but should include

succulent species. Improving available water sources

can be most critical on many ranges.

Water _________________________

Water is critical to the survival of all wildlife. All

areas must have sufficient water available throughout

all seasons. Free or running water or moisture contained in snow may be satisfactory. Most gallinaceous

birds are able to satisfy their water requirements from

dew and succulent forbs, if available (Barber and

others 1989b).

Many rehabilitation projects may be unused by

wildlife because water is lacking during specific seasons. Water should be a major consideration of every

improvement project, especially on arid desert ranges

(Gubanich and Panik 1987; Hervert and Krausman

1986). Water is generally less limiting on more mesic

summer and spring-fall ranges. Snow, when present,

can provide sufficient water for most species. When

water is unavailable, provisions need to be included in

rehabilitation projects for the development of water

sources. This could include the development of springs

or wells, construction of water catchment structures

(Frasier 1985; Menasco 1986), and the diversion of

water from one point to another.

Care must be taken when developing a spring and

transferring water to another area. Some water must

be retained throughout the year at the spring or collection site. Water catchment devices and areas need to

have water available to all wildlife at all times. Water

catchments cannot be emptied by livestock when wildlife remain in the area. Water troughs should not be

turned off or accessibility to watering areas restricted

when livestock leave the area (fig. 27). All too often,

when springs are developed and the water is moved to

a trough, the free water that previously existed at the

source is eliminated. Such developments also damage

or eliminate the attendant mesic vegetation, and riparian values that may be present.

Some water developments may not be beneficial to

wildlife. Extending water to new areas can encourage

and increase livestock use in areas where they were

once seldom grazed, especially on fall-winter-spring

ranges. This may be especially harmful if it is an area

that presently receives use by wildlife near or above

carrying capacity. Water development can also increase livestock and human use of areas during critical periods, such as calving, fawning, lambing, and

nesting. Water developments generally require access

roads, which may or may not be beneficial to wildlife.

Figure 27—Guzzler water development on sheep

and antelope range. Once livestock leave the area,

water must be left on for antelope and other wildlife.
172 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

Water development requires continual maintenance

to ensure that water is available when needed (fig. 28).

Provisions need to be made so that birds, small

game, and nongame species can gain entry to troughs

and tanks (Hervet and Krausman 1986; Menasco

1986). Escape ramps should be installed to allow

escape if they fall into the trough or tank.

Fences ________________________

Fences can be both harmful and beneficial to wildlife. Properly placed fences can be used to control

intensity, duration, and time of livestock and human

activities on wildlife ranges.

Calving, lambing, fawning, and grouse nesting areas need to have livestock and humans excluded and

access restricted during these periods. All rehabilitated sites require restricted grazing for various periods of time. Big game and sage-grouse winter and

spring ranges need to have human activities limited.

This is especially important during periods when

animals are under stress due to weather conditions, of

limited food supply, and reproductive activity. Both

depleted and rehabilitated riparian areas generally

require considerable protection from livestock, humans, and in some cases, wildlife, to become healed

Figure 28—Water sources require

constant maintenance and checking

to ensure that water is available when

needed by wildlife.

and stabilized. Fencing can be used to protect riparian

sites, springs, seeps, and other water areas.

Improperly placed and constructed fences can be

harmful to big game by excluding or limiting wildlife

use of critical watering, foraging, and cover sites.

Fence height can restrict movement of big game.

Barbed, smooth wire, netting, or their combinations

under 42 inches (1.1 m) tall generally do not restrict

movement of healthy mule deer and elk. A few animals

may “hang up” on 42 inch (1.1 m) or shorter fences, but

the majority of animals that are killed in fences are on

those taller than 42 inches (1.1 m). Antelope and

bighorn sheep require fences they can go through.

Helvie (1971) has given guidelines for fences built in

areas occupied by bighorn sheep. He recommends that

fences should not be constructed with woven wire, but

with 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 when

needed. Improperly constructed fences can restrict

movement and cause mortality, especially for rams

that 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. Smooth

wire is the most favorable type with the lowest wire

being at least 16 inches (0.4 m) off the ground. This

size opening will allow the antelope to pass under.

Barbed wire can be used on the upper strands but is

not recommended. Net wire fences will not allow antelope and bighorn sheep to pass. When net wire fences

are built they should have sufficient strategically

located and specifically built openings and pass through

spaces so that normal movement to feeding and watering areas, and to seasonal ranges is not disrupted or

stopped (Mapston and ZoBell 1972).

Electric fences, when properly constructed, are an

effective means of controlling livestock, humans, and

big game. Electric fences have been used to prevent

use by livestock and big game of hay stacks, and feed

yards, and to alter the use of agriculture areas, campgrounds, riparian sites, and small, treated disturbances.

Roads _________________________

All rehabilitation projects require access for people

and their machines. This may involve construction of

some type of road and, in some isolated areas, an air

strip. Roads can be beneficial to wildlife by providing:

(1) a means whereby rehabilitation projects can be completed, (2) access for habitat management, (3) access for

harvest and observation of wildlife, (4) increased and

improved law enforcement activities, (5) an increase
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 173

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects

in edge area and diversity of plant development and

growth along the road, where extra water is collected,

(6) road bars, when properly constructed, act as water

collection and storage areas, and (7) access for fire

control. On the other hand roads can be detrimental to

wildlife by: (1) increasing human and livestock activity (especially during critical periods), (2) increasing

harvest of game animals, (3) increasing poaching,

(4) reducing wildlife use, (5) increasing the chance of

human-caused fire, (6) encouraging off-road vehicle

travel that can reduce the production and effectiveness of a rehabilitation project, and (7) increasing soil

erosion.

All roads associated with a rehabilitation project

need to be evaluated prior to construction and following completion of the project. Road location can be

critical. Calving, fawning, nesting, brood rearing,

riparian areas, travel and migration lanes, leks, and

meadow edges should be avoided when locating roads.

Nonessential roads and disturbed areas should be

closed and revegetated. Properly closed and revegetated roads in forested areas can be used extensively

by big game.

In selecting species for the rehabilitation of cuts,

fills, and disturbed areas associated with roads and

highways, big game feeding habits and preferences

should be considered. Establishing evergreen or semievergreen species, species that green early or stay

green into the summer, and shrubs and trees that

provide cover can actually encourage big game use

and increase chances of big game-automobile collisions. In an effort to reduce such accidents, low-growing, unpalatable species of grasses, forbs, and shrubs

should be used along highways.
174 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 13 Incorporating Wildlife Habitat Needs into Restoration and Rehabilitation Projects
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 175

14

Bruce L. Welch

Nutritive Principles

in Restoration and

Management

Chapter

Most range management or revegetation programs are aimed

at providing forage to support the needs of range animals. Among

these needs are supplying the nutrients required to drive the

physiological processes of the animal body. One major principle

in this report is that there is no “perfect forage species” that will

supply all the nutrients needed by any range animal for all

seasons. The best approach to range management or revegetation is to supply a diversity of palatable shrubs, forbs, and

grasses. Major topics to be discussed are (1) nutrient requirements of range animals, (2) judging the nutritive value of range

plants, (3) factors affecting the nutritive value of range plants,

and (4) seasonal nutritive value of range plants.
176 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Nutrient Requirements of Range

Animals _______________________

It is a fundamental principle that effective range

management or revegetation programs rest on knowing the nutritive requirement of the target animal.

The nutrient needs of range animals can be divided

into five classes: dry matter intake, energy-producing

compounds, protein, minerals, and vitamins.

Dry Matter

Intake of dry matter by range animals varies according to the weight and activity of the animal. Greatest

consumption of dry matter, with weight held constant,

occurs with lactation, followed by growth, as a percent

of live range animals. This is of considerable importance to the range manager when it comes to calculating carrying capacity. Dry matter intake of selected

range animals is tabulated in table 1.

Energy-Producing Compounds

From a quantitative point, energy-producing compounds make up the single largest class of nutrients

needed by range animals. A lack of sufficient energy is

probably the most common manifestation of nutritional deficiency in range animals (Dietz 1972). Range

animals can derive energy from a variety of compounds including sugars, fats, pectins, starch, and

protein. In ruminants and other range animals that

can support fermentation digestion, energy can be

derived indirectly from cellulose and hemicellulose.

To understand the energy requirements of range

animals, the range manager or revegetation specialist

needs first to understand the various terms that are

used to express the energy requirement.

Energy requirements of range animals are expressed

in several forms such as total digestible nutrients,

digestible energy, metabolizable energy, and net energy. Total digestible nutrients, a noncaloric measurement, is the sum of all the digestible organic matter

(crude protein, crude fiber, nitrogen-free extract, and

crude fat) in a forage. Because fat supplies 2.25 times

more energy than protein or carbohydrates, the fat

content is multiplied by this 2.25 energy factor to

calculate this principal measurement (table 2). The

total digestible nutrients requirement of an animal is

expressed as kg per animal per day or as percent of the

diet. For range managers or revegetation specialists

the latter expression is the most useful.

Digestible energy, a caloric measurement, is calculated by subtracting the caloric content in the feces

from the caloric content of the range forage. The caloric

content of a range forage is often called gross energy.

In turn, metabolizable energy is calculated by subtracting the caloric content in the urine and gases lost

Table 1—Daily dry matter consumption by selected range

animals. Data expressed as pounds of dry matter

consumed on a daily basis and as a percentage of

live weight (Halls 1970; National Academy of Sciences 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Dry matter

Animal Activity Weight Per day Live weight

- - - - - Lbs - - - - - - Percent

Sheep Maintenance 110 2.2 2.0

(ewes) 132 2.4 1.8

154 2.6 1.7

176 2.9 1.6

Last 6 weeks 110 3.7 3.3

of gestation 132 4.2 3.2

154 4.6 3.0

176 4.8 2.8

Lactation 110 5.3 4.8

132 5.7 4.3

154 6.2 4.0

176 6.6 3.7

Growth 66 2.9 4.3

88 3.1 3.5

110 3.3 3.0

132 3.3 2.5

Cattle Maintenance 881 13.4 1.5

1,102 15.9 1.4

1,323 18.3 1.4

Gestation 881 16.5 1.9

1,102 19.0 1.7

1,323 21.4 1.6

Lactation 881 23.8 2.7

1,102 26.0 2.4

1,323 28.4 2.1

Growth 661 19.4 2.9

881 24.3 2.8

1,323 26.5 2.0

Horses Maintenance 16.4

Gestation 16.4

Lactation 21.5

Growth 13.2

Deer Maintenance 2.2

Gestation 2.5

Lactation 3.0

Elk Maintenance 9.6

(mature)

from the body from the digestible energy of the range

forage. Net energy then is calculated by subtracting

the calories used to produce body heat from metabolizable energy. Net energy thus represents the amount of

energy an animal has for maintenance and production.

The relationship of these three caloric energy measurements was demonstrated (fig. 1). Range animal

requirements for any one of these measurements is

expressed as megacalories per animal per day or as
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 177

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Table 2—How the amount of digestible nutrients are calculated for a

hypothetical range forage.

Total nutrients Digestion Digestible

Nutrient in 100 kg coefficients nutrients

kg - - - - - - Percent - - - - - -

Crude protein 9.0 50.0 4.5

Crude fiber 30.0 40.0 12.0

Nitrogen-free extract 50.0 50.0 25.0

Crude fat 11.0 50.0 (2.25) 12.4

Total digestible nutrients 53.9

Gross Energy

Energy loss

in feces

Digestible Energy

Energy loss Energy lost

in gases in urine

Metabolizable Energy

Energy lost as

body heat

Net Energy

Energy for Energy for

production maintenance

Figure 1—Relationship of gross, digestible,

metabolizable, and net energy.

megacalories per kg of dry matter. The latter expression is the most useful for range managers or revegetation specialists.

Energy needs of range animals vary according to

weight and activity (lactating, fattening, growing,

gestation). Larger animals require more kilograms of

total digestible nutrients per day for a given activity

than smaller animals, yet when total digestible nutrients is expressed as a percent of the diet the percentage is the same. This is due to differences in dry matter

intake. Thus a large animal extracts more kilograms

per day of total digestible nutrients than a smaller

animal eating the same forages. Similarly, a lactating

female requires more energy than a nonlactating female of similar weight. On a constant weight basis,

lactation requires the greatest amount of energy

followed by fattening, growing, gestation, and maintenance. Table 3 lists the energy requirements of selected range animals. Unfortunately, the total digestible nutrients content or amount of metabolizable

energy is unknown for many range forages. More

information is expressed as in vitro digestibility. I have

attempted to express the energy requirements of range

animals in terms of in vitro digestibility (table 4).

Maintenance was set at 50 percent in vitro digestibility with all other activities adjusted accordingly

(Ammann and others 1973).

Protein

Protein in animal bodies makes up a large chemically related, but physiologically diverse, group of

compounds. Protein is the major organic compound of

the organs and soft tissues of the animal body. All

proteins are made from a common set of building

blocks known as amino acids. It is the sequence of

these amino acids along the protein molecule that

gives a particular protein its character which, in turn,

determines its function. Proteins are the chief component in nearly all body parts including skeletal muscle

for external movement; smooth and cardiac muscle for

internal movement; tendons and ligaments for tying

together body parts; organs and glands such as the

stomach, eyes, pituitary, and skin with its covering of

hair; and other structures including hemoglobin, cytochromes, and membranes. Enzymes are also an important group of proteinaceous compounds that provide the framework in which the chemical reactions of

the body take place.

Because of the involvement of protein in so many

bodily functions, the animal body needs a liberal and

continuous supply of protein. Like energy, the protein

requirement of range animals varies according to the

weight and activity of the animal. From a qualitative

point, the protein requirement varies according to the

type of digestive system operating in the range animal. For ruminants and other range animals that can

support fermentation digestion, including horses,

rabbits, burros, and sage-grouse, the quality of the

protein—that is the actual amino acid makeup—is not

important, only the quantity. The microorganisms

responsible for the fermentation also manufacture

needed amino acids from plant protein and organic

nitrogen compounds.

Protein requirement of range animals is expressed

either in terms of digestible protein, or as crude (sometimes called total) protein. The requirement values in

the diet are expressed as grams per day or as a

percentage. For range managers or revegetation specialists, the term crude protein as a percent in the diet

is the most useful. As with energy, the greater the

weight of the animal, the higher the protein requirement, assuming similar body activity. Because larger

range animals consume more dry matter, their higher

protein requirement can be met by consuming diets

with the same percentage of protein as smaller animals. The difference is in the amount of dry matter

eaten. Protein requirement varies also according to

animal’s activities. Lactation has the highest demand
178 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Table 3—The energy requirements of selected range animals. Data

expressed on a dry matter basis as a percent of total

digestible nutrients in the diet, as a percent of in vitro

digestibilitya, or as megacalories of metabolizable energy/kg

of dry matter (Halls 1970, National Academy of Sciences

1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Animal

 Activity Total digestible In vitro Metabolizable

 Weight (lbs) nutrients (dry) digestibilitya energy

- - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - mcal/kg

Sheep

Maintenance 55 50 2.0

 110-176

Last 6 weeks of

gestation 65 60 2.4

 110-176

Lactation 62 56 2.4

 110-176

Growth

 66 62 56 2.2

 88 60 56 2.1

Cattle

Maintenance

and gestation 52 50 1.9

 882-1,323

Lactation 55 53 2.0

 882-1,323

Growth

 661-882 64 57 2.3

 1,323 61 56 2.2

Horses

Maintenance 47 50 1.8

Gestation 58 53 2.1

Lactation 62 56 2.2

Growth 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 — 3.6

Gestation — — 3.9

Lactation — — 4.5

Growth — — 3.9

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey)

Maintenance — — 2.9

Breeding — — 2.9

Growth — — 3.1

a

Unfortunately, the total digestible nutrients content or amount of metabolizable energy is unknown for many range forages. More information is expressed

as in vitro digestibility. In this table, energy requirements are expressed in terms

of in vitro digestibility. Maintenance was set at 50 percent in vitro digestibility with

other activities adjusted accordingly (Ammann and others 1973). b

A dash (“—”) means no information available.

Table 4—The protein requirement of selected range animals. Data

expressed on a dry matter basis as a percent of crude or

digestible protein needed in the diet (Halls 1970, National

Academy of Sciences 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Crude Digestible

Animal Activity Weight protein protein

Lbs - - - - - - Percent - - - - - -

Sheep Maintenance 110-176 8.9 4.8

Last 6 weeks of

 gestation 110-176 9.3 5.2

Lactation 110-176 11.0 7.2

Growth 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 —

Work

Light 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 —

a

A dash (“—”) means no information available.

followed by fattening, growth, gestation, and maintenance. The protein requirements of selected range

animals demonstrates this hierarchy (table 4).

Minerals

There are 15 mineral elements essential for the

health of animals. Of these, seven are considered major

elements: 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 perform many vital functions in the body. They constitute

the major components of bones and teeth, maintain

osmotic relations and acid-base equilibrium, play an

important role in regulating enzymatic systems and

muscular contraction, and are constituents of most

organic compounds. They are also important in energy

transfer.

Under most conditions, calcium and phosphorus are

the mineral elements of major concern, although other

mineral elements (copper, cobalt, magnesium, sulfur,

zinc, and molybdenum) may be locally in short supply.

These can be supplemented easily by adding them to

salt. For calcium and phosphorus, range animal requirements are expressed as grams per day or as a

percent of the diet. For the range manager or revegetation specialist the expression as a percent of the

diet is the most useful. Under similar activity, larger

range animals need greater amounts of calcium and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 179

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

visual purple. A range animal with a vitamin A deficiency may develop an abnormal condition called night

blindness. Vitamin A also plays an important role in

normal development of bones, disease resistance,

and maintenance of healthy epithelium tissues.

Vitamin A is manufactured from the plant precursor

carotene. Sometimes plant carotene is referred to as

provitamin A. As a result the vitamin A requirement

of range animals is expressed in a variety of terms,

such as, milligrams per day per animal, or milligrams

per kilogram of dry matter of carotene, or provitamin

A, and as international unit per day, or international

units per kilogram of dry matter of vitamin A. For

range managers or revegetation specialists, the expression on a per kilogram of dry matter is the most

useful. Larger animals with similar activities require

more vitamin A than smaller animals. With size held

constant, a lactating animal requires the most vitamin A, followed by growth, fattening, gestation, and

maintenance (table 6).

Knowing the nutritive needs of range animals is

the first step for sound effective range management

or revegetation projects. The next task for range

phosphorus than smaller animals. With size held

constant, lactating animals require the most calcium

and phosphorus followed by growth, fattening, gestation, and maintenance as an analysis of the calcium

and phosphorus requirements of selected range animals confirms (table 5).

Vitamins

Vitamins are organic compounds needed by the

body in relatively small amounts. They are unrelated

chemically, but function as metabolic regulators. For

range animals capable of supporting fermentation

digestion, only vitamin A is of concern. Vitamin A

combines with a specific protein of the eye to produce

Table 5—The calcium and phosphorus requirement of selected range

animals. Data expressed on a dry matter basis as a percent

needed in the diet (Halls 1970, National Academy of Science

1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1982, 1984).

Animal Activity Weight Calcium Phosphorus

Lbs - - - - - -Percent- - - - - -

Sheep Maintenance 110 0.30 0.28

132 0.28 0.26

154 0.27 0.25

176 0.25 0.24

Last 6 weeks of 110 0.24 0.23

 gestation 132 0.23 0.22

154 0.21 0.20

176 0.21 0.20

Lactation 110 0.52 0.37

132 0.50 0.36

154 0.48 0.34

176 0.48 0.34

Growth 66 0.45 0.25

88 0.44 0.24

110 0.42 0.23

132 0.43 0.24

Cattle Maintenance 881-1,323 0.18 0.18

Gestation 881-1,323 0.18 0.18

Lactation 881 0.42 0.38

1,102 0.39 0.36

1,323 0.36 0.34

Growth 661 0.31 0.26

881 0.21 0.21

1,323 0.18 0.18

Horses Maintenance 0.30 0.20

Gestation 0.50 0.35

Lactation 0.50 0.35

Growth 0.70 0.50

Work 0.30 0.20

Deer Maintenance 0.30 0.25

Growth 0.38 0.27

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes)

Maintenance 0.30 0.30

Gestation 0.40 0.40

Lactation 0.60 0.60

Growth 0.40 0.40

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey)

Maintenance 0.50 0.25

Breeding 2.25 0.35

Growth 0.75 0.38

Table 6—The vitamin A requirement of selected range animals. Data

expressed on a dry matter basis as milligrams or international 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/kg

Sheep Maintenance 110 1.9 1,275

132 2.0 1,391

154 2.2 1,488

176 2.3 1,569

Last 6 weeks of 110 3.6 2,500

 gestation 132 3.9 2,684

154 4.2 2,833

176 4.5 3,091

Lactation 110 2.6 1,771

132 2.9 1,962

154 3.1 2,125

176 3.3 2,267

Growth 66 1.5 981

88 1.8 1,214

110 2.1 1,417

132 2.5 1,700

Cattle Maintenance and

 gestation 4.1 2,800

Lactation 5.7 3,900

Growth 3.2 2,200

Horses Maintenance 2.4 1,600

Gestation 5.0 3,400

Lactation 4.1 2,800

Growth 2.9 2,000

Work 2.4 1,600

Small range animals (rabbits, squirrels, foxes) 8.7 5,930

Range birds (grouse, pheasant, quail, turkey) 5.9 4,000
180 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

managers or revegetation specialists is to gain skills

at judging the nutritive values of range plants.

Judging the Nutritive Values of

Range Plants ___________________

Nutrient value of a range plant is judged in terms of

the plant’s ability to meet the various nutrient requirements of the consuming range animal. Estimates

of the value of range forage can be classified into three

groups: (1) proximal or other chemical analysis; (2) in

vitro digestibility (outside-the-living-body digestibility); and (3) in vivo digestibility, (in-the-living-body

digestibility). From the point of view of range managers or revegetation specialists, nutrient measurements

obtained from in vivo digestibility are the most useful

followed by in vitro digestibility and chemical analysis. Unfortunately, information obtained from in vivo

digestibility is time consuming, expensive, and there

is simply not enough information to cover most rangeland situations that confront range managers or revegetation specialists.

Recognizing that all plant substances are not

equally digestible, nutritionists have attempted, with

varying degree of success, to devise series of chemical

measurements that would partition the digestible

plant substances from the hard or nondigestible

substances.

Proximal and Other Chemical Analyses

One such measurement is called proximal analysis.

This analysis is based on dividing plant substances

into five classes: crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber,

ash, and nitrogen-free extract. The first four classes

are determined by chemical means, the fifth is determined by subtracting the sum of the percentages of the

first four classes from 100. All classes are expressed on

a dry matter basis.

Crude protein is measured by determining the nitrogen content of the forage and multiplying the nitrogen

content, expressed as a percent, by the factor 6.25 (sometimes a worker chooses to give just the nitrogen content of range plants, the range manager or revegetation specialist can calculate the crude protein content

by multiplying the nitrogen content by 6.25). Chemical determination of crude protein does not take into

account the digestibility of the protein. Fortunately,

crude protein content is significantly related to digestible protein. As crude protein increases, so does the

digestibility of the protein. In general terms, the higher

the crude protein content of a range forage, the more

likelihood it will meet or exceed the animal needs.

Crude fat is measured by determining the compounds

soluble in ether. Crude fat then is a mixture of compounds including waxes, monoterpenoids, chlorophyll,

carotene, triglycerides, and phospholipids. Not all of

these 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 digestible

crude fat levels are excellent sources of energy. In

general, crude fat is about 45 percent digestible.

Crude fiber is the residue left after plant samples

have been alternately boiled in weak acid and in weak

alkali. This residue consists chiefly of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. Hemicellulose is more readily

broken down into simple sugars by microbial fermentation than is cellulose. Lignin is not digested by

microbial fermentation or by the range animal, and

may even form a coating around cellulose rendering

portions of it undigestible. The digestibility of crude

fiber varies greatly among range forages. Crude fiber

regulates the bulk in a diet. Bulk, up to a certain

point—30 to 35 percent—has a beneficial effect on the

digestive tract of a range animal by preventing the

formation of a doughlike mass in the stomach. Also, it

promotes the elimination of undigested food from the

digestive tract. In general, range forages that are

higher in crude fiber are less digestible.

Ash is the mineral matter of a range forage. It is

determined by burning off all the organic matter and

weighing the residue. This chemical analysis gives

the total mineral content of a range forage but tells

nothing about the individual mineral elements. In

general, the values are needed to calculate nitrogenfree extract.

Nitrogen-free extract is determined by calculation

but not by chemical means. After the contents of crude

protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash have been

determined, these values are added together and subtracted 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 nitrogenfree extract are among the most digestible.

There are problems with the proximal analysis

method. Because nitrogen-free extract is determined

by the difference, it accumulates all the errors of the

other analyses. Crude fiber fraction does not always

divide carbohydrates into digestible fractions. Recognizing these problems, a series of chemical analyses

has been devised. This series partitions the plant

substance into three classes: (1) cell contents plus

pectin, (2) neutral detergent fiber, and (3) acid detergent fiber. Cell contents are very highly digestible and

contain sugars, starch, organic acids, protein, and

pectin. Neutral detergent fiber is much less digestible

and contain hemicellulose, cellulose, and undigestible

lignin. Acid detergent fibers is less digestible than the

other two fractions because it contains just the cellulose and undigestible lignin. This procedure may, in

time, replace the old proximal analysis method. At
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 181

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

present, very few range forages have been analyzed by

the detergent or Van Soest method. When the information is available, the range manager or revegetation

specialist needs to recognize that the higher the cell

content and lower the acid detergent fiber the more

digestible the range forage.

Other chemical analyses that are useful in judging

the nutritive value of range plants are the percentages

of lignin, calcium, phosphorus, and carotene. In general, with the exception of lignin, the higher the better.

Although the chemical makeup of range forages gives

an indication of their probable nutritive value, their

digestibility is important in evaluating the ability of a

forage to meet the nutrient needs of a range animal.

The most useful information then, to a range manager

or 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 that

simulates natural ruminant digestion. This technique

includes the fermentation of a forage substrate with

rumen microorganisms in a buffered digestion solution

at body temperature, and a neutral to slightly acidic

pH. After fermentation, the digestive solution is acidified with hydrochloric acid to pH of 1 to 2, and pepsin,

an enzyme that digests protein, is added to the digestive solution. Upon completion of acidified-pepsin treatment, the residue from the test forage is filtered, dried,

weighed, and percent of dry matter calculated.

Range animal requirements as expressed in terms

of in vitro digested dry matter is about 50 percent for

maintenance, 53 percent for gestation, 56 percent for

growth, and 60 percent for lactation. In general, the

higher the in vitro digestibility of a range forage the

higher the nutritive value.

The main advantages of the in vitro technique are

simplicity, speed, precision, and costs. Disadvantage is

that the digestibility of individual nutrients is unknown.

In vivo digestibility technique consists of feeding

the range forage of interest, usually alone, to an

animal or set of animals and collecting the feces. Using

chemical analysis, the amount of nutrients (1) consumed by the test animal(s), and (2) excreted in the

feces is determined. The difference between the two

would represent the portion of the nutrients in the forage

digested by the animal(s). Results of in vivo digestibility trials are expressed as digestion coefficients of the

various proximate analysis classes, and as total digestible nutrients. The calculating of total digestible

nutrients had been described earlier (table 2).

Another way the results of in vivo digestion can be

expressed is in terms of digestible energy (fig. 1). In

general, the higher the digestive coefficients, total

digestible nutrients, and digestible energy, the higher

the nutritive value of the range forage. Complicating

the judging of nutritive value of range plants is the fact

that the nutrient content of a given species varies over

time and space.

Factors Affecting the Nutritive Value

of Range Plants _________________

Factors that affect the morphology and metabolism

of range plants also affect the nutritive value of the

plants, both quantitatively and qualitatively. These

factors include climate, soil, and genetic factors, and

express themselves in influencing the speed of the

phenological development of the range plants. In general, the qualitative nutritive value of range plants

peak in the spring and then decrease, reaching a low

level during the dormant or winter season as demonstrated by the range plants big sagebrush, bitterbrush, and unknown grass (table 7). Fall green up on

the part of certain grass species during wet falls

changes this pattern considerably. Influences on the

nutritive content of range forage and on the nutritive

requirement of range animals, actual listing of nutritive

values 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 the

task becomes one of balancing range animals’ nutritive needs with the nutritive content of range plants.

The range manager or revegetation specialist should

think in terms of range plants providing so many

pounds per acre of total digestible nutrients, digestible

or crude protein, carotene, and phosphorus. The other

nutrients, with the exception of water, are probably in

adequate amounts. Sometimes deficiencies occur but

only in local areas. This section is an attempt to list

what is known about the nutritive values of range

plants. The section is divided seasonally, and the particular 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 13.4

July 1968 12.7 12.8 7.8

September 1968 11.8 9.7 9.6

December 1968 10.5 7.5 2.7

March 1969 14.0 9.9 3.4

May 1969 15.0 11.3 21.3

Source: Data from Tueller (1979).
182 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Spring Range

Spring range is a time when the energy, protein,

phosphorus, and carotene requirements of range animals are highest. This is due to the growing of young

and 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 this

time, but increases in late spring. There are some who

believe that early spring range plants do not provide

good forage for range animals. Their belief is based on

the idea that high water content of the forage is a controlling agent in forage intake. Dry matter, not water

content, 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 name

Common In vitro Crude

Scientificb digestibility protein Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

Grasses

Bluebunch wheatgrass 60.6 17.0 0.30 414

Agropyron spicatum

Bottlebrush squirreltail 72.3 18.5 0.24 3

Sitanion hystrix

Crested wheatgrass 72.6 11.3 —c — Agropyron cristatum

Desert wheatgrass 73.6 23.7 0.36 452

Agropyron desertorum

Idaho fescue — 14.0 0.30 92

Festuca idahoensis

Indian ricegrass 67.1 15.9 — —

Oryzopsis hymenoides

Intermediate wheatgrass 74.3 8.2 — —

Agropyron intermedium

Needle-and-thread grass — 16.2 0.40 —

Stipa comata

Reed canary grass — 16.2 0.40 —

Phalaris arundinacea

Sand dropseed grass — 15.1 0.25 —

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sandberg bluegrass 62.2 17.3 0.33 —

Poa secunda

Smooth brome

Bromus inermis — 23.5 0.47 493

Western wheatgrass 77.2 17.6 0.45 185

Agropyron smithii

Shrubs

Antelope bitterbrush 49.2 12.4 0.19 —

Purshia tridentata

Big sagebrush 58.1 12.6 0.25 —

Artemisia tridentata

Curlleaf mountain mahogany — 9.9 — —

Cercocarpus ledifolius

Fourwing saltbush — 14.1 — —

Atriplex canescens Low rabbitbrush — 22.6 0.46 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

Rubber rabbitbrush — 20.7 0.45 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosus Utah juniper 49.0 6.2 0.15 —

Juniperus osteosperma

Winterfat — 21.0 — —

Ceratoides lanata

Forbs

Alfalfa 86.8 28.5 0.37 372

Medicago sativa

American vetch 71.3 21.2 — —

Vicia americana

Arrowleaf balsamroot — 28.8 0.43 —

Balsamorhiza sagittata

Gooseberryleaf globemallow 69.7 19.7 — —

Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia

Oneflower helianthella — 20.0 0.40 —

Helianthella uniflora

Small burnet — 17.4 — —

Sanguisorba minor

a

Values represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References are on file at the

Rocky Mountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the

references section. b

Common and scientific names after Plummer and others (1977).

c

A dash (“—”) means information not available.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 183

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

in the spring exceed the nutritive content of shrubs.

This is illustrated in tables 8 and 11, both listing the

spring nutritive values of selected range plants. On

spring ranges, range managers or revegetation specialists should emphasize the production of grasses

and forbs with shrubs as backup during drought.

Shrubs are more productive during drought than

grasses or forbs.

Summer Range

During the summer, range animals’ demands for energy, protein, phosphorus, and carotene is a little lower

Table 9—Summer 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.

Plant name

Common In vitro Crude

Scientificb digestibility protein Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

Grasses

Bluebunch wheatgrass 3 14.5 0.23 77

Agropyron spicatum

Bottlebrush squirreltail 59.7 8.0 0.17 1.1

Sitanion hystrix

Crested wheatgrass — — 0.13 —

Agropyron cristatum

Desert wheatgrass 51.0 12.1 0.23 153

Agropyron desertorum

Galleta — 7.7 0.09 0.4

Hilaria jamesii

Idaho fescue 54.0 9.5 0.18 34

Festuca idahoensis

Needle-and-thread grass — 6.5 0.10 0.4

Stipa comata

Reed canary grass — 12.4 0.20 —

Phalaris arundinacea

Sand dropseed grass — 5.7 0.10 0.4

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Sandberg bluegrass — 9.4 0.17 43

Poa secunda

Smooth brome

Bromus inermis 60.6 11.0 0.28 103

Western wheatgrass —c 11.8 — 117

Agropyron smithii

Shrubs

Antelope bitterbrush — 13.1 0.22 —

Purshia tridentata

Big sagebrush — 13.2 0.40 —

Artemisia tridentata

Curlleaf mountain mahogany — 12.2 0.23 —

Cercocarpus ledifolius

Fourwing saltbush 47.1 12.0 — —

Atriplex canescens

Gambel oak — 15.8 — —

Quercus gambelii (leaves)

Low rabbitbrush — 12.1 0.35 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

Rubber rabbitbrush — 12.8 0.38 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosus

Utah juniper — 8.1 0.21 —

Juniperus osteosperma

Winterfat — 13.6 — —

Ceratoides lanata

Forbs

Alfalfa — 17.8 0.28 109

Medicago sativa

American vetch — 17.6 0.20 —

Vicia americana

Arrowleaf balsamroot — 17.0 0.26 —

Balsamorhiza sagittata

Oneflower helianthella — 12.4 0.31 —

Helianthella uniflora

Small burnet — 9.8 — —

Sanguisorba minor

a

Values represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References on file at the Rocky

Mountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the references

section. b

Common and scientific names after Plummer and others (1977).

c

A dash (“—”) means information not available.
184 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Table 10—Seasonal variation in the nutritive valuea of desert wheatgrass. Data expressed on a dry matter basis

except carotene which is expressed as mg/kg of dry matter.

In vitro Crude

 Season digestibility protein Calcium Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

Early spring 73 23.6 0.47 0.36 452.0

Spring 61 18.0 0.41 0.32 239.0

Early summer 51 12.5 0.39 0.23 153.0

Late summer 49 12.1 0.29 0.18 75.4

Winter 44 3.5 0.27 0.07 0.2

a

Values represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References are on file at the Rocky Mountain

Research 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.

Plant name

Common In vitro Crude

Scientificb digestibility protein Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

Grasses

Bluebunch wheatgrass 45.5 3.2 0.05 0.22

Agropyron spicatum

Western wheatgrass 50.2 3.8 0.07 0.20

Agropyron smithii

Bottlebrush squirreltail 42.0 4.3 0.07 1.10

Sitanion hystrix

Desert wheatgrass 43.7 3.5 0.07 0.20

Agropyron desertorum

Crested wheatgrass (fall regrowth) 50.6 15.0 0.39 432

Agropyron cristatum

Galleta 48.2 4.6 0.08 0.40

Hilaria jamesii

Idaho fescue 46.1 3.8 0.08 3.00

Festuca idahoensis

Indian ricegrass 50.5 3.1 0.06 0.44

Oryzopsis hymenoides

Reed canary grass —c 7.8 0.14 —

Phalaris arundinocea

Needle-and-thread grass 46.6 3.7 0.07 0.40

Stipa comata

(con.)

than during the spring but the nutritive value of range

forage starts to decline with grasses declining more

rapidly than forbs and shrubs (tables 9, 10). By this

time the protein, phosphorus, and carotene levels in

grasses are at or just below the needs of most range

animals. Energy level of grasses remain above that in

forbs and shrubs. This supports the importance of

having a mixture of palatable grasses, forbs, and

shrubs available for range animal consumption.

Fall and Winter Range

During the fall and winter season, the nutritive

needs of range animals, especially wild range animals,

drop to maintenance levels. Also, the nutritive content

of range plants drops, in many cases, below the maintenance levels. Grasses lead this decline in every

category except in energy, followed by forbs, with

shrubs showing the least amount of decline. In general, shrubs supply higher fall and winter levels of

crude protein, phosphorus, and carotene than grasses

or forbs (table 11). Grasses, in general, supply higher

fall and winter levels of energy than shrubs or forbs.

However, some evergreen shrubs, such as big and

black sagebrush and curlleaf mountain mahogany,

contain as much energy as grasses. From a nutritional

point of view, it is a good range management practice

to manage fall and winter ranges for a balance among

grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

There are two additional points regarding winter

nutritional values that need to be discussed (table 11).

First: fall regrowth of grasses (crested wheatgrass)

provides excellent winter forage to wintering range

animals. But crested wheatgrass cannot constitute

the mainstay of a fall and winter range program. This

is due to two factors; first, fall regrowth does not occur
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 185

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management

Grasses

Sandberg bluegrass — 4.2 — —

Poa secunda

Sand dropseed grass 53.2 4.1 0.07 0.50

Sporobolus cryptandrus

Smooth brome

Bromus inermis 47.0 4.1 0.12 —

Shrubs

Antelope bitterbrush 23.5 7.6 0.14 —

Purshia tridentata

Big sagebrush 57.8 11.7 0.22 17.6

Artemisia tridentata

Black sagebrush 53.7 9.9 0.18 8.0

Artemisia nova

Winterfat 43.5 10.0 0.11 16.8

Ceratoides lanata

Curlleaf mountain mahogany 49.1 10.1 — —

Cercocarpus ledifolius

Fourwing saltbush 38.3 8.9 — 3.1

Atriplex canescens

Gambel oak 26.6 5.3 — —

Quercus gambelii

Low rabbitbrush 36.0 5.9 0.15 —

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus

True mountain mahogany 26.5 7.8 0.13 —

Cercocarpus montanus

Rubber rabbitbrush 44.4 7.8 0.14 —

Chrysothamnus nauseosus

Stansbury cliffrose 37.6 8.6 — —

Cowania mexicana

Utah juniper 44.1 6.6 0.18 —

Juniperus osteosperma

Forbs

Arrowleaf balsamroot — 3.6 0.06 —

Balsamorhiza sagittata

Oneflower helianthella — 2.8 0.17 —

Helianthella uniflora

Small burnet — 6.6 — —

Sanguisorba minor

a

Values represent the average of a number of studies reported in the literature. References on file at the Rocky

Mountain Research Station’s Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Provo, UT. References are also listed in the references

section. b

Common and scientific names after Plummer and others (1977).

c

A dash (“—”) means information not available.

Table 11—(Con.)

Plant name

Common In vitro Crude

Scientificb digestibility protein Phosphorus Carotene

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mg/kg

every fall, and secondly, snow can render the green fall

regrowth unavailable for the range animal.

The second point of interest is the high nutritive

level of big sagebrush (table 11). This range plant

species has been, and continues to be, much maligned

by range managers due to its general characteristic of

being unpalatable to cattle grazing spring and summer ranges. If any single range species could be the

mainstay of a winter range program certainly big

sagebrush would come the closest. Big sagebrush

varies greatly in nutritive value, productivity, site

adaption, and preference. Where highly preferred

stands of big sagebrush are found they should receive

maximum protection from sagebrush control projects.

Range managers must make their evaluation of big

sagebrush stands before bud break in the spring.

Heavily grazed big sagebrush plants can mask the

evidence of being grazed within days of bud break.

Recent research has shown that these stands of preferred big sagebrush do not affect grass cell wall

digestion (Hobbs and others 1985). Also, big sagebrush provides a dependable source of forage during

drought for wintering domestic sheep, pronghorn antelope, and mule deer (McArthur and Welch 1982;

Medin and Anderson 1979).
186 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 14 Nutritive Principles in Restoration and Management
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 187

David L. Nelson

15

Chapter

Obtaining specific, reliable knowledge on plant diseases is

essential in wildland shrub resource management. However,

plant disease is one of the most neglected areas of wildland

resources experimental research. This section is a discussion of

plant pathology and how to use it in managing plant disease

systems.

General principles of agricultural plant pathology apply to

wildland plant disease. However, unique features limit a general

extension of plant disease control management or methods. For

example, some fundamental elements of agricultural plant disease management are not applicable, such as annual crop rotation and soil fumigation; and other elements are not feasible,

such as protective chemical treatment of low value (per unit

area) wildland plants. We have insufficient knowledge of principles of disease epidemics involving uniform homogenic agricultural plants, as opposed to species diversity, such as heterogenic,

wildland plant populations. In the latter case, information is

more pertinent from wildland forest tree disease epidemiology.

Plant Pathology and

Managing Wildland

Plant Disease Systems
188 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems

Although diseases of the more treelike shrubs have

received some study, most wild-shrubland plant disease systems remain unidentified. Wildland plant

disease research suffers from lack of attention, probably because plant diseases are generally less dramatic than other forms of injury such as fire or insect

epidemics. Unless there is a disease epidemic of devastating proportions, little action is taken. If revegetation effort is less than successful, plant disease is

usually the last explanation given. The effects of plant

disease are usually inconspicuous and subtle. The

importance of wildland plant pathogens, in a nonecological sense, can only be judged in terms of competition with humans for the plant harvest or other use.

The human-use factor constantly changes, and its

dominant feature will be to constantly increase on

Western United States wildlands. Restoring and managing wildland range resources is a comparatively

recent venture, and the intensiveness of the activity

promises only to increase. Why not take advantage of

existing knowledge of plant pathology as much as

possible to avoid experiencing the pitfalls and disasters, especially in the early phases of agronomy and

forestry?

What is Plant Disease? ___________

One cannot see a plant disease. Only the symptomatic results of a disease are visible. Plant disease is a

physiological process injurious to the host plant. It is

a process that interferes with host plant functions and

is extended in time. Disease inducers may be biological, physical, or an interaction of these environmental

elements.

The more familiar organisms that induce disease

are fungi, bacteria, viruses, and nematodes. Less familiar are insects, microplasmas, rickettsias, algae,

and lichens. Parasitic flowering plants also induce

disease. These are the mistletoes, dodders, and broomrapes. Physical elements of the plant environment

that induce disease include certain soil factors, mineral deficiencies or excesses, air temperature extremes,

toxic chemicals, and air pollutants. Damage from

lightning strikes or freezing is not considered to result

in disease because the resulting injurious process is

not pathogen induced.

How to Recognize a Plant

Disease________________________

Before plant disease management can be planned,

the disease must be diagnosed and the causal agent

identified. To do this, presence of a pathogen or symptoms of the dysfunction must be determined and characterized. Diagnosis is still primarily an art, and

therefore, experience is an important advantage.

If the disease is new or not readily identifiable, the

disease symptoms must be reproduced by experimentation. This is usually a time-consuming project of

establishing proof following the procedure of Koch’s

postulates as follows:

1. The inducing agent should be consistently associated with disease.

2. If an organism, it should be isolated, pure cultured, characterized, and identified.

3. The isolated organism, when applied in inoculation tests under the favorable environment for

disease development, should reproduce the disease

symptoms.

4. The organism should be reisolated, pure cultured,

and found to be the same organism.

Koch’s postulates cannot be followed precisely in all

instances. Cause of diseases that are induced by insect

toxins or abiotic factors can be established by characteristic symptoms and by reproducing the disease by

withholding and applying the suspected agent in sequence to reproduce the symptoms. Nematodes, viruses, and obligately parasitic fungi require modification of the rules because they are not readily cultured.

A further complication exists because more than one

agent can be involved in what is then a disease complex. An associated nematode may act only as a vector.

An abiotic factor may predispose the potential host to

one or more fungal pathogens that may invade in a

specific sequence.

The induced dysfunction or disease, once a pathogen

is established, results in visible symptoms for which

the disease is named and identified. A term describing

the symptom, either alone or along with the name of

the inducing agent, forms the disease name—aspen

leaf blight, stem necrosis, fusarium wilt, canker, bacterial crown gall, witches’ broom, chlorosis, tobacco

mosaic, root rot, decay, and so forth. Structures of the

inducing organism are also used in identifying and

naming the disease; for example, spore masses, fruiting structures, and vegetative body—and thus, the

signs of the disease such as black stem rust, smuts,

blisters, powdery mildews, tar spots, and potato scab.

Identification of wild-shrubland plant diseases suffers immensely from a lack of specific literature, particularly in host-pathogen indices, descriptive keys,

monographic treatments, and color illustrations for

recognition and verification of diseases.

Disease Occurrence and

Development ___________________

The occurrence and development of a disease depends on a triad of events: a pathogenic agent, a

susceptible host, and a favorable environment interacting to result in a disease. The host and pathogenic
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 189

Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems

organisms are reciprocal environmental elements. Both

exist in a soil and air environment and are influenced

by moisture, temperature, light, air movement, soil

aeration, chemical and physical soil factors, organic

soil constituents, microorganisms of the leaf, stem,

root zone, and an interaction of combinations of these

factors. The pathogenic organism, in addition to the

external environment prior to penetration and establishment, is influenced by resistance mechanisms of

the host that may be directed either actively or passively or both. The host contends with the external

environment and the pathogenic mechanisms of the

invading parasite. Both organisms have characteristic

environmental limits and optimal zones of function.

During periods within the required environmental

limits, a pathogen penetrates the host and becomes

established. When the established pathogen withstands host defenses, disease development proceeds

and the successful pathogen completes its cycle to

reproduction.

The occurrence of plant pathogenic organisms and

plant disease is a natural, normal phenomenon and

part of the evolutionary and ecological systems of all

flora. In natural systems, disease incidence fluctuates

endemically. During periods of change, either natural

or because of human activity, a pathogen may become

epidemic. Plant diseases caused by pathogenic organisms are thought of as contagious. Various types of

propagules spread or are dispersed in numerous ways:

airborne, waterborne, or entirely on their own power

(for example, dwarf mistletoe seed). With an unlimiting

food source and absence of inhibitors, reproduction is

logarithmic, and the amount of propagule or inoculum

increase is exponential. Circumstances are ideal for an

epidemic or explosive spread of a disease when there

is a large host population that is homogenic, nonspecific, in a uniformly susceptible stage of development,

and where environmental conditions are optimal for

pathogen spread, infection, and rapid regeneration.

Some common wildland management practices that

could create ideal circumstances for epidemics are as

follows:

1. Introduction of a plant that is susceptible to an

endemic pathogen or the reciprocal.

2. Genetic selection of a plant population without

regard to disease resistance.

3. Vegetative modification through management

practices that tend to reduce heterogeneity both

inter- and intraspecifically.

4. Modifications that influence populations of insects that are vectors of plant pathogens.

5. Large scale off-site plantings.

Principles of Plant Disease

Management __________________

Managing plant disease deals largely with prevention of infection in plant populations rather than

with cure or therapy of diseased individuals. Therefore, it is imperative that action be taken in advance

of infection. Essentials for sound management planning include a basic knowledge of the host plant,

pathogen life cycle, and environmental factors such as

temperature, moisture, and light intensity that influence pathogen disease dynamics. The rationale or

justification for disease management and experimental research is found in past disease experience rather

than immediate crises.

Methods for preventing, curing, or reducing the

severity of disease are directed at the inducing agent

following 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, selection of the site is not usually a basis of avoiding a plant

disease organism on the site. However, potential disease problems can be evaluated, based on an analysis

of plant pathogens on the site. Species selection criteria should exclude known potential hosts of endemic

pathogens and native or exotic species of unknown

susceptibility. Another potential danger could be the

presence of insect vectors of an endemic pathogen that

could spread a virus, for example, to revegetation

plants. Selection of seed increase planting sites or

species evaluation sites could avoid pathogen infested

agricultural land. Evaluation of soil and climatic factors could avoid abiotic diseases.

Pathogen-Free Planting Stock—Use of pathogenfree planting stock should be a routine revegetation

requirement. This applies to seed, bare root nursery

stock, containerized stock, or in fact, any propagative

material. An inspection and certification program is

essential to ensure that planting material is pathogen

free. Procedures for sanitary packaging, shipment,

and protection from contamination during planting

need to be developed. Use of native plants for revegetation projects is in its infancy as is the production,

sale, and purchase of seed and planting stock by

private firms or government agencies. A major portion
190 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems

of native plant seed is collected from wildlands where

disease status is unknown. Only recently have private

and government concerns begun producing planting

stock. Presently there is little or no factual basis for

evaluating the disease status of propagative material.

Revegetative work in the Western United States is

proceeding at great risk in view of this well established

principle.

Excluding the Plant Pathogen

Plant pathogens may be excluded from a revegetation site by inspection, pretreatment of propagative

material, soil treatment, and eradicating insect vectors.

Treatment of Propagative Material—Propagule

treatment to assure pathogen-free planting material

is more applicable at the propagule increase certification level than for large rangeland revegetation efforts. Aerated steam, hot water, gases, and radiation

are used to eliminate pathogens from planting material. The thermal death point of most pathogens is

lower than for most plants and thus pathogens can be

eliminated from the host plant by various heat treatment methods. Ultraviolet light, x-ray, gamma-ray,

and other electromagnetic radiations are used to kill

pathogens in plant material. Meristem culture is used

to eliminate fungi, viruses, and bacteria and produce

pathogen-free plants.

Quarantine of Diseased Plants—Quarantines

are difficult to implement and control. In most instances they are justified even if they only result in

delaying entrance of pathogens into a new area. Excluding a virulent pathogen from an area to which it

would not likely spread by natural means is the most

justifiable basis for quarantine. If there is little or no

knowledge of specific pathogens, as is the case with

most wildland plants, there is full justification for a

complete quarantine. Present interstate or interregional shipment of seed and other planting material

should be discontinued until there is a basis for establishing the risks involved.

Eradication of the Plant Pathogen

Eradication, like other control methods, is not usually thought of in absolute terms. The objective is to

reduce the pathogen population to a level that permits

a suitable return or product. The objective of biological

control is to eradicate the pathogen enough from an

area to allow an acceptable return.

Sanitation—This is an extremely important method of preventing disease problems although not as

directly applicable to wildland revegetation projects

such as production of planting material in nurseries,

greenhouses, and seed increase plantings. In the

production of certified pathogen-free seed and other

planting material, roguing of diseased plants, elimination of weeds that may harbor pathogens, or alternate hosts of heteroecious fungi are essential. Alternate hosts and weeds can also serve as spheres for

sexual recombination and evolution of new virulent

races. Such hosts and weeds should not be permitted

near experimental areas where genetic improvement

activities are in progress.

Crop Rotation and Soil Treatment—While not

applicable eradication methods in solving disease

problems in wildland management, crop rotation and

soil treatments are of high value in seed garden,

nursery, and greenhouse operations.

Benefits from crop rotation depend on a thorough

knowledge of the hosts and pathogens involved. The

theory is to plant a nonhost or immune crop following

a crop that may have increased a specific pathogen

population. Soil fumigation should be a routine practice in nurseries and seed increase plantings. To fumigate only when disease problems begin to threaten is

an unwise practice. Aerated steam treatment or soil

fumigation should be followed rigidly in all greenhouse operations intended to produce healthy containerized planting stock.

Protecting Plants from Pathogens

Application of protective chemicals is a familiar

method of plant disease prevention but is of questionable feasibility on wildlands. The principle is to prevent infection by coating seeds or plants with a substance toxic to the pathogen. With cultural methods,

for example, plants in greenhouses may also be protected from pathogens by preventing long periods of

free moisture that may be required for infection by

certain fungi. Seed is dried and then stored at temperatures unfavorable to seed pathogens.

Curing a Diseased Plant

Some diseases can be cured by use of systemic

chemicals that are directly toxic to the pathogen. Heat

treatment is also used to cure plants infected with

systemic viruses or vascular fungi. Localized diseased

portions of plants, like mistletoe, witches’ brooms, fire

blighted branches, or stem galls, for example, can be

removed by pruning to rid the plant of the disease.

Curing or therapy as a means of control is limited to

high value individual plants and the production of

pathogen-free propagative material.

Improving Host Resistance

All plants are susceptible to some pathogens, but all

plants are also resistant to most pathogens. Evolution

of this equilibrium provides the basis for mutual

survival of both organisms (pathogen-susceptible and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 191

Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems

pathogen-resistant plants), and is exploited in pathogen resistance selection and breeding programs. These

programs are, however, long-term, expensive, and

unwise ventures without a dedicated commitment. In

the final analysis, when disease resistance can be

improved, it is usually one of the most economical

means of managing disease problems.

The host-pathogen-environment interaction must

be thoroughly understood before a breeding program

can be credible. There are many examples with agricultural crop plants of successfully improving disease

resistance, however, improvement is usually a slow

process. The success of using improved resistance in

agronomy depends on a corresponding cultural control, and both are justifiable because of the high value

of the crop. The infeasibility of practices such as

fertilization, weed control, insect control, and irrigation in wildland management limits the usefulness of

disease management to improving resistance. Nevertheless, improving disease resistance has an important potential for managing wildland plant disease.

Biological Management of Plant

Pathogens _____________________

The dynamic fluctuation of organism populations in

natural systems has evolved from an interaction of

associated organisms and their physical environment

to the system said to be in biological balance. Humans

are disrupters of this balance, and this is the origin of

their problems. The stability of biological systems is

proportional to their complexity. Management systems in agronomy and forestry tend to create instability by simplifying biological systems. Parasitic organisms react abnormally in human-disrupted systems in

agronomy and forestry, and tend to create instability

by simplifying biological systems. The premise of

biological management is to use the diverse phenomena of natural systems to restore the balance. But to

live with this system, humans must agree to share the

harvest with microorganisms. In other words, the

objective of biological management is to reduce, not

eliminate, human loss to plant pathogens. With this

system, people are not direct participants (such as is

an application of a fungicide), rather they manage the

restoration of natural systems through joining a knowledge of biological plant systems. Recent theory and

principles of biological management now being directed toward agronomic plant disease, have evolved

by following natural systems.

In restoring and managing wildland plant resources,

managing plant disease is an important part of the

problem. From a scientific basis there is no benefit to

proceed without giving attention to plant pathogens.

We can successfully use both low cost plant disease

management and also natural biological methods. We

have before us, in the Western United States

shrublands, biological systems more “truthful” and

effective in their natural state than exist in agriculture and intensive forestry. Natural microbiological

systems are now being modified and threatened by

resource management practices that hardly consider

their existence. It is an endangered system. An immediate prime effort of wildland resource management

and scientific research should be directed to understanding these systems.

Outline for Managing Plant

Disease in Wild-Shrubland Plant

Improvement and Revegetation

Practice _______________________

I. Define management needs

II. Review and select potential plant species with

them

III. Establish genetic control

1. Review plant characteristics desirable for

human-centered objectives.

2. Review plant characteristics required for

plant survival and evolution.

3. Define geographic limits of a plant population possessing these characteristics.

4. Define the variability of all required characteristics within the population.

5. Based on variability, develop a statistically

valid random sampling method for selection

of plant propagule collection points.

IV. Preserve gene pool variability

1. Evaluate seed collection, cleaning, storage,

scarification, stratification, germination,

planting, establishment techniques for the

potential of reducing genetic variability.

2. Evaluate loss of individual plants because of

biological and physical factors during research experimentation for potential of reducing genetic variability.

3. Base experimental design on population variability. For example, sample size or replication number should be based on preserving

plant variability, not on experimental dollar

limitations.

V. Attending dangers of narrowing plant gene pools

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

Chapter 15 Plant Pathology and Managing Wildland Plant Disease Systems
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 193

Richard Stevens

16

Chapter

Management of restored and rehabilitated ranges can be divided into (1) post-treatment, which we are most concerned with

herein, and (2) management of the subsequent mature community. Immediate post-treatment management can positively or

negatively affect the ultimate success and longevity of a project,

and the actual returns and benefits received. It is essential to

follow good post-treatment management practices to obtain the

maximum return on investments made. The post-treatment

management period may last as long as 10 years following

treatment.

Management of restored and rehabilitated ranges will vary

depending on the goals or objectives of the project. The most

common overall objective of a project is to enhance soil stability.

Some companion objectives could be to provide for maximum

establishment and maintenance of seeded and desirable indigenous species, increase livestock production, improve wildlife

habitat, and improve the appearance of the landscape.

Management of

Restored and

Revegetated Sites
194 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

The principal immediate post-treatment management objective should be to provide for maximum

establishment and development of seeded and desirable indigenous species. Once this has been accomplished, other objectives will likely follow.

An important step in any revegetation project is the

selection of species to be seeded. Many species used in

rangeland improvement projects are adapted to a wide

array of range types. Individual plant species do not

respond to various management practices in the same

way and to the same degree on all sites.

Amount and distribution of precipitation in the

Intermountain West is perhaps one of the most important factors in determining to what degree a range

improvement project succeeds or fails during the establishment period. Above-average precipitation can

result in some outstanding successful projects. Projects

should be planned on the basis of average yearly

precipitation. Below-average precipitation during years

of establishment will change post-treatment management. Managers have little or no control over climatic

factors, outbreaks of rabbits, insects, rodents, or disease, which can affect the success and complicate the

post-treatment management of a project (fig. 1). One

or all of these factors has the potential of destroying or

reducing the success of a project.

Managers must control the influence that human

activities and grazing animals have on a project.

These factors can positively or negatively affect the

success of a project. During the establishment period,

livestock grazing and any damaging activities of man

must be controlled. Human activities and grazing

animals can trample seedlings, pull seedlings up,

remove foliage, reduce plant vigor and rate of establishment, reduce growth, retard seed production,

Figure 1—Effect of heavy blacktailed jackrabbit

use on seedling establishment and forage production. Mule deer and jackrabbit use on the left,

mule deer use only on the right.

decrease or slow down soil stabilization, and spread

and increase the abundance of undesirable plant

species.

The manager makes the decisions concerning when,

where, how much, and what type of grazing and human

activity is to occur following treatment. Project objectives and management plans should be based on site

potential, expected rate of establishment, plant community makeup, and climatic factors. The presence or

absence of rodents, rabbits, insects, and disease must

be considered. Plans have to be flexible enough to

compensate for any changes from the expected when

the decision is made to graze, or not to graze, and how

much. Development and condition of the project and

not plans should determine post-treatment grazing.

If the project objective is only soil stabilization, establishment and maintenance of seeded species would be

simpler than when other objectives are considered. By

preventing grazing or other disturbing influences, one

should be able to accomplish the desired objective of

soil stabilization with less effort and in less time.

As a general rule, treated and seeded sites should

not be grazed until at least the end of the second

growing 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 vary

with vegetative type treated; grass, forb, and shrub

species seeded; climatic conditions immediately preceding, during, and following treatment; soils; seedbed preparation and seeding techniques employed;

presence and severity of competing weedy species;

plant disease; and number and kinds of insects, rodents, or rabbits on the site (table 2).

When grazing is allowed, it should be lighter than

would normally be allowed with a fully mature community, even if forage production figures suggest

that heavier use might be permitted. Grazing should

only occur when it is least damaging to the newly

established species. Spring and early summer use can

be very damaging on newly seeded ranges (fig. 3).

Special considerations should be given to seeded and

indigenous shrubs, because shrubs establish and develop much slower than grasses and forbs. There are

slow growing and fast growing shrubs (table 3; fig. 4).

The level of grazing should be controlled to allow

seeded and released shrubs to establish, and grow

enough that they will not be harmed by grazing. As

grasses and forbs mature, cattle and sheep use will be

less detrimental. During the establishment period,

the intensity of grazing has to be adjusted on a season

to season basis, and allowance made for phenological

stage of development, as well as for climatic and biotic

influences.

The drier the treated site, the slower that planted

species will establish and develop. Species seeded on a

juniper-pinyon site that receives 11 inches (27.9 cm) of

annual precipitation will establish and develop slower
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 195

Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

Table 1—Recommended minimum years of nongrazing following revegetation of different vegetative types, and

according to special treatments and site conditions.

Recommended growing

Special treatment or seasons with no livestock

Vegetative type site conditions grazing following seeding

Subalpine 3

Aspen-conifer 2

Aspen, Gambel oak, maple Broadcast seed prior to leaf fall 3

Ponderosa pine 2

Mountain brush 2

Juniper-pinyon Above 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 2

Juniper-pinyon Below 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 3

Mountain big sagebrush 2

Basin big sagebrush Above 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 2

Basin big sagebrush Below 14 inches (36 cm) annual precipitation 3

Wyoming big sagebrush Above 12 inches (30 cm) annual precipitation 3

Wyoming big sagebrush Below 12 inches (30 cm) annual precipitation 4

Black sagebrush 3

Shadscale 3 to 4

Black greasewood 2

Inland saltgrass 1

Blackbrush 3

than the same species on an adjacent juniper-pinyon

site that receives 14 inches (35.6 cm) annual precipitation. The drier sites will require at least an additional

year or more of nonuse (table 2). If a sagebrush area

that receives an average of 15 inches (38.1 cm) annual

precipitation is treated and seeded and then receives

only 10 to 11 inches (25.4 to 27.9 cm), the first one or

two seasons following seeding, grazing may have to

Table 2—Additional growing seasons of nonuse (beyond recommended growing seasons indicated in table 1)

required due to special conditions.

Site conditions Years

Burned and broadcast seeded +1

Slower growing shrubs seeded +2 to +4

or released (table 3)

Seedings in cheatgrass, red brome, +l to +3

medusahead, or halogeton

communities

Poor seedbed conditions +1

Erosive soils +l to +3

Soils with exposed and +2

disturbed subsoil

Precipitation 2 or more inches +1 to +3

(5 cm) less than average

during first growing season

Precipitation 2 or more inches +1

(5 cm) less than average during

second and third growing season

Outbreak of insects or disease +1 to +3

Excessive number of rodents and rabbits +1 to +3

be delayed by as much as 2 years beyond what was

planned to obtain adequate establishment and growth.

Seeded species need to be given the opportunity to

put down substantial root systems, to accumulate

carbohydrate reserves, and, in the case of some grasses

and forbs, to produce a seed crop. To ensure a healthy

vigorous plant community it is essential that grasses

and forbs be given the opportunity to produce seed the

first few years following seeding and every few years

thereafter. Improper grazing and sub-optimal climatic

conditions are the two major factors that negatively

affect seed production.

Figure 2—A highly productive 4-year-old rehabilitation project in a juniper-pinyon-Gambel oak

type. The site was grazed lightly at the end of the

second growing season following seeding. Light

grazing occurred the third year following seeding.
196 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

The degree of seedling vigor and rate of establishment and growth will influence the timing and intensity of subsequent grazing. Species with exceptional

seedling vigor and a fast rate of root and aboveground

growth can be grazed sooner than those with less

seedling vigor or a slower establishment and growth

rate (table 3; fig. 5). A good indication of well established, vigorous plants is excellent seed production.

When a mixture of species is seeded, management has

to be tailored to accommodate the characteristics and

requirements of all the species. Post-treatment management should be directed toward the slower developing species (table 3). Many forbs develop slower

Figure 3—Results of poor post-treatment

management. The area was grazed too

early and too heavy the second and third

year following seeding. The seeded species

were weakened and killed by grazing, allowing cheatgrass to once again dominate.

Figure 4—Fast growing white rubber rabbitbrush, fourwing saltbush, and big sagebrush

are fully established in this 6-year-old range

improvement project in a juniper-pinyon type.

Antelope bitterbrush growth is considerably

slower. The area was spring grazed by cattle

during the 2 preceding years.

Table 3—Years normally required for certain plant species to establish, mature, and flower.

Fast Intermediate Slow Very slow

2 years 2 to 3 years 3 to 4 years 4 to 6 years

Bluegrass, Kentucky Alfalfa Crownvetch Balsamroot

Brome, mountain Aster spp. Lupine spp. Bitterbrush, antelope

Burnet, small Brome, Regar Milkvetch, cicer Ceanothus, Martin

Kochia, forage Brome, smooth Rabbitbrush, low Ceanothus, snowbush

Orchardgrass Canarygrass, reed Rabbitbrush, rubber Chokecherry, black

Rye, mountain Dropseed, sand Ricegrass, Indian Cliffrose

Squirreltail, bottlebrush Eriogonum, Wyeth Sacaton, alkali Currant, golden

Sweetclover, yellow Fescue, hard sheep Sagebrush, big Elderberry, blue

Timothy Flax, Lewis Sagebrush, black Ephedra, green

Wheatgrass, crested Globemallow Saltbush, fourwing Mountain mahogany, curlleaf

Wheatgrass, desert Goldeneye, showy Shadscale Mountain mahogany, true

Wheatgrass, intermediate Penstemon, Palmer Sweetvetch, Utah Serviceberry, Saskatoon

Wheatgrass, pubescent Sainfoin Wildrye, Great Basin

Wheatgrass, slender Sweetanise Wildrye, Russian

Wheatgrass, bluebunch Winterfat

Wheatgrass, Siberian

Wheatgrass, tall

than most grasses. Most shrubs develop slower than

grasses or forbs. When shrubs are included in the seed

mix, more than 2 years, and possibly 5 to 6 years, of

nonuse following seeding may be required. A few

shrubs such as fourwing saltbush, winterfat, rabbitbrush, forage kochia, and big sagebrush, possess a

faster rate of growth and maturation. These species

will often produce a seed crop and be within 80 percent

oftheir maximum forage production potential within

3 years following establishment (fig. 4).

Many range improvement projects are conducted on

depleted sites having some degree of erosion problem.

Because of soil loss, site potential may not be as great
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 197

Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

Figure 5—Shrubs establish and develop

much slower than grasses and forbs. Grazing

must be closely controlled until all seeded

species become completely established and

indigenous species recover.

Figure 6—This disturbed riparian site was

broadcast seeded. Shrubs were transplanted

along the water’s edge. Grazing should be

excluded until the disturbance is completely

stabilized and the shrubs are fully established

and reproducing vegetatively.

as it once was. The rate of species establishment

and growth is influenced by the soil’s productivity

potential.

Seedling establishment and growth often vary with

site preparation techniques. In soils that have been

lightly tilled (plowed or disked), seedlings can develop

faster, and may be more numerous the first and second

year than on less tilled sites. However, seedlings in

tilled soils may be more susceptible to transplanting

and pulling damage, due to the loose nature of the soil.

Young plants growing in sandy soils are more susceptible to grazing and transplanting damage than are

seedlings on areas with heavier soils.

Depleted aspen and Gambel oak areas can be seeded

prior to leaf fall, with no other treatment being required. Seedling growth and plant maturity is inhibited under these conditions. Grazing is not recommended on these areas for at least three or four

growing seasons following seeding.

Sites with aggressive annuals (cheatgrass, red brome,

medusahead, and halogeton) on them prior to treatment, need to be given special management consideration (fig. 3). Care must be taken with grazing.

Seeded and indigenous species generally develop slower

in the presence of aggressive annuals than on sites

without annuals. Livestock grazing in these situations may have to be delayed longer than would normally be needed to allow for proper seedling establishment and community development.

Once a seeded community has become established,

grazing must be closely regulated. Most annuals are

never totally eliminated from a site. Annuals in a

community are waiting for the opportunity to increase,

and will do so when the seeded community is weakened

through misuse. Annuals can once again become the

dominate species with improper management (fig. 3).

It is not fully understood how most seeded (native

and introduced) and indigenous species will respond

to each other and to grazing. Because of the many

physical and biological factors associated with an

improvement project, the manager must expect the

unexpected, and be flexible enough to adapt management plans accordingly. To do otherwise may harm

some species in the community, encourage others, and

diminish the potential values and habitats associated

with the project.

Some projects may include transplanting. Transplants establish at various rates. Site characteristics,

range condition, age and condition of transplants, soil

condition and type, soil moisture, and occurrence of

post-planting precipitation can all affect rate of transplant establishment. Transplants need to be firmly

rooted and producing good top growth before any

grazing occurs.

Seeded and transplanted species in riparian situations may require a considerable amount of time to

become established and to stabilize the site. Because

riparian areas are generally heavily used by livestock

and humans, all grazing and human activities should

be removed at the time of treatment. Use cannot

resume until all seeded and planted species, as well as

indigenous species, are completely established or have

recovered, and the disturbed areas has stabilized

(fig. 6). When grazing is resumed, animal densities,

distribution, and duration of use on the area must be

closely monitored. Proper distribution of livestock

becomes very critical. Human activities must be controlled and monitored, and proper action taken when

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

Chapter 16 Management of Restored and Revegetated Sites

Figure 7—A mourning dove nest in an ungrazed

juniper-pinyon chaining-seeding rehabilitation

project.

Excessive use by big game can result in harm to

improvement projects. The chances of this happening

are small. If this occurs, a reduction in numbers, the

exclusion of game animals, and period of nonuse programs can be initiated. This could include the erection

of temporary electric fences, implementation of special hunting seasons, or herding of livestock and game.

If needed, big game reduction programs should be

carried out prior to the project. Animal numbers and

degree of use fluctuate seasonally and yearly, depending on weather, conditions of adjacent ranges that big

game use, animals’ health, reproduction rate, predators, disturbances, and type and timing of hunts and

hunter success.

Most project areas require access roads. Unneeded

or undesirable roads should be closed and seeded upon

completion of each project. When improperly constructed, roads can become erosion channels. New

roads can increase human activities on a site, resulting in (a) disturbance of livestock and wildlife activities, (b) reduction in livestock and wildlife use, (c) destruction of seeded and planted species, especially on

riparian sites, (d) additional human use of water

development, (e) increased on- and off-road vehicle

travel, (f) increased fire potential, (g) additional soil

erosion, and (h) increased use by horses. New access

roads can likewise concentrate livestock use, resulting

in depleted areas.

Destructive and harmful human activities that

should be controlled on a new rehabilitation project

include camping and associated activities, off-road

and on-road vehicle travel, horseback riding, fires,

gate closure problems (cattle guards can alleviate this

problem), wood gathering, livestock trailing and human activity during critical wildlife periods such as

breeding, nesting (fig. 7), fawning, calving, periods of

deep and crusted snow, low forage availability, and

other stressful periods.

Permanent or temporary fences can be used to help

control grazing and human activities. Solar-powered

electric fences are ideal for temporary protection of

rehabilitation sites. Monitoring and repair of fencing

is essential to the success of any project.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 199

Richard Stevens

Stephen B. Monsen

17

Chapter

Introduction _____________________________________

Range and wildland improvement projects conducted throughout the Intermountain region normally occur within specific

plant communities. Each plant community has unique features

that require different equipment, planting techniques, and plant

materials to conduct improvement projects. Plant communities

or associations discussed in this chapter are: (1) subalpine

herblands and upper elevation aspen openings, (2) wet and

semiwet meadows, (3) inland saltgrass, (4) riparian, (5) aspenconifer, (6) mountain brush-ponderosa pine, (7) juniper-pinyon,

(8) sagebrush, (9) salt desert shrub, (10) blackbrush, (11) annual

weedy grasses—cheatgrass brome, red brome, and medusahead,

and (12) lowland annual weeds.

Guidelines for Restoration

and Rehabilitation of

Principal Plant

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

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Following is a description of each community, equipment and techniques recommended to control competition, a description of methods to prepare sites for

planting, and a list of adapted species suggested for

seeding. Additional information related to competition removal and site preparation is found in chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11; seeding procedures in chapter

12; and species descriptions, ecological relationships

and distribution, plant culture, uses and management, and improved varieties and ecotypes in chapters

18 through 23.

Species selected for seeding depend on the objectives

of the project. In general, planting projects fall into

two categories: (1) If the principal objective is to

restore plant communities, then treatments would be

conducted to reestablish native species; this practice is

referred to as “Restoration.” (2) If the objective is to

establish plants on a disturbance or change the species

composition, then a combination of introduced and

native species could be used and the practice would be

considered “Rehabilitation” or “Revegetation.” Few, if

any, introduced species would be planted in restoration projects because the primary objective is to enhance the ultimate development of native communities. To date, restoration of some native communities

may be somewhat limited by the availability of native

seeds and planting stock. In addition, techniques and

procedures to restore entire native communities are

not fully understood. However, considerable information has been developed to restore certain communities and native species. In addition, studies have been

directed to investigate ecotypic variability and ecology

of selected native species. The studies have been

designed to define the range of occurrence of specific

ecotypes and the ecological and biotic factors regulating the presence of individual ecotypes. This information has been used to develop specific guidelines for

restoration.

Successful restoration plantings are based on the

selection of adapted ecotypes and seeding compatible

species at appropriate rates with appropriate techniques. Establishment of species that may have existed in a natural community is often difficult to

achieve, especially if all species are planted at one

time. In most situations, planting should be designed

to initiate or promote plant successional changes that

would ultimately develop the desired community.

Restoration of depleted plant communities is

becoming an increasingly important objective. Reestablishment of resource values is often achieved

through recovery of native communities. In many

instances, revegetation programs have failed to provide the desired objectives that would be achieved

through restoration.

To date, many seeding or planting projects would be

classified as revegetation programs. Sites that have

been disturbed and support an undesirable array of

plants, including some weeds, are frequently planted

with a number of introduced and native species. Numerous introduced grasses and broadleaf herbs have

proven adapted to western plant communities. Many

advanced cultivars have been developed to revegetate

disturbed and depleted areas, and these are widely

seeded in revegetation projects. Various introduced

species are commonly used as substitutes for native

species. Many introduced species are widely used

because they possess excellent establishment traits

and furnish high quality forage. Although these are

important characteristics, a few introduced species

have, unfortunately, dominated many seeding programs. Too often, areas seeded to a few introduced

species are assumed to restore or provide all of the

original resources of a native community. Careful

evaluation of such plantings does not confirm these

assumptions.

Many introductions possess desirable features and

can be seeded for specific purposes. As mentioned,

various species provide productive, high quality herbage. Others are extremely valuable in the control of

noxious weeds, and many have the ability to stabilize

and colonize harsh disturbances. If planted for these

specific purposes, the plants are quite valuable. Unfortunately, introduced species have often been sown

in an attempt to restore disturbed sites and improve

natural conditions. In many situations, the seeded

plants have adversely affected subsequent development of entire communities. Misuse of a few widely

adapted grasses including smooth brome, intermediate and pubesent wheatgrass, hard sheep fescue, Kentucky bluegrass, and crested and desert wheatgrass

has occurred. In general, these species attain dominance and prevent recovery of native species and the

ultimate recovery of desired communities. Smooth

brome has commonly been seeded throughout mountain brush, aspen, and subalpine communities. This

grass has suppressed and replaced many herbaceous

species on these sites. Similarly, intermediate,

pubesent, crested, and desert wheatgrass have gained

dominance when seeded in the pinyon-juniper, big

sagebrush, and mountain brush types. Desert wheatgrass has gained control in low elevation regions

occupied by big sagebrush and, to a lesser extent, salt

desert shrubs. These species prevent the establishment of understory herbs and the natural regeneration of important native shrubs. Consequently, the use

of such widely adapted introductions to restore native

communities should be avoided. The use of many

introductions will likely continue until native plant

materials become more widely available. In addition,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 201

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

introductions will continue to be used for specific

purposes. Of particular importance is their usefulness

to control the spread of some undesirable weeds and to

stabilize severely disturbed watersheds.

Native species can also be misused, resulting in

disruption of community development or weak stands.

In various situations, certain natives have been used

in an effort to replace less desirable species without

adequate consideration of the adaptability of the

planted species. For example, bluebunch wheatgrass

has been planted with limited success as a replacement for Sandberg bluegrass. Fourwing saltbush,

winterfat, and antelope bitterbrush have been unsuccessfully planted as replacements for big sagebrush.

Palmer penstemon and Lewis flax have been widely

seeded, often in areas where they are marginally

adapted. These practices should be avoided.

Sites that have been altered and are no longer

capable of supporting some native species are usually

revegetated with the most adapted and available species that would provide needed ground cover or habitat. In these situations, combinations of native or

introduced species are commonly used and should be

encouraged.

Plantings are often designed to allow for changes in

species compositions. For example, many shrublands

within the Intermountain region have been converted

to grass for livestock benefits. In addition, certain

wildlands have been disrupted by municipal or agricultural development. Mitigation programs have been

employed to convert the remaining wildlands to a

more productive status. Interseeding of additional

species accompanied by fertilization, irrigation, or

other site improvement techniques are used to support changes in the vegetation. These specific practices would be considered revegetation measures.

In some situations, weed presence has altered many

sites, preventing natural recovery. Introductions are

often used to control and eliminate weeds, restore site

productivity, and provide seedbed conditions that favor the establishment of more diverse species. Revegetation plantings are widely employed to stabilize

watersheds, roadways, mining, and other serious disturbances. Some introduced species have proven well

adapted to these harsh sites, and are capable of persisting on infertile soils. In addition, they may be able

to provide excellent ground cover and soil protection.

Various species are listed in this section that are

adapted to major vegetative communities and can be

used for different planting purposes (tables 1 to 28; all

tables are grouped at the end of the chapter). Appropriate seed mixtures should be used to restore native

communities or revegetative sites for specific purposes. Misuse of species can adversely affect community development.

Seeding normally involves the use of more than one

species. When combinations of plants with different

germination and establishment traits are seeded together, competition among species can regulate seedling survival. Many grass species that are commonly

sown have excellent seedling vigor and establishment

traits. These plants have been selected for their ease

of establishment, uniform stand development, and

seedling survival. Many perennial native herbs also

possess good establishment features, and generally

develop acceptable stands when seeded under most

conditions. Many species that normally invade disturbances are able to colonize harsh, open sites.

When possible, these pioneering species are commonly used as part of a seed mixture to better assure

plant establishment.

When species with different establishment characteristics are seeded together, considerable seedling

mortality can be expected unless special provisions

are made to separate seeds in the furrow or seedbed.

Seeds with different establishment traits can be seeded

in separate rows, and the amount of seed sown can be

adjusted to reduce competition or compensate for

some natural thinning. Broadcast seeding can lessen

seedling competition as seeds of different species are

more widely distributed and less concentrated compared with row seedings.

The ability of individual species to become established is, of course, dependent on: (1) whether a species is sown alone, (2) the establishment features of

the companion species, (3) the amount of seed

planted, (4) the composition and density of onsite

species, (5) climatic conditions, and (6) seedbed

conditions.

It is essential that the compatibility of individual

species and seeding requirements are understood before complex seed mixtures are developed. The establishment features of species recommended for seeding

specific sites are summarized in tables 1 through 28.

The present abundance and composition of remnant

plants that exist on a proposed planting site also

strongly influence the success of a seeding. Normally,

weed control measures are used to eliminate undesirable competition. However, many improvement

projects are designed to retain existing native plants.

These plants can and do compete with new seedlings.

Seeding techniques can be used to interseed or selectively plant areas without significantly eliminating

remnant plants.

Subalpine Herblands and Upper

Elevation Aspen Openings ________

Subalpine herblands and aspen openings are usually very productive and important sites. They provide
202 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

forage and cover, serve as important watersheds, and

provide recreation opportunities (fig. 1). However,

many subalpine herblands, with their parklike openings, have been so degraded (fig. 2) that they only

support weeds or low-value plants. Natural openings

scattered among aspen and conifer forests have been

degraded by heavy grazing (Ellison and others 1951;

Meeuwig 1960). These areas often support undesirable plants including starwort, goosefoot violet, cluster tarweed, flixweed tansymustard, and Douglas

knotweed. Sites within some conifer forests often lack

an acceptable understory, and when timber is harvested, the areas are extremely barren and frequently

Figure 1—Subalpine herblands provide summer

forage, furnish watershed protection, and provide

recreational opportunities.

Figure 2—A subalpine area that has been seriously

depleted by grazing lacks essential cover and is a

source of erosion.

invaded by undesirable weeds (Ellison 1954; Ellison

and others 1951). Successful rehabilitation can markedly increase the value of these ranges for wildlife,

livestock, and watershed protection (Brown and

Johnston 1978b; Brown and others 1978; Heede 1981;

Meeuwig 1960; Plummer 1976; Turner and Paulsen

1976).

Some subalpine areas are relatively small, but

they can be very productive (fig. 1). These areas are

important summer ranges for sheep and cattle, mule

deer, elk, moose, bear, and several species of grouse

(fig. 3a, b). Elevation of subalpine herblands varies

between 7,000 and 12,000 ft (2,150 and 3,600 m). Most

sites occur above 7,800 ft (2,400 m). Because these

high elevation areas receive 20 to 60 inches (500 to

1,500 mm) of precipitation annually, they are important watersheds. Sites requiring restoration often

occur on steep, inaccessible terrain. Within the subalpine communities of the Intermountain West, common grasses include Letterman needlegrass, slender

wheatgrass, mountain brome, and spike trisetum.

Some important forbs are Louisiana sage, western

yarrow, penstemons, geraniums, ligusticum, asters,

lupine, and bluebell. Principal shrubs include currants,

snowberry, low rabbitbrush, and subalpine big sagebrush. Widespread tree species are Engelmann spruce,

subalpine fir, and aspen. Soils can be shallow and

rocky; however, deep fertile soils are most common.

Removal of Competition

On level to moderate slopes supporting low-value

perennials, plowing or disking is an effective procedure for reducing competition. Plowing eliminates

most existing plants, including some highly desirable

and sparse species. This procedure should not be used

if desirable natives exist; such aggressive treatment

should be confined to sites supporting a dominance of

weeds. Destruction of the soil structure can also

result from plowing. Soil compaction and loss of

protective litter may also occur. Plowing should be

restricted to only the most disrupted sites. Plowing

can be done from late spring through summer, but

should not be completed when soils are wet, as this

may produce compacted soil and surface crusts. The

use of brushland plows, offset disks, moldboard plows,

or disk-chains that dig to depths of 4 to 6 inches (10 to

15 cm) are recommended. Plow furrows made at right

angles to the slope can help control erosion and retain

water. Plowing compacted soils can improve seedbed

conditions.

Interseeding can be used where it is desirable to

reestablish additional species within the existing

community. Scalping and seeding can be accomplished

with the browse seeder-scalper or related implements. This type of machine can be equipped with 12- to
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 203

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

16-inches (30- to 40-cm) wide scalpers that remove

existing competition and plant seed simultaneously.

The browse seeder treatment has been especially

useful on slopes of up to 30 percent. Scalps should

always be aligned at right angles to the slope and may

be constructed to control erosion from seriously gullied

slopes. Scalping or removing soil to create small terraces can be destructive and leave scars for many

years. Clearings to accommodate interseeding should

be carefully designed. Interseeding can also be accomplished by using herbicides to remove or reduce competition. Spraying strips with herbicides, and transplanting or seeding following the treatment, is a

practical approach. This system is most useful on

steep slopes where soil protection is critical and soil

disturbance should be avoided.

Surface cultivators can be used to reduce annuals

such as cluster tarweed, Douglas knotweed, or flixweed tansymustard. The soil should be cultivated to

a depth of 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm) in early spring and

summer with duckfoot-weeders, spring-tooth harrows,

or similar equipment. Cluster tarweed, the most competitive mountain annual, can be eliminated only if all

plants are removed. Most seeds of this plant germinate each year so there is slight year-to-year carryover

of seed in the soil. By taking advantage of this characteristic, tarweed can often be eliminated with one

thorough treatment, although followup treatments

are generally required. Annual species that retain

considerable seed dormancy usually cannot be eliminated in one operation. Sufficient seed may accumulate as a seedbank, producing many competitive seedlings following spraying or mechanical tillage.

Cluster tarweed produces a toxic chemical that accumulates in the soil and reduces seed germination of

other species or causes abnormal seedlings to develop

(Carnahan and Hull 1962). Leachate from cluster

tarweed field sites has reduced germination and establishment of introduced grasses and some native

herbs. The chemical diminishes within a few months,

particularly if sites are disked or plowed. Sites treated

by tillage or with a herbicide in late spring or early

summer can be fall seeded without adverse effects to

new seedlings.

Cluster tarweed should be treated after all plants

have emerged, but before flowers appear. To prevent

seeds from developing, it is essential that treatments

not be delayed. Once flowers appear, seeds ripen

quickly and a host of new seedlings is inevitable. If

larger areas are treated, it is essential that equipment

be available to conduct the work on schedule. Fallowing for two growing seasons may be required to treat

some areas to assure complete control. Normally, sites

supporting large patches of cluster tarweed have very

compact and crusted soils. Disking or tillage may be

required before sites can be seeded with most conventional drills. Disking can effectively loosen the seedbed. Drill seeding should be done when surfaces are

moist but not wet. Surface-type drills or broadcast

seeding lessens the chance of soil compaction that can

prevent seedling emergence. Competitive stands of

cluster tarweed, goosefoot violet, and various annuals

can be eliminated with an application of low-volatile

2,4-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 kg

per ha). The herbicide glyphosphate (Roundup) is also

effective in controlling annual and perennial weeds on

high elevation rangelands. Ground spray equipment

is best for applying herbicides on most high mountain

areas because the herbicide can be more directly

applied to a precise area. Spraying should be done

early in the spring. Annuals are generally most

sensitive to herbicides in the two-leaf stage, and certainly should be sprayed before the four-leaf stage.

Figure 3—Subalpine herblands, including aspen and conifer openings, are important summer ranges for livestock

and wildlife.
204 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Herbicides also eliminate the necessity for soil tillage

that tends to dry the seedbed. Surface soils that are

disked or tilled in spring dry quickly. Sufficient rainfall must be received following tillage to initiate seed

germination and sustain small seedlings.

Clumps or patches of skunk cabbage can occur in

open parks intermixed with subalpine herblands and

aspen openings. Grazing has eliminated many of the

understory broadleaf herbs and grasses, allowing

skunk cabbage plants to dominate their area of occupation. Recovery of desirable native understory species occurs slowly once sites are protected from grazing. Some reduction of this weed is required to ensure

establishment of seeded species. Effective measures

have not been adequately developed to control this

plant, but recent studies conducted on the MantiLaSal National Forest reveal that density of skunk

cabbage can be reduced with application of various

herbicides, tillage, or mowing. Applying Roundup just

prior to flowering killed most plants and prevented

any regrowth for 3 years after treatment. Mowing or

tilling in early July when plants were less than 15

inches (38 cm) tall removed all current vegetative

growth and prevented any resprouting during the

remaining growing season. Plants regained about

two-thirds of their pretreatment density and growth

stature the following summer. Treated patches were

able to completely recover in 3 to 5 years. Seeding into

mowed, tilled or sprayed plots was equally successful.

One-year control, attained by any of these treatments,

allowed seeded grasses and broadleaf herbs to become

fully established.

Skunk cabbage plants develop robust, erect stems

with large, fleshy leaves that form a dense canopy.

Plants are usually much taller than other associated

herbs. Consequently, Roundup herbicide can be applied with ground spray equipment or roller type

applicators with little damage to understory herbs.

Rollers are used to simply rub or swab the herbicide on

the foliage. The roller bar is suspended on a wheel

tractor and the height of the applicator is regulated as

the unit is passed over the plant. Commercial applicators used in farming operations work effectively on

range sites, and are available through most equipment companies. This practice can be used in most

situations, even where retention of understory herbs

is a primary objective.

Tall larkspur is a troublesome, poisonous plant

throughout this vegetative zone. Although certain

herbicides are somewhat effective, Vallentine (1989)

stated that repeated treatments are required. This is

often costly and difficult to accomplish. Sites infested

with this weed are often not suitable for cattle grazing,

and are best managed for other uses. Many sites in

subalpine and aspen park communities were seriously

impacted by heavy grazing that occurred near the

turn of the last century. Native species were eliminated

and serious erosion resulted. Many sites have not fully

recovered, even when protected from grazing for many

years. Less desirable species, including Letterman

needlegrass, western yarrow, Louisiana sagebrush,

dandelion, and Rydberg penstemon have persisted

and spread to dominate some areas. These sites are

often considered for seeding. Direct seeding may be

required to reintroduce desirable plants that can eventually produce seed and increase in importance. However, to accomplish seeding, the existing species must

be significantly reduced to lessen competition to new

seedlings. Unless the plants are controlled, seeding

cannot be recommended. However, disturbance to the

site is not always advisable. Natural improvement

may occur if a sufficient seed source is available.

Although the process may be slow, protection and

careful management may be the best alternative to

improve inaccessible, steep, or harsh sites. Interseeding

of desirable species can be successful, and is an effective technique to stimulate and speed up successional

changes. This can be accomplished by seeding strips,

spots, or selected patches where natural spread is

expected to occur. Many areas that were earlier disturbed have now recovered, and soil loss has diminished. Treatment of these sites should be carefully

considered to assure that the best procedures are

used—seeding or management. Introducing foreign

species to a site that is improving naturally is not

advisable.

Planting Season

The planting season for mountainous sites extends

from early spring until mid-July. Late fall planting is

also acceptable, and can be done from September until

snow and frost make planting impossible. In subalpine regions the fall planting season may close in early

October or even late September. Planting in areas that

have been disturbed by logging or road construction

should also be confined to these dates. Seeding is often

done throughout the summer as logging progresses.

This is not advisable because seedlings are vulnerable

and can succumb to climatic extremes. Seeds planted

in early summer often germinate precociously, and

many of the seedlings die as the soil dries. Seedlings

that emerge from mid or late summer plantings are

often too small and poorly rooted to overwinter. Unless

planting can be conducted in the early spring, work

should be delayed until late fall to ensure germination

the following spring. Because of lingering snow fields

and wet areas in the spring, late fall planting is the

most practical.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 205

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Planting Procedures

Aerial and ground broadcast seeding in the fall are

satisfactory methods of planting large tracts of prepared ground. Soil sloughing resulting from freezing

and thawing usually covers the seed adequately on

plowed or disked land. Pulling a light anchor chain,

chain link fence, or harrow across the treated area

assures good coverage. If light chaining is used, scarce

and expensive seeds can be dropped into tractor cleat

marks from seed dribblers that are mounted on the

crawler tractors used to pull the chain.

Drilling is recommended for spring planting and

may also be used in the fall. Some risk is involved with

drilling in the fall if the seeding is done too early. Most

drilled seeds are placed directly in the soil and can

germinate if soil temperatures warm up even for short

intervals, an undesirable situation. Since this hazard

is often present on high mountain ranges, it is important to delay drilling until late fall. Broadcast planting

can also be used to seed small isolated tracts. Planting

in the late spring and summer should be avoided, as

soil moisture may not be available for a long enough

period to assure seedling establishment.

Seeds of certain species require a cold stratification

period to germinate, and if planted in the late spring

and summer, will not be adequately stratified to germinate. Although some seeds will likely remain in the

soil to germinate at a later date, many seeds will be

lost, and emergence will not occur uniformly with all

species planted. Weeds and less desirable plants may

likely appear if the seeded species do not develop as

planned.

Mixed seedings, including many costly, native, broadleaf herbs, are used to improve these rangelands and

watersheds. Seeds vary in size and shape. Mixing all

seeds together and planting at a similar depth frequently results in poor or erratic success. A number of

commercial drills are now available that facilitate

planting seeds of different sizes in separate rows or

furrows. Also, seeds of different sizes can be planted at

different depths. Improper seeding should be avoided

on these important rangelands.

Rodents can quickly and effectively gather certain

seeds that are either drilled or broadcast planted. If

seeding is delayed until late in the season, small

rodents are less active and seed losses can be significantly reduced.

The browse seeder-scalper equipped with 12- to 16-

inch (30- to 40-cm) scalpers is an excellent unit for

planting weedy sites. Browse seeders and some drills

can be used to plant seed of shrubs in alternate rows

with herbs. Seeding individual species separately in

alternate rows is a practical procedure to reduce competition among seeded species.

Shrubs and herbs can be spring transplanted into

mountainous sites. Several adapted herbs, especially

rhizomatous species, have been transplanted with

good success. Treated areas usually receive sufficient

moisture to sustain young transplant stock. Sites

should be planted before existing native species initiate growth.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

The features of grasses and broadleaf herbs that are

seeded on these sites should be considered before

disturbances are planted (chapters 18 and 19). Within

this broad community type are various plant associations. Selecting and seeding the most adapted species

requires careful inspection of the particular sites under consideration. A combination of species is normally required to restore diverse plant associations. A

number of introduced grasses have been selected and

widely used to stabilize watershed disturbances and

provide forage for livestock and wildlife (Forsling and

Dayton 1931; Frischknecht 1983; Hull 1974; Keck

1972; Laycock 1982; Plummer 1976; Plummer and

others 1955, 1968). The primary species previously

planted through most high-elevation revegetation

projects include smooth brome, both southern and

northern strains; meadow foxtail; orchardgrass, tall

oatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, hard sheep fescue, timothy, and intermediate wheatgrass. Creeping foxtail

was commonly seeded at one time, but currently is

only planted in restricted situations. Regar brome is a

recent development that is gaining increased use.

These plants have been used to protect soils and

stabilize disturbances including deteriorated rangelands. However, smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, and hard sheep fescue are

serious competitors with native herbs, and prevent

the recovery and persistence of many native species

(Monsen and Anderson 1993). Although these introduced species are adapted to subalpine and aspen

communities, they should not be used where restoration of native communities is a primary objective.

Smooth brome is well adapted to the subalpine and

aspen openings. Planting about equal amounts of

northern and southern strains, along with other species, has been recommended and widely used. Although smooth brome has demonstrated adaptation to

high-elevation sites, its presence has created serious

problems. Plants are moderately slow to establish, but

increase in density and ground cover by root proliferation and seed production. This species slowly suppresses the presence of most other species. Mixed

seedings established throughout the Intermountain

region have developed to nearly pure stands of smooth

brome, although the time required to attain complete
206 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

dominance has varied between 10 and 30 years. The

loss of forbs and shrubs due to competition from

smooth brome is a serious consideration. Few, if any,

native grasses, broadleaf herbs, or shrubs have demonstrated the competitive ability to control the spread

or persistence of this grass. In addition, few practical

methods are available to remove smooth brome and

reestablish other species. Consequently, smooth brome

is not recommended for planting many mountainous

sites. Unfortunately, this has been a primary grass

recommended for seeding high-elevation ranges, as

highly erodible sites and harsh disturbances can be

quickly and effectively stabilized with this grass. Further use should be carefully regulated.

Meadow foxtail is an excellent companion species to

most seedings. Creeping foxtail is also well adapted to

mixed seedings, and both plants furnish excellent

ground cover. Big bluegrass is moderately productive,

particularly on moist areas. Orchardgrass is equally

productive, but better adapted to well-drained soils.

Slender wheatgrass, mountain brome, timothy, and

tall oatgrass are also well adapted to these areas.

These latter four species develop rapidly, but diminish

within 15 to 25 years. Subalpine and Regar brome are

also well adapted to mountainous conditions. Sulcata

sheep fescue, intermediate wheatgrass, and bearded

wheatgrass are adapted to more arid situations. These

three species can gain dominance and exclude native

herbs in some situations. Their use should be restricted to sites where the recovery of less competitive

natives is not desirable. Tufted hairgrass and Canada

bluegrass are well suited to the less fertile sites and

exposed outcrops.

Not all introduced species have become serious competitors with native species. Tall oatgrass and timothy

are relatively short-lived species, persisting for less

than 20 years. Orchardgrass and alfalfa persist much

longer, but generally are not highly competitive. Both

mountain brome and slender wheatgrass are native

perennials that can be used with excellent results.

Although seed of both species is less available, supplies are generally adequate to meet most demands.

It is important that site-adapted native species are

planted. Considerable variability exists among populations or ecotypes of many natives including mountain brome and slender wheatgrass. Planting nontested

sources should be avoided.

Many useful broadleaf forbs occur throughout these

sites, and are recommended for seeding (table 1).

However, not all species common to undisturbed communities have been able to reestablish from direct

seeding on seriously altered sites. Ellison (1951)

reported that certain species were capable of invading exposed disturbances as pioneer plants, but

others appeared in much later stages. Selecting

species based on their ecological status is important in

restoring these communities. Many broadleaf herbs

establish quite well and are able to compete with

other species if seeded at appropriate rates. Most

important are showy goldeneye, Porter ligusticum,

silky lupine, Rydberg penstemon, low goldenrod, and

edible valerian. Seeds of other native broadleaf herbs

are becoming available and should be included in

seedings. As seeds become more available and less

costly, seeding rates can be further adjusted. Usually

it is desirable to reestablish a complex of native herbs

in most disturbances in high mountain ranges. Successful seedings can be better attained in this climatic

zone than in most other areas of the Intermountain

region.

Mountain snowberry, mountain big sagebrush,

subalpine big sagebrush, low rabbitbrush, and adapted

forms of rubber rabbitbrush are useful for direct

seeding. Transplanting of any or all of these shrubs

is recommended where it is desirable to create immediate browse or cover. Certain rhizomatous and fleshy

rooted species are selectively grazed by pocket gophers, and new seedings can be seriously impacted by

gophers (Ellison and Aldous 1952). Native fescues and

meadow foxtail have been shown to discourage these

animals and could be seeded where rodents are numerous.

Adapted species are presented in table 1. Seeding

rates are somewhat determined by the number and

type of species planted.

Wet and Semiwet Meadow

Communities ___________________

Wet (fig. 4) and semiwet (fig. 5) freshwater meadows

can be found in lowland valleys, but are more frequently

Figure 4—Wet meadows interspaced with willows

align a stream in southern Idaho.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 207

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

encountered on mountain rangelands where water

concentrates and spreads. While the total area occupied by wet and semiwet meadows is relatively small,

these meadows are important to grazing animals and

upland game birds (Eckert 1983; Oakleaf 1971; Patton

and Judd 1970; Ratliff 1985). They produce succulent

herbage throughout the growing season for all classes

of game and livestock. Many meadows have been

seriously depleted of valuable sedges, rushes, grasses,

forbs, and shrubs that once were abundant (Eckert

1983). However, disturbed meadows can be made

more productive (Eckert 1975; Eckert and others

1973a). Planting native sedges, broadleaf herbs, and

shrubs may be desirable, yet is not always practical

because of the lack of sufficient seed or planting stock.

Exotic grasses have been used to restore cover and

herbage production. In some cases, introduced plants

have exceeded the herbage production of some native

grasses. Commercial seed production of native herbs

is necessary to facilitate planting of desirable species.

Consequently, species diversity and structure of

seedings are sometimes limited.

Availability of moisture in meadows ameliorates the

extremes of climate and tends to create a comparatively uniform environment through all vegetal zones.

Some species can often be planted throughout both

lowland and mountain ranges. The important factors

that favor high production on meadow lands are the

moisture availability and high soil fertility.

Removal of Competition

Essential to successful seeding is the control of

weedy species (Eckert 1975, 1983). Summer fallow

treatments have been used to control weeds in wet and

semiwet meadows (Cornelius and Talbot 1955; Eckert

1983; Eckert and others 1973b; Plummer and others

1955). Usually, moldboard plowing is required to eliminate tough, sod-forming, weedy species that may invade disturbed wetlands. Heavy offset disks or brushland plows can be used to control competition and aid

in seedbed preparation. Plowing can eliminate most

species, including desirable plants. However, existing

species must be reduced in order to establish desirable

plants. Some species such as Baltic rush provide

excellent cover and stability, yet are highly competitive and must be controlled if sites are to be successfully seeded. Where the soil may be too wet for plowing

or disking, shallow ripping using a crawler tractor can

be employed to break up the existing sod.

Herbicides can be used to control broadleaf weeds

and grasses, although streams and waterways must

be protected. Noxious weeds, including Canada thistle,

have invaded many semiwet areas and must be controlled to assure establishment of seeded species.

Repeated treatments are required to reduce competition from this plant. In some situations, Canada

thistle may be reduced by spraying, but not completely eliminated.

Removal of competitive perennial grasses, including Kentucky bluegrass, is also necessary to establish more desirable species. Extensive treatments,

including mechanical tillage or application of herbicides, are required. These treatments usually eliminate

other species, restricting their use to the most critical

disturbances.

Planting Season

Early spring to early summer is the most effective

planting period. If water does not accumulate and

remain on the soil surface, fall or late winter plantings

can be successful. However, spring flooding can destroy seedbeds prepared in the fall. Seeds planted in

the fall will rot if inundated by water for extended

periods. Consequently, areas that are subjected to

flooding cannot be planted until the water level recedes. This may delay planting until late spring or

summer. Shrubs should be transplanted early in the

spring after water recedes but before the soil dries out.

Young transplants can usually withstand wet soil conditions for a limited period, yet planting into flooded

sites is not practical or desirable.

Planting Procedures

Broadcast seeding on prepared seedbeds is usually

recommended on wet sites, especially for fall or early

winter seeding. Plowed or disked sites usually leave a

rough surface that can be broadcast planted. Drills can

be used for spring and fall planting, yet particular care

must be taken to avoid planting seeds too deep. Seeding can also be accomplished using the Brillion seeder

Figure 5—Big sagebrush communities often surround small but important meadows.
208 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

or surface-type seeders. These units distribute the

seed on the soil surface. Seeds are then punched into

small depressions within the soil. The depressions are

created by these machines, and the planting depth is

determined by the rollers or imprinters. Surface seeders do not plant seeds too deep even when seeding on

a loose seedbed.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

The most often used introductions for seeding wet

and semiwet meadows to increase herbage production

have been Reed canarygrass and meadow foxtail. Both

grow well in wet and semiwet conditions, although

“Garrison” creeping foxtail is better adapted to wet

areas. These plants persist even on sites where water

may stand for short periods. Alsike clover and strawberry clover are good supporting legumes, although

they can survive only short periods of submergence.

Black medick grows well except at high elevations.

Redtop, smooth brome, timothy, and alpine timothy

are also well adapted to semiwet soils and are useful

forage plants, although redtop is less palatable than

the latter three species. Reed canarygrass and smooth

brome are extremely competitive and suppress other

plants. These grasses are not recommended if natives

or other species are desired on the site.

Species recommended for wet and semiwet conditions differ (table 2). Many native sedges are extremely desirable species, but seed supplies are currently very limited. Attempts to restore these sites will

require development of the native seed industry. Sufficient seed cannot be harvested from wildland stands,

and field rearing will be required.

A list of shrubs useful for transplanting is presented

in table 3. Willows are well suited to a variety of

conditions found in meadows. Willows can be established from fresh cuttings placed in the ground in early

spring; however, rooted cuttings are preferred. Survival of rooted cuttings is much better, particularly on

sites that may dry early in the season.

Planted meadows tend to attract grazing animals.

Sites that are seeded to productive and palatable

grasses and herbs should be managed to prevent

excessive use. Animals will concentrate in treated

areas throughout the entire growing season; consequently, sites must be protected or grazed properly to

maintain site productivity.

Inland Saltgrass

Communities ___________________

Inland saltgrass has gained control on many dry to

semiwet meadows in upland and lowland areas (fig. 6)

where alkalinity is appreciable and where the earlygrowing grasses, sedges, forbs, and shrubs have been

depleted by grazing. Soils are generally heavy with

high water tables at least during some period of the

year. Some areas may have standing or running water

for short periods. While these meadows are relatively

small, they usually have a much higher potential for

livestock forage production and as wildlife habitat

than when dominated by saltgrass (Lesperance and

others 1978; Roundy and others 1983). This is particularly evident on sites that remain fairly moist throughout the growing season. Saltgrass produces a dense

sod, so vigorous methods must be used to eliminate

competition and allow establishment of other species.

Not all saltgrass sites should be converted to other

species. Some sites have been converted to more desirable and productive forage plants for livestock grazing, but this can be a costly effort. Improvements may

benefit wildlife and allow for grazing at different and

longer seasons, but revegetation projects should be

carefully evaluated before treatments begin.

Removal of Competition

Saltgrass can be difficult to eradicate by plowing or

mechanical tillage. McGinnies (1974) reported that

saltgrass can be successfully removed by spraying

with Roundup. Sites that are treated with this herbicide can be plowed or tilled to aid in seedbed preparation. Saltgrass meadows are commonly located on

soils with a high concentration of salt in the C horizon

and possess an impermeable B horizon. These soils

may be susceptible to soil crusting and exhibit low

fertility, but benefit from plowing (Ludwick 1976).

Plowing may improve water infiltration and increase

the availability of nutrients (McGinnies and Ludwig

1977). However, care should be taken to avoid plowing

Figure 6—Inland saltgrass communities usually remain green and productive throughout the summer.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 209

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

the C horizon to prevent mixing of the surface horizons

with the zone of high salt concentration.

Sodic soils are often impermeable to water and may

develop a surface crust when dry. Tillage or deep

ripping when soils are dry can improve permeability.

If soils are wet at the time of treatment, crusting and

surface packing can occur. Disking litter and vegetation into the surface soil can reduce soil crusting.

Drilling with heavy equipment can compact the soil

and prevent the emergence of small seedlings. Broadcast planting and drilling with light equipment can

reduce surface compaction.

Treatment of saltgrass sites usually requires a fallow period. Sites can be plowed in late summer, winter

fallowed, and seeded in the spring. Plowed areas

usually require disking to kill the roots or sod and

prepare the seedbed. Some sites may require two to

three diskings to reduce the sod. Sites may also be

sprayed with Roundup in the summer, fall plowed,

and spring planted. Where complete control is desired,

planting an interim annual crop such as yellow

sweetclover is suggested. After the annual crop is

harvested, the site can again be plowed and disked to

control any regrowth of the saltgrass. The area can

then be planted to perennials. If satisfactory control of

saltgrass is evident, final plowing and seeding of

perennials is recommended 1 to 3 years after the

initial treatment. By this time most of the saltgrass

should have been eliminated.

Planting Season

Best results are obtained with late fall, winter, and

early spring plantings. Where land frequently remains wet, spring planting is advised because fall

planted seeds can be adversely affected by prolonged

flooding.

Planting Procedures

Deep-furrow drills with drops spaced 12 inches

(30 cm) apart have performed satisfactorily on tilled

soils. No-till drills have been used to drill “Garrison”

creeping foxtail directly into saltgrass. The browse

seeder, equipped with 16-inch (40-cm) wide scalpers,

can be used to interseed species into thin stands of

saltgrass. Broadcasting on plowed land in late fall or

early winter has been successful for some sites. Plowed

soil will slough during the winter and usually covers

the seed. These soils sometimes crust, restricting

seedling emergence. To avoid crusting caused by surface packing from drills and tractors, broadcast seeding is often advised. The Brillion seeder is also useful

in planting into the prepared seedbed and in reducing

soil crusting.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Species adapted to the inland saltgrass type (table 4)

must be salt tolerant. Growth of some species occurs

primarily in the spring when the salt is diluted by soil

moisture. Introduced species that have been seeded

successfully in areas with high water tables or running or standing water are: meadow and creeping

foxtail, tall fescue, tall wheatgrass, and strawberry

clover. Areas that dry out during periods of the year

have been seeded successfully to alkali sacaton,

crested wheatgrass, streambank wheatgrass, Russian wildrye, black medick, yellow sweetclover,

fourwing saltbush, Gardner saltbush, and winterfat.

Species’ establishment and stand development can

be somewhat slow. Planting native species is recommended, but is currently limited to only a few species

because seeds are not available.

Riparian Communities ___________

Riparian sites often occur as narrow corridors traversing many different plant zones. Streams and drainages often occupy very small but important sites

within major land types. The vegetation and habitat

provided by the riparian zone is extremely important

to the management of associated lands (Thomas and

others 1979b). Different riparian communities have

been identified throughout the Intermountain area

(Youngblood and others 1985). Riparian sites usually

attract and sustain livestock and wildlife. These sites

are particularly important during the midsummer

months. Riparian communities often provide diversity to otherwise rather barren and exposed wildlands.

Aquatic wildlife are dependent upon a continued supply

of high quality water. The vegetation along a stream

provides shade that greatly influences water temperature, protects soils and streambanks, and furnishes

food for aquatic organisms. Vegetative debris falling

into the stream is a highly important food supply for

aquatic life. Insects harbored by the vegetation also

serve as an important part of the food chain.

Timber harvesting, road construction, agricultural

cropping, mining, and recreational uses have all destroyed riparian areas (Council of Agriculture Sciences and Technology 1974). Riparian zones have also

been degraded extensively by livestock grazing and

trampling (fig. 7). Woody or herbaceous vegetation or

both have been eliminated or seriously stunted in

many areas. On many sites the understory species

have also been replaced by weedy annuals and perennials, including noxious weeds. Frequently, dense

stands of sod-forming grasses or forbs gain dominance. Unpalatable and undesirable species are easily

spread along waterways.
210 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

The woody plants that occur along streambanks

have often been destroyed by repeated browsing and

trampling. It is critical that woody species are reestablished. Some species can recover and grow if protected

from grazing. Willows, aspen, alder, and dogwood

normally recover if some live plants remain. If grazing

has completely destroyed the woody species, transplanting or seeding will be required. Destruction of

stream habitats and associated watersheds has often

resulted in serious erosion and damage to the

streambank and floodplain. Erosion and flooding often remove topsoil and alter the site, hindering natural or artificial revegetation (Monsen 1983). Structures are often required before vegetation can be

reintroduced (fig. 8). Reintroduction of beaver, when

managed to fit the food supply, can significantly aid in

stabilization of many streams and waterways. Entire

watersheds may require treatment before streambanks

can be improved. Controlling grazing on riparian sites

is not easy (Platts 1981a,b) because the use of adjacent

lands is dependent upon access to the stream.

A distinct and abrupt ecotone may separate mesic

from xeric plant communities that align a stream.

Different plant communities must be planted with

separate, adapted, species. Seasonal changes in soil

moisture affect the occurrence of different plant communities. Since most riparian zones support a mixed

array of plant communities, mixed plantings are required. A more extensive plan is required to restore

and stabilize riparian communities than for most

other sites. Monsen, in Platts and others (1987), discusses the following considerations that influence rehabilitation practices:

1. Alteration of the riparian vegetation and soil

may result from onsite impacts, or as a result of poor

management of other portions of the watershed

(Megahan and Kidd 1972). Proper management of

the entire watershed is essential prior to initiation of

rehabilitation measures in riparian communities.

Restoration of riparian sites may be conducted simultaneously with treatment of other portions of the watershed. Unless adjoining areas are reasonably stable,

repair of riparian disturbances will not be effective.

2. Riparian sites usually are extremely heterogeneous, containing different plant communities, topographic conditions, parent materials, and soils within

a short distance (Odum 1971). Remedial treatments

must be applicable to the different conditions encountered. For example, steep, unstable banks may occur

immediately adjacent to wet and boggy meadows,

requiring different site preparation practices, planting techniques, and plant materials.

3. Different treatments are often required to correct separate problems, such as controlling surface

erosion, eliminating bank slumping, shading the

stream, controlling weeds, and providing concealment

for wildlife.

4. Riparian sites are often narrow, irregularly

shaped corridors that are not accessible to conventional planting equipment. Although only small areas may require treatment, extensive erosion, sedimentation, and plant community alteration may

have occurred, thus requiring special equipment for

rehabilitation.

5. The dense and frequently storied assembly of

many plant species is required to maintain riparian

site stability. Grazing and other impacts have often

reduced plant density or resulted in the removal of

specific species. The loss of key species may seriously

affect the persistence of other plants. To be successful,

Figure 8—Channel reshaping and construction of

impoundments may be required to stabilize stream

channels prior to seeding and planting.

Figure 7—Improper grazing has disrupted many

riparian sites in the Intermountain region.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 211

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

rehabilitation may require reestablishment of a complex array of plants. Reestablishing woody plants is

often essential.

6. Many sites are so seriously altered that extensive rehabilitation measures will be required to restrict further losses of soil and vegetation and reestablish a desirable plant cover (fig. 9).

7. Stabilization of the streambank with vegetation is often the principal concern in rehabilitation.

Vegetation is also required to provide shade for the

stream and improve wildlife habitat.

8. Some riparian sites have often been so seriously

altered that the original vegetation can no longer

survive. Thus, attempts to restore the original complement of plants may not be practical. However,

unless a grouping of plants similar to the original

community can be established, aquatic and terrestrial

resources may not be improved.

9. Noxious weeds and other less desirable species

have often invaded riparian disturbances. Weeds must

be removed to improve the site and allow for planting.

These plants do not always provide adequate soil

protection or enhance aquatic habitat. Weeds may be

spread by the stream to occupy downstream disturbances and interfere with the establishment of more

desirable species.

10. Site preparation is usually required to accommodate planting. Some reduction of the existing plant

cover may be necessary to eliminate competition with

newly seeded or planted species. However, reduction

of streambank stability by plowing or similar methods

of plant removal is hazardous. Thus, treatments normally include interseeding or planting small strips or

sections over a period of 2 to 3 years. By such procedures, small areas can be treated in sequential intervals to retain existing plant cover and encourage

natural recovery.

11. Seasonal runoff and flooding influence planting

dates as well as establishment and survival of new

seedlings or transplants (Aldon 1970b). Sites may be

covered with water in the spring for a few days or for

weeks. Planting is frequently delayed by flooding until

a time when air temperatures and precipitation patterns 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 to

survive spring runoff. Many riparian species survive

or are propagated by flooding (Kozlowski 1984). However, small seedlings usually are not as tenacious as

larger plants. Seasonal runoff also disrupts and seriously damages prepared seedbeds. Transplanting large

stock is often required to resist the effects of flooding

and scouring.

12. Protection of young plants is essential for establishment and survival. Protection from grazing may

be 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 overcome the influences of grazing and flooding.

Artificial plantings are not the only means to restore

and improve riparian communities. Because of the

inherent problems associated with revegetation of

these areas, consideration should be given to natural

improvement whenever possible. Protection from grazing (Meehan and Platts 1978; Vallentine 1980) can be

used to improve many situations. If a satisfactory

number of remnant plants exist, natural recovery can

often occur. Some native herbs, particularly species of

sedges and rushes, are extremely vital to streambank

stability and herbage productivity. Most species of

sedges and rushes have not been investigated for use

in artificial seeding programs, but their utility is well

known. Where possible, management and revegetation programs should be tailored to promote their

recovery. The growth habits and utility of most of the

principal sedge and rush species in the Intermountain

area are summarized by Monsen (in Platts and others

1987) (table 5).

Removal of Competition

Sites requiring transplanting to reestablish woody

shrubs and trees may first require removal of herbaceous species to allow shrubs to establish (Nieland and

others 1981). If shrubs or trees are to be transplanted

along the edge of a stream, plantings should be selectively located in open sites free of herbaceous competition. Planting directly into dense stands of sodforming grasses and herbs often requires removal of

understory competition. A clearing of approximately

Figure 9—Transplanting is frequently required

to reestablish willows and other shrubs along

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

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

30 inches square (75 cm square) should be created. The

vegetation can be removed by hand scalping or by

spraying with a herbicide. Scalping is not very successful in controlling sod-forming grasses, sedges, or

shrubs, but competition need not be controlled beyond the first growing season in many situations.

Scalps may also be created using various herbicides.

If Roundup is applied, spots can be transplanted

immediately without damage to the transplant.

Meadow vegetation is killed with this herbicide; however, sprayed sites actually collapse as their root

mass deteriorates. Even small sprayed areas must be

carefully located before sites are treated with a herbicide. Care must be taken to ensure that herbicide use

complies with all State and Federal laws, and contamination of streams and waterways does not occur.

Noxious weeds commonly invade wet and semiwet

meadows occurring within the riparian zone. Canada

thistle and whitetop are often encountered in such

areas. Noxious weeds must be eliminated or controlled

before sites are planted. Plowing or repeated disking

is often necessary to remove established sod forming

weeds. Plowing is usually not recommended along the

edge of the streambank. This area should be protected

if possible.

Most meadows adjacent to streams are small irregular tracts. Often they are not accessible to large equipment. Small tractors and implements can be used in

these situations. Usually, treatment is delayed until

after seasonal water levels have receded. Sites where

streambanks are reconstructed or where structures

including dams or impoundments are erected are

planted to prevent the establishment and spread of

undesirable weeds (fig. 8). Often, large acreages surrounding streams should also be treated to prevent

the spread of weeds. In addition, these adjacent areas

should be planted with useful forage species to better

control livestock distribution and use. Control of weeds

and maintenance of seeded species is directly dependent on the management of grazing animals. Improperly 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 with

water for extended periods, although some willow

seeds benefit from flooding. Consequently, areas that

are subject to flooding should be spring planted after

the water level recedes. Transplanting should be done

as early in the spring as possible. As areas become bare

of snow or as the stream flow decreases (fig. 10), the

sites should be transplanted immediately. Sites along

a stream dry out in irregular patterns. Transplanting

and seeding should not be delayed until the soils are

dry or existing plants have initiated growth.

Planting Procedures

Areas that are large enough to be plowed or disked

can be drill seeded. Meadows can be planted in the

same manner as recommended for the inland saltgrass

or mountain meadow sites. Small tracts may be broadcast planted, followed by dragging a harrow, chain

link fencing, or other small implements over the site to

cover the seed. Wet soils frequently crust, settle, or

slump when tilled. These soils should not be “overworked” because a poor seedbed may develop. Planting using a culti-packer seeder often prevents or eliminates problems associated with crusting, compaction,

and settling. Hand seeding and raking can be used in

many small inaccessible sites. Most transplanting

should be accomplished using hand-planting bars,

shovels, or augers.

Interseeding and intertransplanting are useful techniques to improve portions of riparian areas without

Figure 10—Willow cuttings planted as rooted

stock grow quickly, furnish cover and protection

on highly erosive sites.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 213

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

extensively disturbing the soil. Transplanting rooted

stock is a very effective technique for establishing

shrubs and trees. Various drills, disks, scalpers, or

spray units can be modified to treat small strips or

areas while leaving adjacent sites intact. Transplanting and selected seeding can then occur with the

treated strip and areas where competition has been

eliminated. Once treated areas become stabilized, the

remaining sites can be planted if necessary.

Transplanting both shrubs and herbs on disturbed

sites is advised. Transplanting large stock, including

poles and rooted stock, is recommended. Large woody

transplants can compete satisfactorily with understory competition, and are better able to survive, as

stems are placed deep in the soil where a more persistent water table exists. Transplants provide an

effective ground cover and can stabilize erosive sites

rather quickly. Once a site has been treated, seeded,

and transplanted it must be protected from grazing

until sufficient establishment has occurred.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Plants growing along the edge of a stream usually

are able to exist throughout a wide elevational range.

Consequently, individual species are found growing

throughout a number of major vegetative types. Plants

not growing immediately adjacent to the stream are

not influenced as much by the moderating effect of the

stream. Consequently, in selecting species for riparian

plantings, separate groupings must be utilized.

Areas requiring treatment that are not directly

influenced by the stream can be planted with species

adapted to the prevailing plant community. Plantings

should include species that provide streambank stability. Only a few herbs produce root or vegetative

biomass and structure equal to the amounts furnished

by native sedges or rushes. These dense, sod-forming

species are vitally important. Transplanting wilding

root segments of the native herbaceous plants along

the eroding sections of the streambank is an effective

method for stabilizing the site.

In addition to the herbs that exist within most native

plant communities, Doran (1957), Horton (1949), and

Plummer and others (1968) discussed the utility of

introduced species for riparian sites. Ree (1976) discussed the rooting features required to provide

streambank stability, and identified species that can

be used for erosion control. Various introduced species

can be used to treat riparian disturbances, but these

are generally not compatible with existing natives,

and if planted may not allow natural improvement to

occur. The species listed in tables 5 through 11 designate those plants that, to date, appear best adapted to

various riparian situations.

Numerous species of willow are widely planted in

riparian areas (fig. 10, table 11). Propagation

requirements and planting techniques differ among

these species (Chemelar 1974). Carlson (1950) and

Haissig (1970) reported that species with preformed

root primordials root freely. Those without preformed

root primordials root poorly or not at all.

Small transplants are often difficult to establish on

adverse sites, including flooded areas. Consequently,

small or poor quality stock is not recommended for

riparian plantings. Rooted cuttings (Holloway and

Zasada 1979) and large healthy stock should be transplanted, especially when using species that root poorly.

Aspen and Associated Conifer

Communities ___________________

Aspen is the most widely distributed native tree in

North America. In the Intermountain area, there are

over 20 million acres (8.1 million ha) of aspen scattered

from upper foothill ranges to mountaintops and high

plateaus. In Utah, aspen occupies more forested lands

than does any other tree species. The majority of the

aspen occurs at middle elevations and is associated

with, and scattered within, conifer forests (fig. 11).

Aspen forests span a broad range of environmental

conditions (Warner and Harper 1972). Annual precipitation within the Intermountain aspen zone ranges

from 16 to 40 inches (400 to 1,000 mm). The species

thrives at a variety of elevations and under a wide

range of moisture and soil conditions. (Mueggler 1988;

Mueggler and Campbell 1986).

Aspen is found in a number of mountain vegetative

zones, ranging from the subalpine to the foothills.

Mueggler (1988) lists 14 major, 12 minor, and 35 incidental aspen community types in the Intermountain

Figure 11—Conversion of aspen stands to conifers

has been hastened by grazing of understory species.
214 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

region. Shepperd (1990) classified aspen communities

based on growth and stand characteristics. Aspen can

be found growing in association with tall forbs, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, spruce-fir, mountain brush,

open parks of mountain big sagebrush, snowberry and

chokecherry, and on the margin of grasslands. Aspen

trees are found along moist streams as well as on dry

ridges and southerly exposures, on talus slopes, and in

deep to shallow soils of various origins.

Aspen forests are dynamic and in a constant state of

change. As change occurs, resource values change.

Although some aspen stands are considered climax

communities, a majority of aspen forests are probably

seral to other vegetative types. Many aspen stands

will eventually be replaced by conifers. Seral stands

are generally regarded as fire-induced successional

communities able to dominate a site until replaced by

less fire-enduring, but more shade-tolerant, conifers

(DeByle and Winokur 1985; Mueggler 1988). Cryer

and Murray (1992) found that stable aspen stands in

Colorado are found only on soils with a mollic horizon.

Succession of aspen to conifers can greatly increase

the likelihood that an area will experience a devastating fire (Gifford and others 1983, 1984; Jaynes 1978;

Kaufmann 1985). As aspen stands convert to sprucefir, potential surface water runoff is reduced by 33 to

65 percent. White fir uses about 4 inches (10 cm) more

water per year than does aspen, and blue and Engelmann spruce may use 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25 cm) more

water per year (Gifford and others 1983, 1984; Jaynes

1978; Kaufmann 1985).

With the invasion of conifers into aspen stands,

understory carrying capacity for livestock and big

game is reduced. In the early seral stages, an aspen

forest may produce 1,400 lb (640 kg) of forage per

acre. Forage production is reduced to about 500 lb

(225 kg) per acre in the early stages of conifer invasion and to only 100 lb (45 kg) per acre in the later

conifer seral stages (Gifford and others 1983, 1984;

Jaynes 1978; Kaufmann 1985). In the Intermountain

region, aspen stands mature in about 80 years; they

deteriorate rather rapidly, often in 120 years, and

rarely attain ages over 200 years (Mueggler 1994).

On the Manti-LaSal National Forest, it is estimated

that 1,600 acres (650 ha) per year are being lost to

conifer invasion.

Aspen-dominated forests have a wide range of values and are truly multiple-use communities. Forage

production and cover for livestock and a wide variety

of wildlife species are of high value and priority. Wood

fiber 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 quality

water than any other forest type. Aspen is appealing

aesthetically throughout all seasons of the year.

Recreation values are especially high. Aspen forests

also act as a firebreak for the more flammable coniferous types (DeByle 1985c).

Most disturbances that have occurred in aspen

communities have resulted from grazing impacts.

Past grazing abuses have removed many desirable

species, causing a shift in understory species composition. In some situations, conifers have invaded

these sites, shifting the aspen stands to conifer forests. Many aspen communities have been so seriously damaged by livestock grazing that soils have

been eroded. Recovery of native species has been slow

to occur, and many have been seeded with introduced

grasses to stabilize watershed conditions and restore

herbage productivity.

Aspen reproduction in the West is almost completely dependent upon vegetative propagation by

root suckering. Most aspen communities require a

major disturbance such as burning or clearcutting to

alter competitive relationships and to stimulate root

suckering (Bartos and others 1991; Brown and DeByle

1989; DeByle 1985c; Shepperd 1990; Shepperd and

Smith 1993). In the past, fire played a prominent role

in perpetuation of aspen forests. Today, however, the

existence of seral aspen is threatened by suppression

of fire in western forests (Bartos and Mueggler 1981;

Bradley and others 1992a,b; Cartwright and Burns

1994; DeByle and Winokur 1985). Prescribed burning is widely used to simulate the effect of wildfire

that rejuvenates aspen forests. Prescribed burning of

mid- to late-seral aspen/conifer stands can be an

economical and environmentally acceptable way of

rejuvenating aspen, and has proven to be an effective

tool for increasing productivity of understory species

that provide quality forage for large herbivores, specifically deer, elk, cattle, and sheep (Bartos and

Mueggler 1981; Brown and DeByle 1989; DeByle

1985c; Walker 1993).

Extensive plantings have been conducted in the

aspen type. Seedings are normally successful as sufficient moisture is available to sustain young seedlings.

In addition, various native species are available for

treating these areas. With proper planning, both revegetation and restoration plantings can be successfully conducted.

Removal of Competition

Aspen stands that are in an overmature and decadent condition (Schier 1975), or have been depleted of

understory herbaceous species, do not require understory plant control measures. The understory plant

density has usually been reduced by grazing or suppressed by shading of trees and overstory shrubs. Few

weedy species invade or gain dominance within these

forested communities. However, serious weed problems
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 215

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

can develop on extremely deteriorated sites, particularly areas subjected to prolonged grazing.

The procedure for removing competition in aspen

openings or associated conifer forests is similar to

those described for the mountain brush and subalpine

sites. Where overstory conifers and aspen should be

eliminated, prescribed burns, timber harvest, or firewood harvest are appropriate treatments.

Planting Season

Aerial and ground broadcasting are generally the

most desirable methods of seeding. Planting in

nondisturbed aspen and associated conifer types extends from early September to leaf drop. Seeding

should be completed before leaf fall and permanent

snow covers the ground. As fallen aspen leaves become

wet and stick together, they can form a satisfactory

cover for planted seed. If seeds are fall planted within

aspen stands immediately prior to leaf drop, no other

seedbed preparation is required. Where aspen has

been burned, aerial broadcasting should occur from

fall to early winter. Seeding on top of early snow,

following burns, has the potential to produce desirable

results.

Planting Procedures

Broadcasting from a fixed-wing aircraft can be economical and effective for planting large areas. Broadcast seeding from helicopters is best suited for seeding

scattered and small patches, especially in deep canyons and on steep hillsides. Many sites are too rough

or steep to allow the use of ground equipment. Seeds

cannot be distributed as uniformly by hand as from

aircraft, yet small areas can be seeded satisfactorily

from horseback or on foot. Livestock can often be

beneficial in covering broadcast seed if animals are

temporarily concentrated on the seeded areas.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Because the intensity of shade differs among aspen

stands, species selected for seeding should be shade

tolerant as well as adapted to the specific sites being

seeded within the aspen and conifer zone (table 12).

Because some shrubs are usually present, it may not

be necessary to include these shrubs in the seeding

mixture. Many plants that occur within the aspen

and conifer forests are very productive and nutritious. Many will withstand heavy grazing and recover well under a rest rotation grazing system.

These species are selectively used by both game and

livestock; consequently, treated areas usually attract grazing animals and upland game birds, and

serve as highly useful pastures and wildlife habitat.

Smooth brome and intermediate wheatgrass have

been widely seeded through the aspen type. Kentucky

bluegrass has also been seeded and has spread to

occupy many adjoining sites. All have established well

and provide good herbage. These three species, however, exhibit very aggressive spreading traits, and

develop a closed sod that eliminates many important

tall forb species. Smooth brome and intermediate

wheatgrass have been shown to diminish aspen regeneration (fig. 12). Open parks with interspersed aspen

stands have also been seeded with smooth brome

and intermediate wheatgrass. This has resulted in

the elimination of many native forbs, grasses, and

shrubs (fig. 13). Mountain big sagebrush and other

shrubs that frequently grow in open areas have been

eliminated by competition from these two seeded

grasses. Seedling recruitment of serviceberry, snowberry, chokecherry, and curlleaf and mountain mahogany has also been prevented. Once these grasses

are established, methods of control or conversion to

other species are very limited. These grasses, therefore, should not be seeded where a diverse composition

of species is desired because they do not promote

recovery of native plants or community restoration.

Regar brome is an introduced species that is now

being seeded more extensively. This species does not

appear to be as aggressive and dominating as smooth

brome, but long-term ecological studies are not available. Timothy and tall oatgrass are introduced species

that are well adapted to aspen and conifer areas. They

are not as aggressive as smooth brome, yet they

Figure 12—Closed stands of smooth brome often

develop within 10 to 20 years following seeding of

aspen sites. The dense sod frequently eliminates

native grasses and forbs, and diminishes aspen

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

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

establish well, provide good forage and ground cover,

and provide for development of the native community

in 5 to 20 years. Orchardgrass is also widely planted

and is well adapted. It can also suppress recovery of

native species, but not to the extent of smooth brome

or intermediate wheatgrass.

The natives, slender wheatgrass and mountain

brome, can generally be planted in place of the commonly seeded, introduced perennial grasses. Additional native grasses with good potential that should

be considered are subalpine needlegrass, alpine

Figure 13—(A) This site was a heavily grazed aspen

opening prior to seeding with intermediate wheatgrass and smooth brome in 1959; (B) Same area

30 years later showing displacement of the native

shrubs, grasses and broadleaf forbs by the seeded

perennials.

timothy, Canadian wildrye, and thurber fescue. Alfalfa has been seeded successfully, especially in open

parks. This introduced forb establishes well, provides

excellent forage, enhances soil nitrogen, and is compatible with native species. It can be planted to restore

severe disturbances, but use of native forbs is recommended. Native forbs that are being seeded successfully include showy goldeneye, tall bluebell,

cowparsnip, goldenrod, butterweed groundsel,

oneflower helianthella, Porter ligusticum, lomatium,

and sweetanise.

Broadcast seeding of most native herbs is not as

successful as broadcast planting of grasses. Usually,

native forb seeds are more costly and less available.

Drilling or some means of placing these seeds in the

soil is advised. Small seeded species, including penstemon, meadowrue, and cinquefoil, establish well by

broadcast seeding, but drill seeding of expensive seeds

is advised.

It is important that species and mixtures planted

are site adapted. Attempting to seed extensive areas

with a general mixture is not advised. Sites should be

inspected and planted with a diverse mixture to assure that different plant associations are able to develop. As native species become more available, more

complete and site-specific mixtures can be planted.

Many native herbs are currently being collected

from wildland sites and can be used in restoration

plantings. Within the Intermountain region, native

species are being harvested with greater frequency

from the aspen communities than from many other

vegetative types. However, seed supplies are not

currently adequate to facilitate all planting needs,

and cultivated fields must be developed to supply

demands.

Many important native grasses and broadleaf

herbs that exist in these communities can be successfully planted in mixtures. Natural recovery of depleted and disturbed sites depends upon the degree of

soil loss that has occurred and the amount and source

of native seeds. Some aspen areas will recover quickly

if livestock grazing is controlled, and seeding is not

necessary. Seeding to protect exposed soils may be

achieved by planting a few species, principally native

grasses. Through protection, additional species will

likely recover.

Mountain Brush

Communities ___________________

In the Intermountain West, the mountain brush

type occupies considerable acreage. The chief components are Gambel oak, bigtooth maple, Rocky Mountain maple, mountain big sagebrush, Saskatoon serviceberry (fig. 14), and Utah serviceberry. Associated

B

A
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 217

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

with the above species, in various geographic areas,

are ninebark, chokecherry, bitter cherry, skunkbush

sumac, antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose, true mountain

mahogany, and curlleaf mountain mahogany. The

type is rich in diversity of forbs and associated grasses.

Gambel oak dominates from north-central Utah to

northern Arizona, western Colorado, and on scattered

mountain ranges in Nevada. Big tooth maple is dominant in northern Utah, northern Nevada, and southern Idaho. Scattered stands of serviceberry and antelope bitterbrush occur over the full range of the

mountain brush type. Gambel oak, serviceberry, and

maple communities normally occur above the pinyonjuniper zone and below the aspen-fir zone. Gambel oak

communities also integrade into ponderosa pine and

lodgepole pine forests. Ponderosa pine, in many respects, is a counterpart to the mountain brush type.

Extensive stands of curlleaf mountain mahogany

occur intermixed throughout the region with other

mountain brush species. Curlleaf mountain mahogany

normally grows on shallow, more rocky soils than

other associated shrubs. Mature stands often support

less diversity of understory herbs than other mountain brush shrub associations. This plant association

provides important habitat to big game animals, and

stands have frequently been heavily grazed by game

and livestock. Mature and taller plants often grow out

of the reach of grazing animals, yet smaller or younger

plants are often hedged and maintained in a stunted

form. Seedling recruitment of the shrub is seriously

impacted by grazing, limiting natural regeneration.

Extensive areas now exist where reproduction is prevented by grazing and invasion of annual weeds.

Figure 14—Mountain brush communities support Gambel oak, mountain big sagebrush, and

serviceberry.

Figure 15—Mountain brush communities are important spring and summer ranges for elk and deer.

Mountain brush communities occur between 5,000

and 9,000 ft (1,524 and 2,743 m). Annual precipitation

varies from a low of 15 inches (380 mm) to 26 inches

(660 mm). A linear increase in precipitation of 4.94

inches (126 mm) per 1,000 ft (350 m) rise in elevation

has been demonstrated for this type (Lull and Ellison

1950). Seasonal moisture distribution shows a crest

from February to April and a low from July to September.

Mountain brush communities have been recognized

as important, highly productive spring-summer-fall

ranges for cattle and sheep (Harper and others 1985;

Sampson 1925). Deer, elk (fig. 15), bear, grouse, and

Merriams turkeys also make considerable use of the

type (Harper and others 1985; Julander and Robinette

1950; Kufeld 1973; Kufeld and others 1973).

Gambel oak grows in clumps that vary in height and

density. The foliage of many taller plants can be out of

reach of grazing animals. Some stands are thick and

impenetrable to livestock and wildlife. Density and

size of Gambel oak clumps have increased in many

areas due to grazing and fire control measures. Understory forage production has generally decreased due to

livestock grazing and competition from the oak.

Serviceberry and maple-dominated communities

generally occur in quite open stands. Serviceberry and

mountain big sagebrush often occur intermixed, with

a number of grasses and forbs filling the large

interspaces. Tall, robust plants of serviceberry and

maple may become unavailable to livestock and game

animals as the plants mature. The desirable understory species that occupy the interspaces are often

subjected to misuse by improper grazing. The primary

objective in treating most mountain brush communities is to reestablish the understory herbs. Most shrub

species still occupy the sites, and shrub replanting is

not usually required.
218 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Removal of Competition

Reduction of shrub competition is often required to

create a suitable seedbed and allow seeded herbs to

establish (Engle and others 1983; Marquiss 1973;

Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1983b; Stevens

and Davis 1985; Tew 1969). Shrub competition can be

reduced using fires, herbicides, and mechanical treatment. Treatment of brush fields should be designed to

retain the shrubs, but allow reintroduction of understory herbs. Sites supporting an adequate understory

would not necessitate seeding. Control of wildfires has

prevented natural burning of some brush fields, which

tends to allow formation of closed stands of shrubs and

suppression of understory plants. Some sites would

benefit from burning, but may or may not require

seeding.

Gambel oak is an important plant throughout many

watersheds. It exists on steep slopes where ground

cover is essential. Following burning, oak recovers

well and provides needed ground cover. Gambel oak

clumps that are burned and then chained or railed to

improve seedbed conditions can be aerial seeded with

good success.

An efficient means to suppress Gambel oak is twiceover anchor chaining, preferably with heavy links or

with a Dixie or Ely chain. Chaining will break down

both erect and short-growing shrubs. In addition, the

density of shrubs can be reduced if desired. If single

chained, seeding should precede chaining. With double

chaining, seeding should occur between chainings to

ensure proper seed coverage. Interspaces can be seeded

and chained at the same time the brush is treated.

Offset disks, heavy pipe harrows, and brushland

plows can be used to reduce some brush thickets.

These methods of mechanical control are expensive,

however, and the equipment can only be operated on

level to moderately sloping sites, in open stands, or in

short-statured oak. Excellent seedbeds are prepared,

and small areas can usually be treated with these

types of equipment.

Reestablishment of understory herbs is essential

within Gambel oak stands. When competitive species

are established, and grazing pressure is applied to

Gambel oak thickets, the growth of new sprouts may

be held in check (fig. 16) (Frischknecht and Plummer

1955; Harper and others 1985; Plummer and others

1970b; Stevens and Davis 1985). Treated oak stands

that are not seeded with herbaceous plants readily

resprout and regain dominance. In addition, the sprouts

grow rapidly and become unavailable, and the stand

may become impenetrable within a short time.

Understory species that are seeded in oak thickets

must be shade tolerant because oak can resprout and

form a dense canopy. Establishment of adapted understory species may reduce shrub regrowth, decrease the

density of sprouting, and enable oak stands to remain

open, supporting a better quality herbaceous understory. Forage production within oak clumps can be as

much as three times greater than between clumps.

Forage within clumps begins growth later in the spring

but remains green longer into the fall than the same

species growing between clumps (fig. 17). Soil moisture depletion has been found to be significantly reduced by removing oak top growth and introducing

grasses (Tew 1966, 1967, 1969).

Clary and Tiedemann (1986) reported that more

woody material is produced underground by Gambel

Figure 16—A stand of Gambel oak that was

chained and seeded to smooth brome, intermediate wheatgrass, and tall oatgrass in 1954. Photo

taken in 1993 demonstrating the ability of the

seeded grasses to suppress or retard recovery of

oak shoots.

Figure 17—Grasses seeded with oak clumps

are more productive and retain greenness later

into the season than similar plants established

in openings.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 219

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

oak than is produced above ground. Various types of

mechanical treatments, fire, and herbicides have been

used to kill or reduce oak. However, regardless of

treatment, resprouting occurs from the massive root

system.

Not all woody plants that dominate the mountain

brush communities recover after fires. In addition,

certain ecotypes of shrub species differ significantly in

their response to fires. Gambel oak, serviceberry,

maple, and sumac normally resprout after mechanical

treatment and burning. However, duration and timing of the fire affects plant regrowth, particularly

maple and sumac.

Antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose, and mountain snowberry may or may not recover after burning. These

shrubs may show sprouting the first and second year

after a burn, after which most die. Layering forms of

antelope bitterbrush usually recover to some extent.

Erect or upright growth forms are usually killed by

burning. Some plants may resprout, but succumb by

the second growing season. Ecotypes of antelope bitterbrush that naturally layer or grow with ponderosa

pine and lodgepole pine are most likely to resprout and

live after fires.

Mountain big sagebrush and curlleaf mountain

mahogany are often killed by fire. New plants may

develop from natural reproduction or from artificial

seeding. Establishment of shrub seedlings is regulated by the presence and recovery of the understory

herbs. If these two shrubs and other nonsprouting

species are to be reestablished through natural seed

dispersal, sites should not be planted with a dense

understory of competitive herbs. Cliffrose, curlleaf

mountain mahogany, chokecherry, and to a lesser

extent, antelope bitterbrush, true mountain mahogany,

and serviceberry respond well to chaining.

Planting Season

Seeding in the mountain brush zone should be conducted in late fall (October and November). Planting

can be conducted even after snowfall and until snow

becomes too deep to effectively operate equipment. In

some seasons and on some sites, treatment can continue into January; however, the season often closes

by mid-November or December. Spring plantings with

rapidly germinating species can be successful if done

immediately after snowmelt, but this is usually a very

short period. Consequently, spring seeding is not recommended because of the unpredictability of moisture

required to germinate and sustain new seedlings.

Planting Procedures

When treating large areas, aerial seeding has

proven to be the most successful method. Chaining

or pipe harrowing should follow seeding in order to

cover the seed, scatter debris, and to create small

water-collection and holding depressions. Seed dribblers and thimble seeders attached to crawler tractors can be used to seed selected species into the

cleat marks. Grasses and forbs can usually be established on favorable sites by broadcasting seed just

before leaf fall. Hand seeding small disturbed areas

is practical. Drill seeding is often impractical because of heavy debris and steep terrain.

On bare, eroding hillsides, which frequently occur

on southern exposures, furrowing and seeding with

sidehill furrowers attached to a tractor is appropriate

where slopes permit tractor operation. On slopes over

30 percent, broadcasting onto furrows, made on the

contour by reversible moldboard plows or specially

designed plows, is effective. Slopes cut by large gullies

may require deeper and wider contour trenches. These

must be spaced sufficiently close together to retain

runoff from high-intensity storms. Deep furrowing or

trenching is only recommended to control serious

erosion problems.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Mountain brush communities are located between

aspen and juniper-pinyon communities, hence, many

species common to higher and lower elevations mingle

in this zone. Also, considerable variations occur in the

amount of precipitation, slope, aspect, and soil to

create a variety of sites for a large number of species.

Mountain brush communities are potentially one of

the most productive plant types. This type is a counterpart, in many respects, of ponderosa pine sites; consequently, similar treatment practices can often be used.

Species adapted to mountain brush communities

are listed in table 13. Attempts to restore the diverse

plant communities require use of a wide array of

species. A considerable number of shrubs that occur in

the mountain brush type are quite resilient and persist with intense grazing pressure. However, mountain big sagebrush, rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose, mountain snowberry, Martin

ceanothus, birchleaf mountain mahogany, and curlleaf

mountain mahogany have been reduced and eliminated in some areas. These shrubs can normally be

seeded with drills or single-row seeders. With the

exception of big sagebrush and rabbitbrush, seeds of

most shrubs must be placed into the soil. Broadcast

seeding of big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush is

recommended on open or bare surfaces. Direct seeding

into herbaceous competition is not recommended for

any shrub. Most sites receive sufficient moisture to

assure shrub establishment if seed is properly planted.

Many native grasses and broadleaf herbs occur in this

plant type and can be used to restore depleted sites.

Seed availability may somewhat limit large restoration plantings, but seeds of many native species are
220 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

becoming more available. Seeds of bluebunch wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, muttongrass, thickspike

wheatgrass, streambank wheatgrass, big bluegrass,

green needlegrass, needle-and-thread, Lewis flax,

showy goldeneye, and Rocky Mountain penstemon are

now more available and can be used in place of commonly used introductions. Intermediate wheatgrass,

smooth brome, orchardgrass, hard sheep fescue, and

crested wheatgrass have been widely planted throughout this type. These species are well adapted to this

entire zone and have stabilized watershed disturbances and provided excellent forage. Intermediate

wheatgrass and smooth brome are extremely competitive and have been used to stunt regrowth of Gambel

oak and provide more accessible forage to grazing

animals. Alfalfa, cicer milkvetch, and small burnet

have been widely planted throughout this zone. All

provide abundant high quality forage and have been

used to stabilize livestock grazing and provide seasonal grazing to big game. Seeding of some introduced

grasses, especially smooth brome, hard sheep fescue,

and intermediate wheatgrass, has disrupted recovery

of many understory herbs and has suppressed recruitment of big sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush

(Monsen and others 1996).

Sites protected from livestock grazing normally recover if some residual species occur. Studies by Monsen

and Harper (1988) demonstrate that native understory shrubs and herbs can be competitive, and are

effective in suppressing invasion of juniper and pinyon

and regulating density of Gambel oak.

Weedy species have not invaded the mountain brush

type 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 requiring intensive control measures.

Ponderosa Pine

Communities ___________________

Ponderosa pine is the most widely distributed pine

in North America (Fowells 1965) (fig. 18). In the

Intermountain West, ponderosa pine occurs at approximately the same elevation and on sites with the

same annual precipitation as does the mountain brush

type. Mountain brush types are found on heavier soils

than 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 by

ponderosa pine have been described by Steele and

others (1981) for areas in central Idaho. These plant

associations represent the primary ponderosa pine

communities throughout the Intermountain region.

Grazing, logging, weed invasion, and fires have created problems requiring restoration or revegetation.

Logging activities have changed the composition of

these plant communities. Road construction and logging disturbances have also created erosion, sedimentation, and runoff, causing degradation of downstream

resources. Roads and related disturbances have also

facilitated the spread of weeds that alter plant communities and interfere with restoration measures.

Grazing has impacted many ponderosa pine/bunchgrass and shrub communities. Desirable understory

species have been removed by grazing, which has also

allowed invasion and expansion of weeds. Cheatgrass

has spread throughout many of the ponderosa pine/

bunchgrass associations and gained control of many

disturbances. Yellow star thistle, rush skeletonweed,

and medusahead also occupy sites once dominated by

ponderosa pine/bunchgrass.

Invasion and spread of cheatgrass has increased fire

frequency and size of wildfires throughout various

ponderosa pine communities. More frequent burning

has eliminated nonfire-tolerant trees, shrubs, and

herbs, and further perpetuated the spread of cheatgrass

and other undesirable annuals. Control measures are

required to eliminate the annual grass, restore a

competitive cover, and reestablish species eliminated

by weed competition and burning.

Not all ponderosa pine disturbances have been invaded by weeds. In many situations understory shrubs

and herbs have been eliminated or seriously weakened by grazing. Woody species important for winter

grazing have been lost and must be restored. Grasses

and broadleaf herbs have also been removed and

require restoration to stabilize soil erosion and maintain a balance in species composition. Shrub and tree

recruitment is dependent on seedbed conditions and

composition of understory species.

Figure 18—A young stand of ponderosa pine with

a mixture of understory species.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 221

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

In many situations, disturbances within ponderosa

pine sites occur on steep inaccessible sites, limiting

treatment practices. Natural recovery is the most

practical means of restoration. Natural recovery does

occur throughout most areas where native herbs

remain and have not been replaced by weeds. Protection and limited seeding should be utilized to restore

these sites.

Removal of Competition

Many shrubs and herbs that occur with ponderosa

pine are able to recover following burning, logging, or

grazing unless the site seriously degraded. In these

situations, seeding may be required. Cheatgrass,

medusahead, and other weeds have invaded many

lower elevation communities supporting ponderosa

pine. These weedy species present serious management problems. They increase the incidence of wildfires and reduce establishment of natural and artificial

seedlings. Annual weeds must be controlled to allow

seedlings of other species to establish. On steep slopes,

burning is the most practical method used to reduce

weedy competition. Sites burned by wildfires or controlled burns should be seeded in the fall to control

reinvasion of annual weeds. Adequate moisture is

usually received to support new seedings if plantings

are conducted the first year after burning when

cheatgrass competition has been suppressed.

Recent invasion of rush skeletonweed in south-central Idaho in ponderosa pine/bunchgrass communities

appears to be capable of upsetting natural successional

changes. Its ecology is not well-understood, but control

of this weed has become a major problem.

Plowing, disking, or spraying can be used to control

dominant stands of annual grasses on large accessible areas. Seeding directly into annual grasses is

not advisable. Cheatgrass sites can usually be successfully seeded following burns or during periods of

drought that may diminish weeds. Burning does not

reduce competition of medusahead, and additional

control measures are required to assure planting

success.

Broadcast seeding weed-infested sites following

burning can be successful if seeds are covered by

harrowing or chaining methods. Failure to cover seeds

often results in spotty, irregular stands, although

successful stands may occur in some years. Mechanical coverage is not always possible in many areas, and

seeding on or before snowfall is advised.

Cheatgrass and medusahead occupy many ponderosa pine and associated shrub/bunchgrass sites. Many

weedy areas once occupied by antelope bitterbrush

have been interseeded or intertransplanted with this

shrub. Plantings have been made into small scalps or

clearings that are 30 x 30 inches (76 x 76 cm) in size.

Weeds and weed seeds are removed by scalping and

sidecasting the surface soil. Bitterbrush has been

transplanted or planted into the small clearings. Many

antelope bitterbrush interseedings were established

using this technique amid weedy sites in central Idaho

and Utah during the 1940s and 1950s. Mature stands

of shrubs developed, but failed to persist. Individual

shrubs reached maturity but slowly senesced. Although the antelope bitterbrush shrubs produced

adequate seed crops during most years, natural recruitment failed to perpetuate shrub stands. Annual

weeds were initially removed from portions of the area

at the time antelope bitterbrush was seeded, but the

weeds regained dominance of the understory. Competition from the understory prevented shrub seedling

recruitment during the 40- to 50-year period since the

sites were initially planted. Attempts to restore antelope bitterbrush in sites occupied by annual grasses

must include replacement of the weeds with native

understory herbs. If cheatgrass and medusahead are

left as the understory, their presence will eliminate

natural shrub seedling recruitment that is required to

maintain the stand.

It is essential that native understory grasses and

broadleaf herbs are reestablished to facilitate the

natural recruitment of important shrubs. Large and

extensive areas that once supported antelope bitterbrush and ponderosa pine are currently occupied with

mixed stands of annual and perennial grasses. These

sites should be managed or treated to restore the native

understory species. As native plants are reestablished,

interseeding with shrubs can be accomplished.

Interseeding with shrubs into perennial native grasses

will be required in many areas as the principal shrubs

have been eliminated and a satisfactory seed source is

not available. Once the understory is established,

shrubs can be interseeded in narrow strips created by

surface tillage, scalping, or following herbicide treatment. Reducing understory competition is normally

required to establish uniform stands of antelope

bitterbrush, snowberry, and most other shrubs. Although these species are able to establish by natural

seeding into native herbs, planting large areas without some attempt to reduce understory competition is

not advisable. It is essential to reestablish understory

species prior to or as shrubs are planted. Planting or

managing sites to establish and maintain a complete

assembly of herbaceous and woody species is necessary. Attempts to establish only the shrub component

of ponderosa pine associations have often been

unsuccessful.

Weedy sites have commonly been seeded with perennial grasses including crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, hard sheep fescue, and smooth

brome. These species compete well and replace

cheatgrass, medusahead, and other weeds; but they
222 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

also prevent recovery of native herbs, and establishment and recruitment of most shrubs.

Reestablishment of antelope bitterbrush, big sagebrush, chokecherry, bitter cherry, and mountain mahogany is required on many disturbances. Sites occupied by these and other shrubs are important wintering

areas and support concentrated wildlife populations.

Animal browsing can and has prevented establishment and normal growth of small plantings. To be

successful, shrub plantings must be large enough to

limit browsing and allow plants to attain normal

stature. In some special situations, populations of

game animals may have to be reduced to allow establishment of seeded species.

Planting Season

Following burns or other treatments, seeds are usually fall sown. If seeds can be covered by chaining or

using lightweight drags, planting should be conducted

in late fall (October and November). Broadcast seeding on steep surfaces without any followup method

used to cover the seed should be delayed until a snow

cover has developed. Spring plantings are not advised

because many sites, particularly south and west slopes,

dry quickly. Early spring is the most preferred time to

transplant.

Planting Procedures

Many tree-dominated sites occur on extremely steep

slopes where machinery cannot be used. Typical areas

usually requiring treatment are old-stock driveways,

roads, logging disturbances, burns, or other areas

where these practices have seriously impacted the

vegetation. Most steep slopes can be aerially seeded

with herbs, big sagebrush, and rubber rabbitbrush.

Where possible, seed should be covered by harrowing

or chaining.

In many situations, antelope bitterbrush and big

sagebrush have been eliminated from areas as a result

of natural fire and grazing. These and other shrubs

can be interseeded into native bunchgrass stands if

herbaceous competition is controlled for 1 to 2 years.

Various interseeders can be operated on sites accessible to tractor-drawn equipment. Steep slopes normally require hand seeding.

Both big sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush can be

broadcast seeded in midwinter on native bunchgrass

sites with excellent success. Seeds planted on or before

snowfall germinate and establish amid grass competition. Many areas subjected to frequent burning lack a

shrub cover, and these sites can be aerial seeded with

big sagebrush or rubber rabbitbrush (Monsen and

Pellant 1995).

Broadcast seeding beneath ponderosa pine is not as

successful as planting amid aspen trees. Pine needles

provide poor cover for the seeds. Seed germination and

seedling establishment are quite erratic in these areas. However, most ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine

types receive sufficient moisture each year to assure

seedling establishment. Broadcast seedings on bare,

well-drained, steep slopes normally result in poor

stands. Many species simply cannot be established by

broadcast planting on barren surfaces.

Anchor chaining can be used to cover seed on steep,

long slopes by experienced operators (Monsen and

Pellant 1995). Chains of various weights can be used

with attached swivels to control the amount of soil

disturbance. Contrary to some objections, chaining

does not create small continuous depressions where

water may collect and cause rilling or erosion. Chaining up and down long slopes is possible. Contour

chaining is not necessary, even on bare or burned sites

to control runoff. If properly used, chaining does not

uproot or impact recovery of existing species. Chaining can be effectively used to till soils where water

repellent soils form following burning. This is a major

problem contributing to erosion on forested communities and open parks. The amount of soil tillage required to prepare a seedbed and cover seeds is usually

helpful to “break up” water repellent soils and improve

amount of infiltration.

In many situations, shrubs and trees must be

established by transplanting. Seeding success with

Woods rose, mountain snowberry, bitter cherry,

maple, mountain ash, and chokecherry has been

erratic. Yet, good success can be attained by seeding

antelope bitterbrush, snowbrush ceanothus, redstem

ceanothus, Martin ceanothus, mountain big sagebrush, and birchleaf mountain mahogany. These

shrubs establish if good quality seed is fall sown, and

the new seedlings are not subjected to excessive

grazing and competition from herbaceous plants.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Steele and others (1981) have identified various

habitat types where ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine,

and Douglas-fir exist with different components of

understory shrubs and herbs. The distribution and

occurrence of each habitat type has also been delineated. Species occurring in each habitat type or plant

association should be included in any revegetation

project. Since considerable differences in site conditions and plant composition occur among these types,

it is not always advisable to plant species from one

habitat type into another. Some grasses and shrubs

occur in more than one habitat type and are more

widely adapted than others. Also, certain species recover as pioneer plants and establish initially after a

disturbance. Plantings of ninebark, redstem ceanothus,

Utah honeysuckle, mountain lover, and cascara buckthorn do not survive well when planted on disturbed
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 223

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

soils. These species grow better on soils that have not

been degraded by erosion. Plantings of russet

buffaloberry and most species of blueberry and manzanita fail to develop when planted in openings devoid

of any overstory cover. These species should not be

planted in open sites or areas that have lost the topsoil.

Although species of big sagebrush and rabbitbrush

are well adapted throughout the mountain brush

zone, they are restricted to specific sites. Mountain big

sagebrush and rubber rabbitbrush should only be

planted on sites where they naturally occur. Species

suggested for planting are in table 13.

Juniper-Pinyon Communities _____

Distribution

Mitchell and Roberts (1999) stated that there are

approximately 55.6 million acres (22.2 million ha) of

pinyon and juniper in the Western United States.

Substantial portions of the Intermountain region are

occupied by juniper-pinyon and associated species (fig.

19). Acreage estimates vary considerably. West and

others (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 the

Great Basin, data grid analysis from Lansat-1 satellite photography (Tueller and others 1979) indicated

there are about 17.6 million acres (7.1 million ha) of

juniper-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 pinyon

and/or juniper in the Intermountain West.

Singleleaf pinyon occurs throughout Nevada to central Utah where pinyon takes over and extends into

Colorado. Utah juniper is found in association with

both singleleaf pinyon and pinyon. On drier sites

where conditions are too arid for the pinyons, Utah

juniper occurs in pure stands covering vast areas.

Rocky Mountain juniper occurs at the upper edge of

the singleleaf pinyon occupying small scattered areas.

Western juniper dominates the low foothills in eastern

Oregon and Washington, existing on sites similar to

those occupied by Utah juniper in the Intermountain

region.

Juniper-pinyon ranges from 10,000 ft (3,280 m)

elevation on the crest of the Sierras (West and others

1975) to a low of 3,200 ft (1,050 m) along the UtahArizona border (Woodbury 1947). Pinyon tends to favor

higher elevations, and Utah juniper becomes more

dominant at lower elevations. Annual precipitation in

the juniper-pinyon type ranges from 8 to 22 inches

(200 to 560 mm), with the best stand development

occurring between 12 and 17 inches (300 and 430 mm).

Ecological Changes and Status

From the late 1800s to the present, distribution and

density of many pinyon and juniper communities have

been significantly altered. A majority of the juniperpinyon stands in the Great Basin prior to settlement

were confined to specific areas, and supported a diverse understory of perennial grasses, forbs, and

shrubs. Fire, combined with perennial understory

competition, controlled the spread and thickening of

existing juniper-pinyon stands. The understory vegetation controlled or regulated the incidence and spread

of fires, which, in turn, regulated the presence and

distribution of juniper and pinyon. Heavy grazing by

livestock over many years resulted in community

changes and the eventual loss of the perennial understory (fig. 20) and, in some locations, establishment of

exotic annuals that now dominate the understory

(Gruell 1999). Grazing and a lack of fire have resulted

in an extensive increase in tree density and expansion

into new areas. O’Brien and Woudenberg (1999) reported that 53 percent of the pinyon and juniper trees

in Utah and 67 percent in Nevada are between 40 and

120 years old, and only 20 percent in Utah and 9

percent in Nevada are older than 200 years. This data

dramatically demonstrates the great increase in trees

following the introduction of livestock and reduction of

fire incidence. Adjoining semiarid grass and shrublands

underwent similar changes as desirable species were

eliminated or reduced in density and vigor by grazing.

The absence of fire and the loss of dominant grasses

and other understory species by livestock allowed for

an increase in juniper and pinyon trees, and substantial tree invasion into many adjoining grass and

shrublands (Aro 1971; West 1984b, 1999; Woodbury

1947).

Figure 19—Numerous areas in central Utah support

similar age stands of pinyon and juniper, growing with

only scattered amounts of understory species.
224 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Increase or invasion of trees combined with significant changes in the understory from perennial to

annual communities resulted in unstable soil conditions and erosion (Farmer and others 1995; Roundy

and Vernon 1999). Grass and shrub communities use

and transpire considerably less moisture than juniper

and pinyon, which are active all year (Roundy and

Vernon 1999). This unchecked water use has the

potential to dry up springs and reduce quantity and

quality of water in streams. Archaeological sites have

been lost or damaged by erosion in depleted juniperpinyon sites (Chong 1993). In addition, critical fall,

winter, and spring livestock and wildlife ranges have

been seriously degraded. Deer and elk numbers have

been shown to decline as tree density increases (Short

and others 1977). Suminski (1985) reported that declines in deer numbers were highly correlated to closing canopy cover of juniper and pinyon expansion into

areas formerly devoid of trees, and the corresponding decline in understory production. Sage-grouse

(Commons and others 1999) respond adversely to

increased density and invasions of pinyon and juniper.

Loss or alteration of riparian areas through community changes, erosion, and lowering of water tables has

occurred, affecting the productivity and stability of

these sites.

Not all juniper-pinyon sites support similar compositions of understory species (Rust 1999; Thompson

1999). A variety of herbaceous and woody plants exist

in different amounts, depending on site and climatic

conditions (Goodrich 1999). In addition, the composition and age structure is regulated by changes in

climatic and biotic events including wildfires.

Over the past 45 years, some depleted juniperpinyon stands have been artificially seeded to enhance

species composition, improve habitat, and correct

watershed conditions. However, not all juniper-pinyon stands merit treatment and artificial seeding.

Sites that are ecologically stable and have not been so

dramatically altered that natural successional changes

may occur, should not be candidates for artificial

treatment. In some situations, stable tree communities may be altered to satisfy high-value resource

needs, but few situations would justify converting

stable communities to support other species. Some

juniper-pinyon woodlands have been converted to pasture lands for livestock foraging. In some situations,

these practices have been used to stabilize livestock

grazing problems. Although conversion from woodlands to herblands is attainable, careful management

is required to maintain the desirable herbs. Introduced grasses have been successfully established

throughout many juniper-pinyon woodlands and

provide substantial forage for grazing animals. Introduced species generally provide considerable

competition to limit tree reinvasion, but tree reincroachment is not prevented on all sites seeded to

introduced herbs. Grazing practices, in conjunction

with site conditions, will influence recovery of native

species, including woody plants.

Species composition of juniper-pinyon communities

may be altered to a different seral status with or

without the introduction of a new complex of species

attained by seeding. In some situations, juniperpinyon woodlands can be converted by burning

(Goodrich and Reid 1999; Greenwood and others

1999) or chaining to reduce tree density. This is

possible if sufficient native understory exists, and is

capable of recovery following treatment (Stevens

1999a).

To date, most juniper-pinyon conversion projects

have utilized artificial seeding to ensure the rapid

reestablishment of understory shrubs and herbs. If

treated sites lack the desired understory species, seeding is normally used to ensure their establishment. To

date, substitute species are commonly used to seed

many sites because seed of many native species is not

consistently available.

Juniper-pinyon sites that have been altered by extensive grazing and exclusion of wildfires must be

examined to determine the restoration measures that

can be used to reestablish desired vegetation, leading

to the creation of a more natural system. Most sites

that have been heavily grazed for long periods no

longer support even minor amounts of understory

perennial species (Poulsen and others 1999). On these

sites, either juniper or pinyon trees, or both, have

increased and dominate (Madany and West 1983).

Trees provide extensive competition and preclude the

invasion or establishment of small seedlings of most

desirable understory species (Naillon and others 1999).

Figure 20—Stands of pinyon and juniper frequently

provide cover for wildlife, but lack suitable seasonal

herbage.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 225

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

It is essential that some trees be removed to allow for

the establishment of other species. Trees offer so much

competition that seed germination and seedling emergence and establishment is prevented. Removal of all

trees is not essential, but tree competition must be

sufficiently diminished to allow many slower developing species time to fully establish. Interseeding into

existing vegetation has proven successful in some

community types, but not in juniper-pinyon.

Juniper-pinyon sites that have been void of understory species for many years will most likely lack a

sufficient seedbank (Naillon and others 1999; Poulsen

and others 1999). On these sites, natural seeding will

not occur even if trees are removed. Understory

shrub and herbaceous species that are weakened by

heavy grazing and competition and from tree encroachment normally do not bear seed, but may

persist for years before eventually succumbing. Under these conditions, undisturbed stands of juniperpinyon may exist for many years with little seed

being added to the natural seedbank. Removal of

competitive trees can, in very specific situations,

result in a slow, erratic recovery of associated native

species. Unless sites are artificially seeded, natural

recovery is often ineffective.

Many juniper-pinyon sites support scattered, but

important, amounts of annual weeds including

cheatgrass, bur buttercup, red brome, and various

mustards. If trees are removed and sites are allowed to

recover naturally, annual and perennial weeds will

flourish and quickly assume dominance (Gruell 1999).

Weeds can be highly competitive and restrict the

reestablishment of desirable natives. Because conversion to annual weeds will occur rapidly, seeding must

not be delayed beyond the year of tree removal.

Juniper-pinyon restoration programs should be designed to allow for restoring native vegetation and

creating stable communities. Converting juniperpinyon communities to assemblages of introduced

species is not advisable (Stevens 1999a; Walker 1999).

The seeded community should be able to respond to

wildfires and sustain some grazing. In many situations, juniper-pinyon sites must be managed to allow

wildfires to occur and thereby regulate species composition. In some situations, wildfires may not be acceptable or cannot be managed without extensive damage

to shrubs and other adjacent resources. In these situations, chaining or other artificial treatment may be

used as a substitute to regulate plant composition.

Removal or controlled use of livestock from many

depleted juniper-pinyon-dominated areas will not facilitate the recovery of native vegetation, stabilize the

soil, and return these areas to their presettlement

conditions (Goodloe 1993, 1999). Severely depleted

juniper-pinyon sites recover very slowly with the

removal of grazing. In some other vegetative types,

improvements can be expected by removing livestock

grazing, but desired responses are slow to occur in

many juniper-pinyon stands. Principal reasons are

the absence of a seed source and the competition

exerted by pinyon and juniper. To return most juniperpinyon areas to a more natural state, tree competition

should be reduced, a suitable seedbed created, and

sites properly seeded.

Chaining or other mechanical treatments used to

reduce tree density are substitutes for natural tree

control most frequently attained by wildfires. The

objective of most improvement projects is not to remove all trees, but to allow recovery of the understory

species and to facilitate artificial seeding (Stevens

1999a). Creation of a diverse understory is normally

required to enhance resource values and help control

the spread and growth of trees and annual weeds. Tree

removal, by whatever means, is simply a technique

used to change the seral status of many sites (Stevens

1999b).

Removal of Competition

There is a need to enhance watershed conditions and

water quality, increase spring flow, improve understories, and improve big game, nongame, and livestock

habitat in the juniper-pinyon woodlands (Roundy and

Vernon 1999). A large number of acres of juniperpinyon woodlands have been treated by chaining and

railing. When comparing results from early projects

with today’s plant materials, equipment, techniques,

standards, and results, some mistakes were made in

the past. However, most older chainings and seedings

are now exhibiting desirable improvements in watershed stability (Roundy and Vernon 1999) provided by

more natural plant associations. Results from poorly

designed and managed projects should not prevent

further treatment projects. Decisions should be based

on recovery and stability of native plant communities

and the use of today’s plant materials, equipment, and

techniques. Guidelines have been developed for chaining and seeding (Fairchild 1999; Nelson and others

1999).

Removal of competing trees can be accomplished in

a number of ways. Prescribed fire can be an effective

practice in some areas. Twice-over anchor chaining,

with 90-lb (41-kg) links, in opposite directions have

been used extensively in juniper-pinyon control and

thinning (Plummer and others 1968; Stevens 1999b).

Use of cable or a chain of lighter links is satisfactory

where it is desired to leave more trees and shrubs.

Once-over chaining may be adequate when sufficient

understory remains, trees are sparse and mature,

and seeding is not required. Cabling is less effective

than chaining in removing trees and creating a

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

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Anchor chains are pulled behind two crawler tractors traveling parallel to each other. For maximum

tree removal, chains cannot be dragged while stretched

taut, but must be dragged in loose, J-shaped, U-shaped,

or half-circle patterns. The half-circle configuration

provides the greatest swath width and lowest percentage tree kill. It is primarily used in mature, even-age

stands and when a low percent tree kill is desired. Tree

kill increases as the width of the J- or U-shaped

pattern decreases. As the proportion of young trees

increases, chaining width should decrease to remove

the greatest number of young trees, if this is the

objective (Stevens 1999b).

Success in removing trees varies with species composition, tree age structure, and density. Trees in mature, even-age stands can be uprooted more effectively

and efficiently than in uneven-age stands (Van Pelt and

others 1990). Young trees less than 4 ft (1.2 m) tall

generally are not killed with single or double chaining

because the chain rides over the plants without causing

damage (fig. 21). Young pinyon are much more flexible

than are young juniper, resulting in less kill of small

pinyon.

Chaining has commonly been confined to slopes of

less than 50 percent (Vallentine 1989). In Utah, successful chaining has been accomplished on slopes up to

65 percent with both chainings being downhill. First

and second chainings can be done in the fall, with

seeding taking place between the two chainings. Another technique is to chain once during the summer

months. Trees are then allowed to dry out before

seeding, and the second chaining is done in the fall.

Dry trees break up easily and are scattered over the

area when this technique is used.

It is advantageous to leave downed trees in place

and not pile or burn them. Some advantages include:

(1) retention and detention of surface water, preventing erosion and increasing infiltration; (2) increased

ground cover; (3) improved wildlife habitat; (4) inceased

big game and livestock movement onto the treated

areas; (5) decreased livestock trailing; (6) more even

distribution of livestock and big game which, in turn,

provides for more even use; (7) improved seeded and

natural seedling establishment (fig. 22); and (8) no

cost for piling and burning.

Planting Season

Late fall until midwinter (October through January)

is the preferred planting period. Seedings should only

occur when seed can be properly covered. Delaying

seeding until late fall or midwinter reduces seed depredation by rodents and birds. Fall and winter plantings

provide adequate time for stratification of planted

Figure 21—Young pinyon and juniper trees normally are not uprooted with chaining, and can

recover quickly as older trees are removed.

Figure 22—Tree limbs provide ideal microsites

for seedling establishment of: (A) grasses and

(B) shrubs.

A

B
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 227

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

seeds, and ensures that seeds are in the ground when

temperature and soil moisture conditions are most

favorable (early spring) for germination and seedling

establishment.

Planting Procedures

Seeders attached to fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters are designed to broadcast seed uniformly. The

majority of juniper-pinyon chainings and burns in the

Intermountain West have been aerially seeded. Most

grasses, forbs, and small seeded shrubs such as sagebrush and rabbitbrush can be seeded successfully with

both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Helicopters

generally are better adapted to seed small or irregular

areas. Downdraft from helicopters can somewhat separate seed by size and weight. There is a tendency for

lighter seed to drift beyond the strip or zone where

heavier seeds concentrate. Chaining has proven to be

the most effective practice available to prepare a

seedbed and cover seed following fire or chaining. If

double cabling or chaining is employed, seeding should

occur before the final treatment. Seeding prior to the

first chaining is not recommended. The final chaining

normally provides good seed coverage. Interseeding

should occur prior to chaining when one-way chaining

is employed.

When downed trees do not interfere, seed can also be

covered using drags or a pipe harrow. Single disk

harrows, or similar light-weight machinery, can be

used to cover seeds in open, debris-free areas. Care

must be taken to ensure that seeds are not covered too

deep and seedbeds are not too loose. Chaining, or

equivalent treatments, are required to cover seed

when burned sites are broadcast seeded. If mechanical

coverage is not used, seeding is best done by placing

seed on top of a blanket of snow.

Rangeland drills can be used to seed many species on

large open areas. Again, care should be taken to

ensure that seeds are properly covered. As a general

rule, most seed should be covered no more than three

times their own thickness, or to a depth of about 1⁄4 to

3⁄8 inch (0.6 to 1 cm). Some species do, however, benefit

from seeding on a disturbed soil surface.

Seeds that are in short supply or those that require

a firm seedbed can be seeded with a Hansen Seed

Dribbler or thimble seeder mounted on the deck of a

crawler tractor. Seed is metered onto the crawler

tracks, then embedded in the soil by the tractor’s

tracks.

Planting Adapted Species and Mixtures

Tremendous variation exists in soils and biotic condition within the juniper-pinyon type and in any given

area. Consequently, a number of species adapted to

specific sites and conditions should be used (fig. 23).

The primary objective in any restoration project should

be to restore ecologically adapted communities. This

objective is currently more attainable as native seeds

become increasingly more available. Planting practices have been developed to seed diverse species.

Table 14 lists species adapted to pinyon-juniper communities that receive less than 11 inches (280 mm)

annual precipitation. Table 15 lists species adapted to

sites that received 11 to 15 inches (280 to 380 mm) of

precipitation, and table 16 lists species that are adapted

to sites that receive over 15 inches (380 mm) of annual

precipitation. Within the juniper and pinyon vegetative type, small to rather large stands of fourwing

saltbush and other salt desert species can be found.

These areas generally have soils that contain more

clay, may have a hardpan, and have a slightly higher

pH. Species adapted to juniper-pinyon sites with considerable fourwing saltbush (salt desert shrublands)

Figure 23—(A) A depleted stand of pinyon and

juniper prior to chaining and seeding. (B) Similar

area eight years after treatment.

A

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

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

are listed in table 17. Care must be taken to ensure

that aggressive species do not dominate the mixture,

and once established, do not dominate the seeded and

indigenous communities. Crested, desert, intermediate, and pubescent wheatgrass, smooth brome, and

hard sheep fescue will outcompete most seeded and

native species, thereby attaining dominance.

Numerous native species have and are being developed for restoration of juniper-pinyon communities

(McArthur and Young 1999). Sufficient amounts of

seed are available from wildland collections and cultivated fields to provide adapted ecotypes of a number of

species. Sufficient seed can usually be obtained during

a 1- to 2-year period. Seed of bluebunch wheatgrass,

western wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass,

streambank wheatgrass, basin wildrye, bottlebrush

squirreltail, Indian ricegrass, Sandberg bluegrass, big

bluegrass, green needlegrass, needle-and-thread,

Lewis flax, various species of penstemon, western

yarrow, globemallow, and other herbs are normally

available. Seed lots of big sagebrush, black sagebrush,

rubber rabbitbrush, antelope bitterbrush, cliffrose,

mountain mahogany, ephedra, fourwing saltbush,

shadscale, and winterfat are commonly collected and

marketed in sufficient amounts to seed large tracts.

Additional grasses and broadleaf herbs are being

reared under cultivation and will become more available at cheaper prices in the future.

Benefits and Features of Chaining

Because of the controversy that has developed regarding rehabilitation or restoration projects, the following information about the proper use of chaining in

juniper-pinyon communities is provided.

Juniper-pinyon communities are unique and important sites. These areas normally support big game and

other wildlife during critical spring, fall, and winter

months. Often the sites are important watersheds.

Although they may not store and discharge large

amounts of water, unstable areas often contribute

sediment and affect downstream water quality. Restoration procedures, currently employed to treat unstable sites, have been developed to restore wildlife

habitat, provide livestock forage, and stabilize watershed conditions. Most restoration projects are designed to improve or stabilize a number of resource

values. For this reason, restoration measures must be

carefully developed for each situation.

Restoration of most disturbances should be designed

to regain the original composition of species and allow

the communities to function naturally. Treatments

should allow the recovery of suppressed understory

species, and reintroduction of species that have been

displaced. Designing treatments to restore only a

specific resource, such as soil protection, livestock

forage, or wildlife habitat, may not be ecologically

sound or advisable. Following is a description of some

features of anchor chaining:

1. Chaining is an effective method for restoring

juniper-pinyon communities.

It is apparent that trees must be removed to reduce

competition and allow new understory seedlings to

establish. Various practices have been evaluated as

methods to reduce or control trees. Fires, hand cutting, herbicides, hula-dozing, and railing have all been

used, but chaining is most functional. It provides

adequate tree control, creates desired seedbeds, and

accommodates seeding.

Chaining can be effectively used to regulate or manipulate plant composition without destruction of

understory species. Chain link size, modifications to

links, and operation of the crawler tractor will determine the number and size of trees that are removed

and the effects on understory species. Types and size

of chains and chaining practices can be regulated to

retain most existing understory species, yet sufficiently reduce tree competition to facilitate seeding

and promote natural recovery of understory species.

Through extensive testing and development of alternate techniques and equipment, chaining has proven

to be the least destructive technique to existing vegetation and soil. Compared with other methods of

mechanical treatment (plowing, disking) or use of

herbicides or fire, this practice can be selectively used

to reduce tree density in desired locations without

disruption of understory plants and nontarget areas.

Soil conditions, including watershed stability, can

be improved with chaining. Many treatment practices, including burning, leave bare soil, and sites are

subjected to erosion for a number of years following

treatment. Chaining leaves considerable litter on the

surface, which improves watershed protection by retaining and detaining surface runoff and increasing

infiltration. Debris is also deposited in gullies, draws,

and waterways, thereby reducing erosion and sedimentation within drainages.

Chaining improves watershed and vegetative conditions. Its primary advantage is that the practice can be

used at almost any season of the year. Plowing, spraying, and burning must be conducted at specific times,

depending on soil moisture, stage of plant growth, and

access. Treatment by these methods is often completed at a time when sites are subjected to erosion or

when unfavorable seedbed conditions occur. In many

situations, burning or other methods of plant control

require followup treatments to reduce erosion or limit

weed invasion. Chaining can be conducted at the most

appropriate season to benefit soil stability, create a

desirable seedbed, plant seed, and reduce invasion of

weeds. Currently, no other treatment provides the

flexibility afforded by chaining.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 229

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Chaining can be used to help control weeds that

normally exist within depleted juniper-pinyon stands.

Since chaining does not disrupt existing perennial

understory species, desirable perennials recover

quickly following reduction in tree competition and

provide immediate competition to potential weeds.

Adding species by seeding also increases competition

to weedy plants. Soil nutrients and site productivity

can be maintained by chaining. Surface litter and

plant debris are maintained onsite, whereas burning

removes nutrients, litter, and debris. Soil profiles are

not disrupted with chaining as they would be with

plowing or disking.

2. Chaining can selectively reduce desired density

and most age classes of trees.

Chaining is a technique that can be used to retain

selected trees, if desired. The amount or number of

trees removed can be regulated by widening or narrowing the operating distance between the tractors, or

changing speed or direction of operation. The weight

or size of the chain used and the number and position

of swivels located in the chain can also be used to

regulate the extent of tree removal. However, operational procedures can be simply modified by positioning and regulating the speed of the crawler tractors.

Different types of equipment are not required to

treat highly variable sites. Prior to chaining, the area

can be inventoried, and a chain of appropriate size and

length can be selected. Once a chain size is selected,

operation of the tractors can be used to regulate the

number of trees that are removed. Hula dozing or

cutting of individual trees also provides considerable

flexibility, but costs and treatment time are normally

prohibitive. The practice of chaining can be very site

specific, and can be easily regulated to affect specific

community types, aspects, or acreage. Compared with

burning, this practice can be specifically targeted to

small, irregular tracts. The degree of tree removal

using chemical sprays or burning is difficult to control.

Areas treated with either of these practices often

results in complete removal of all vegetation, although

stands or patches may be left that are untreated.

However, it is much more difficult to remove only a

certain fraction of the trees by burning or chemical

spraying without also affecting the understory.

Since chaining can be conducted during almost any

season, the extent of trees or understory removed can

be determined by treating on different dates based on

plant growth and soil moisture conditions. Chaining,

during early winter when trees are brittle and snow

covers the understory, generally results in removal of

most trees and some shrubs, including big sagebrush,

without damage to understory herbs. Chaining during

the growing season, when woody species are more

flexible, normally leaves more shrubs undamaged. Chaining late in the growing season, when soil moisture has

been depleted, results in more complete uprooting of

trees and shrubs than if sites are chained in early

spring.

Chains with attached swivels and couplings are

available to most public agencies and private users.

Transportation and setup costs are not prohibitive.

Individual chains require little maintenance and repairs are infrequent. Compared with other machinery, repair costs are minimal and little investment is

needed for tools or repairs.

3. Chaining can provide suitable seedbeds for many

species 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 prepare a seedbed or aid in actual seeding. Chaining

can, however, provide satisfactory seedbeds on even,

steep, and irregular, terrain, and on critical watersheds. Under normal chaining conditions, suitable

seedbeds are created to plant seeds of a number of

species with different seedbed requirements. Chaining scarifies the soil, creating numerous microsites

where seeds are planted at various depths. Seeds can

be broadcast before or after chaining to take advantage of the different planting depths, surface compaction, and soil mixing that occurs. Planting before or

after chaining determines which species may initially establish and become prominent in the plant

community.

Natural seeding of native species can be enhanced

by chaining, especially when chaining occurs after

seeds mature. Chaining can also promote sprouting of

some species, and if done at the correct season, favors

their recovery and spread. Chaining can also be used

to diminish or control weeds.

Chaining and seeding can be conducted at the most

appropriate season for enhancing establishment of

the planted species. Within most of the Great Basin,

fall seedings have proven to be the most ideal time to

plant. Spring seedings should only occur prior to midMarch and only with species that germinate and

establish quickly. In southern Utah, southern Nevada, and northern Arizona, seeding just prior to the

mid-July summer storms has resulted in good success

if the storms come.

Satisfactory seedbeds can be prepared with chaining on rough, steep, and irregular sites. Attaining

uniform and competitive stands on irregular terrain

and variable soil conditions is extremely difficult with

most conventional seeding practices. Chaining produces the most uniform stands on poorly accessible

sites of any technique now available.

Although burning or spraying can be used to control

tree competition, an additional technique is needed to

prepare a seedbed and to plant seeds. Seeds may be

broadcast on fresh burns or sprayed sites; however,

many species require some degree of seed coverage.
230 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Chaining provides all degrees of soil coverage, resulting in the establishment of a diversity of species.

Chaining favors soil moisture accumulation, and can

be conducted when conditions are most favorable for

seed germination and seedling establishment. Chaining and seeding can be accomplished when sites are

bare or covered with snow, without accelerating runoff

and loss of soil moisture. Although some land managers fail to recognize the importance of seeding at

specified periods when soil moisture is most favorable,

this is one of the most critical issues determining

planting success. Chaining offers an option to quickly

and effectively treat small and large diverse sites.

4. Chaining does not destroy resource values. Any

plant conversion or regulation practice can impact a

number of wildland resources. Most revegetation or

restoration measures are designed to remove existing

weedy, woody, and herb species, and to reestablish

natural plant succession. Removal of existing trees

creates an abrupt and often dramatic change in plant

density, structure, and age class. Recovery of the

native species can frequently take many years to

provide a visible, mature assembly of plants. During

the recovery period, the impacts can be quite apparent. When properly done, chaining will not degrade or

destroy soil or watershed resources. It is a practice

designed to modify plant composition, stabilize erosion, provide suitable seedbeds, and cover seed. Selection of appropriate treatment practices should be

based on restoration objectives.

Basic Guidelines for Juniper-Pinyon

Chaining Projects ______________

Site Considerations

Selection of treatable areas: Treat only problem sites

where the opportunity for success exist. Base

decisions on ecological status of the community.

Areas to be treated: No more than 50 percent of the

total area should be treated at one time. Natural travel lanes, resting and thermal cover

areas, snags, older chronological record trees,

archeological sites, corridors that connect

nonchained areas, and areas with high visual

values should not be treated.

Design of chained area: Chaining should be designed

to provide maximum mosaic of treated and

nontreated sites that fit within topographic

conditions and provide maximum aesthetic and

edge effect. Treatments should match natural

community zones. Almost all nonchained areas should interconnect with continuous, live,

mature tree corridors at least 30 ft (9.2 m) wide.

Accessible slopes: Areas with slopes as steep as 60

percent can be effectively and safely chained.

First and second chaining can be in the same

direction, which may be downhill.

Maximum size of openings: Size of clearing should not

exceed 100 yards (91 m) at its widest points.

Vegetative Considerations

Age class and stand structure: Highest tree removal

success will occur within even-age mature tree

stands. A large percent of trees will survive

chaining in young and uneven-age communities. Presence of large trees usually indicates

high site potential.

Tree density: Tree density and size of trees will, in

part, determine link size, length of chain, and

tractor requirement costs of treatment.

Treatment of downed trees: Uprooted trees should be

left in place. Debris should not be concentrated

in windrows or pushed into piles. Dry trees

should not be burned.

Selection of seeded species: Species and accessions

that are planted must be site adapted and

provide an ecologically compatible community.

Species selection and seeding rates will depend

on presence and composition of existing species and seedbank. Seed mixtures should consist of a diverse number of species, including

a majority of native species. Restraint should

be used in seeding competitive, exotic grasses.

Methodology

Timing: Reduction of tree competition, preparation of

a seedbed, and seeding generally requires two

chainings. The first chaining may be conducted

anytime during summer or fall. The second

chaining should occur at the most advantageous time for seeding, which, in most cases,

will be late fall or early winter.

Chain type: Smooth chains provide good control of

mature trees, moderate soil and understory

species disturbance, and seed coverage. Trees

that are uprooted are normally left in place.

Ely chains provide good control of mature and

intermediate-aged trees and can be operated to

remove some shrubs and other understory species. Uprooted trees often are accumulated in

piles. The Dixie chain is not recommended for

treatment of dense tree stands. This chain

performs best in open scattered stands and can

be used to uproot small trees and understory

shrubs. This modified chain eliminates more
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 231

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

plants and provides greater soil scarification

than other types of chains.

Weight of chain: Chains with individual links that

weigh 40 to 60 lb (18 to 27 kg) should be used

where the objective is to minimize disturbance

of understory species. Heavier links of 60 to 90

lb (27 to 41 kg) are used when trees are dense

and larger, and where little understory exists

and maximum soil tillage is desired.

Length of chain: Chains 300 to 350 ft (91 to 107 m) long

are the most commonly used lengths. Chains

can be up to 450 ft (138 m) long. Size of crawler

tractor, weight of chain, density and size of

trees, and topography will determine chain

length.

Swivels: Swivels are used to allow the chain to turn

freely and prevent chain twisting and balling.

One swivel is required at either end of the

chain and it is recommended that one or more

be placed within the chain, especially when

using a Dixie or Ely chain. Swivels also regulate the amount of digging or soil tillage.

Size of crawler tractor: Crawler tractors that are rated

D8 or larger should be used. Weight and length

of chain, density and size of trees, percent

slope, and amount and size of rocks will affect

tractor power requirements. Properly powered

tractors are a must.

Field operations: Trees are most effectively uprooted

when tractors are not directly parallel to each

other, but rather operated in a J shape, with

one tractor ahead of the other. Tree removal

and soil tillage increases as tractors are positioned closer together. The further the tractors

are spread apart the lower the percent of tree

kill and the less understory vegetation and soil

is disturbed.

Seeding techniques: Seed is most effectively distributed by broadcasting from fixed-wing aircraft

and helicopters between the first and second

chainings. Drills can only be used on more level

areas with few downed trees, shrubs, or rocks.

Seed dribblers or thimble seeders can be

mounted on each crawler tractor, and seeds

can be planted during the first or both chaining

operations.

Summary

Where seeding is to occur, competition from existing

trees must be reduced to allow the new seedlings to

establish. Twice-over anchor chaining in opposite directions with 60 to 90 lb (27 to 41 kg) links is usually

the most satisfactory treatment (Plummer and others

1968). Use of a cable or a chain with lighter links is

satisfactory where it is desirous to leave more trees.

Once-over chaining may be adequate when sufficient

understory exists, tree competition removal is attainable, and seeding is not planned. Cabling is less

effective than chaining in removing trees and covering

seed. It also disturbs less understory.

Anchor chains are pulled behind two crawler tractors traveling parallel to each other. Chains cannot be

dragged stretched taut, but must be dragged in a loose

J-shaped, U-shaped, or half-circle pattern. The halfcircle configuration provides the greatest swath width

and lowest percentage of tree kill, and should only be

used in mature, even-age stands. Tree kill increases as

the width of the J- or U-shaped pattern decreases. The

J-shaped pattern is the most desirable. As the proportion of young trees increases, chaining width is usually

decreased to achieve satisfactory thinning.

Success in removing trees varies with species composition, age structure, and density of trees. Mature

trees can be killed more effectively and efficiently than

trees in uneven-age stands. Young trees, less than 4 ft

(1.2 m) tall, generally are not killed with single or even

double chaining, (fig. 21) because the chain rides over

them. Small junipers are uprooted and killed more

effectively than are small pinyons that are more flexible. Chaining is commonly conducted on slopes of up

to 50 to 60 percent (Vallentine 1989). In Utah, successful chaining has been accomplished on 65-percent

slopes.

First and second chaining can follow each other in

the fall with seeding occurring between chainings.

Another technique is to chain once during the summer. Trees are allowed to dry before seeding, and the

second chaining is done in the fall. The dry trees break

up easily and are scattered over the area in a uniform

pattern. It is advantageous to leave downed trees in

place 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 game

movement onto the treated area, (5) provides shade for

livestock, (6) decreases livestock trailing, (7) improves

seedling establishment (fig. 22), and (8) eliminates

cost of piling and burning.

Late fall or winter (October through February) is the

preferred planting period. Seeding should not be attempted in frozen soil. Seedings should occur when it

is possible to plant and cover the seed properly. Late

fall and winter seedings can result in reduced rodent

depredation, yet provide adequate stratification of

planted seeds. Fall-planted seeds remain in the ground

until conditions are the most ideal (early spring) for

germination and establishment.

With double cabling, seeding should occur between

the two chainings. Fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters
232 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

can broadcast seed uniformly. Helicopters generally

do a better job of distributing seed over small or

irregular areas. Where downed trees do not interfere,

seed can also be covered successfully using drags or a

pipe harrow. Single disk harrows or similar light

machinery can also be used to cover the seed. Care

must be taken to ensure that seeds are not covered too

deep and seedbeds are not too loose. Chaining or

equivalent treatment is required to cover seed after

burning.

On large, somewhat even, open areas that are relatively free of debris and large rocks, drills can be used

to plant many species. Care should be taken to ensure

that seeds of most species are properly covered. As a

general rule, seed should be covered at least but not

much more than three times their own thickness or to

a depth of l⁄4 to 3⁄8 inch (0.6 to 1 cm). There are, however,

species that require surface seeding on disturbed soils

and a few that require deep seeding.

Seeds of shrubs and forbs that are in short supply or

those that require a firm seedbed can be successfully

seeded with a Hansen seed dribbler or thimble seeder

that is mounted on the deck of a crawler tractor. Seed

is metered out on the crawler tracks, then pushed by

the weight of the crawler into the cleat marks. Excellent stands can be obtained with this procedure.

The tremendous variation in edaphic and climatic

condition in the pinyon-juniper type and within a site

requires that species and accessions adapted to specific sites be seeded (fig. 23). Tables 14 through 17 list

adapted species and suggested mixtures.

Sagebrush Communities _________

Sagebrush is one of the most widespread shrub

genera in the Intermountain West. Extensive stands

of sagebrush grow on low foothill ranges, adjacent

valley slopes, within stands of mountain brush and

aspen, and in subalpine zones above 10,000 ft (3,048 m).

Sagebrush is also an important component of the

southern desert shrub type where it grows in association with blackbrush and spreading creosotebush.

This wide range of occurrence in differing climates and

soils necessitates the use of varied treatments to

improve disturbances. Treatment depends on how

much sagebrush is to be retained or reestablished. Big

sagebrush is a natural component in many communities and is desirable on most big game and livestock

ranges within its area of distribution (fig. 24). Sagegrouse rely on sagebrush year around for food and

shelter (fig. 25). However, where understory species

have been removed by grazing and where big sagebrush has usurped the site and excluded understory

species, stands should be thinned to permit reestablishment of understory grasses and forbs.

Figure 24—Wyoming big sagebrush communities

are essential to pronghorn antelope and other

wildlife.

Figure 25—Big sagebrush provides sage-grouse with

cover, forage, and brood-rearing areas.

Eight major sagebrush communities are encountered in the Intermountain region. The big sagebrush

complex occupies one of the largest areas and produces

perhaps the greatest amount of forage of any shrub.

Three big sagebrush subspecies are generally recognized (Shultz 1986; Stevens 1987a): basin big sagebrush, mountain big sagebrush, and Wyoming big

sagebrush. Other major sagebrush types are black

sagebrush, low sagebrush, threetip sagebrush, silver

sagebrush, and alkali or early sagebrush. Of minor

importance are foothill big sagebrush, subalpine sagebrush, pygmy sagebrush, Bigelow sagebrush, stiff

sagebrush, and bud sage (Shultz 1986; Stevens 1987a).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 233

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Other shrubs usually occur within most sagebrush

communities.

Previously, most site improvement practices conducted in the sagebrush communities have been designed to reduce shrub density and reestablish herbaceous understory. In many situations, extensive

wildfires have eliminated species of sagebrush. Extensive and prolonged grazing has also reduced both

understory species and shrub cover, which has allowed weeds to establish. Sagebrush seedling recruitment has subsequently been halted, and stands have

slowly declined as individual plants succumb with

age. In many situations, planting sagebrush is now

required.

Big sagebrush communities are easily disturbed,

especially on drier sites. Few understory species occur

in the drier regions, and disturbances recover slowly.

Annual weeds have invaded and now dominate many

big sagebrush communities (Billings 1990; Young

1994). The occurrence of cheatgrass has dramatically

altered species composition and restoration methods

(Monsen 1994). Cheatgrass is so competitive that it

prevents natural recovery of most native herbs and

shrubs (Billings 1994). Cheatgrass competition must

be reduced to allow other species to reestablish. In

addition, cheatgrass produces a dry, highly flammable

fuel that results in more frequent wildfires than are

generated from native plant communities. Repeated

fires further degrade the sites, eliminating nonfiretolerant species, such as sagebrush, and perpetuate

annual grass. The fire cycle must be broken to stabilize

conditions and allow species to establish and recover

from seedings or natural improvement. Aggressive

control measures coupled with well-designed seedings

are required to improve weed infested sites.

Many sagebrush sites currently support some annual weeds including cheatgrass. Inappropriate grazing practices cause continued decline of native perennials, allowing expansion of weeds. Transition may

occur slowly, depending on climatic conditions and

degree of grazing pressure. Natural recovery usually

cannot occur unless grazing is completely discontinued. Certain species may recover with some carefully

managed grazing practices, but sites that contain only

scattered remnant native plants are not able to recover even with minimal use. Where there is some

perennial understory in place, removal of grazing may

be the most effective and economical means of restoring sites occupied by different species of sagebrush.

Many sites may require an extended period of time for

all species to fully recover. Consequently, it is often

advisable to protect many arid and semiarid shrublands

to prevent further degredation, control weed invasion,

and effectively restore diverse communities. Allowing

sites to deteriorate to the point that artificial seeding

is required is not advisable.

Methods and techniques used to treat different species of sagebrush are quite similar, although some

differences in control and seeding measures among

different sagebrush communities are recommended.

Removal of Competition: Control of

Sagebrush

Many stands of big sagebrush have been depleted of

almost all understory herbs, which allows shrub density to increase beyond desirable levels. Where this

has occurred, the shrub overstory must be reduced to

faciliatate seeding and allow establishment of reintroduced herbs. Complete removal of shrub overstory is

not required or recommended, but competition must

be diminished to facilitate seedling establishment. In

some situations, complete removal of shrubs has been

advocated to accomplish conversion to stands of introduced or native grasses, with the objective of enhancing seasonal grazing for livestock. This practice is not

recommended in most situations.

Anchor chaining is a useful practice where it is

desirable to release suppressed understory species.

Anchor chaining is the least expensive mechanical

treatment to reduce thick stands of sagebrush. This

treatment ensures that enough sagebrush can be left

to satisfy most game requirements and maintain species diversity. Chaining can be used on a variety of

sites including rocky surfaces and terrain with 60-

percent slopes. The Dixie chain was designed especially for treating sagebrush stands. Eighteen-inch

lengths of 40-lb (18 kg) rails welded across the chain

links greatly increase elimination of sagebrush and

create a better seedbed. The Dixie chain removes

sagebrush more effectively than a smooth or Ely chain.

Pipe harrowing accomplishes many of the same

objectives as does chaining, but has the advantage of

operating more economically on small areas. Disk plowing to a depth of 2 or 3 inches (5 or 7.5 cm) generally

removes most shrubs, but disking is more costly and

more destructive to other vegetation. Disk plowing

can be used on comparatively level terrain and on less

rocky 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 and

most effective treatment for removing sagebrush plants

on large tracts where there is enough fuel to carry fire.

Burning often removes or kills all sagebrush plants.

Consequently, throughout the Wyoming sagebrush

communities, limiting burning, if possible, to smaller

areas is often recommended. Natural recruitment and

artificial seeding of sagebrush are not always successful following complete removal of all sagebrush plants

over large areas. If cheatgrass occurs in the understory, burning should be done after cheatgrass seeds

are ripe and the foliage has dried, but before cheatgrass
234 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

seeds fall from the plant. Most seeds left on the plant

will be consumed by fire. Some cheatgrass seeds usually escape, but the resulting competition may not be

severe enough to suppress establishment of seeded

species.

Stands of sagebrush can be eliminated by spraying

with 2,4-D in ester formulations at 1 or 2 lb (0.4 or

0.75 kg) (acid equivalent) per acre (Blaisdell and

others 1982). A practice that has gained considerable

favor is to spray early in the summer and then seed

adapted species in fall or winter. This treatment,

however, is not widely suited to use on some ranges

because it often kills too much of the sagebrush stand

and eliminates associated forbs. The herbicide “Spike”

can be used to reduce density or remove big sagebrush

without harming the understory. Spike should only be

used when there is an acceptable understory because

areas treated with Spike cannot be seeded for at least

3 years following treatment. Mechanical methods of

eradication are usually preferred because they can be

regulated to eliminate desired amounts of big sagebrush, create a good seedbed, and preserve valuable

herbs that are present.

Shrub Enhancement

In many situations restoration measures are required to enhance or restore sagebrush plants and

associated understory species. Many burns have eliminated all sagebrush plants. These will require seeding. If annual weeds dominate the understory, the

herbaceous competition must be removed by burning,

disking, or use of herbicides. Shrubs and herbs can

then be seeded into the burned areas or into clearings

or strips formed by mechanical tillage or chemical

fallow.

Big sagebrush plants are most often capable of

invading weak stands of native grasses, and forbs.

Broadcast seeding sagebrush without any site preparation can be successful if weeds are not present.

Broadcast seeding sagebrush directly onto sites supporting Idaho fescue, Sandberg bluegrass, and

bluebunch wheatgrass following burning can be highly

successful. Broadcast seeding sagebrush onto existing

stands of native grasses is less successful if competition has not been reduced by burning. However, adequate stands of shrubs may establish, although timing and amount of moisture is much more important.

Planting Season

If weather permits, planting in winter is best; however, seedings may be conducted from late fall through

early winter. Mid October or early November is sufficiently early to start. Planting may continue through

December, January, and February, or until the ground

has frozen or the weather prohibits further planting.

Aerial seeding sagebrush on snow has proven highly

successful. Snow cover can enhance sagebrush seed

germination and seedling establishment. Sites receiving a snow cover that persists until early spring

normally support sagebrush emergence. Consequently, delaying seeding until a uniform blanket of

snow has accumulated is advisable.

Planting Procedures

On large areas, aerial broadcasting grasses, broadleaf herbs, and big sagebrush (fig. 26) seeds by fixedwing plane or helicopter is recommended. Hand

broadcasting is efficient on small, isolated tracts.

Anchor chaining is economical and effective for

covering broadcast seeded herbs and sagebrush on

large disked or plowed areas, burns, or herbicidetreated range. The rangeland drill or other singledisk drills can satisfactorily plant sagebrush sites.

Drilling requires one-third to one-half less seed

than broadcasting. Browse seed, including sagebrush, should be planted in alternate rows from

grasses and forbs, with either the rangeland drill or

browse seeder. Because sagebrush seed requires

very shallow to surface planting, it is best to pull the

drop tubes from between the furrow openers and

place it so the seed falls behind the furrow openers

onto the disturbed soil.

Most species of sagebrush can be successfully

seeded with good success, although special consideration must be given to control herbaceous competition. The condition and quality of sagebrush seed

is of particular concern in most seeding projects.

Seeds of most sagebrush taxa mature in late fall or

early winter after many revegetation projects would

Figure 26—Five years after chaining treatment, a

mixture of native and introduced species occupy a

pinyon and juniper site.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 235

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

be seeded. Consequently, fresh seed is not always

used. One- or 2-year-old seed is most commonly planted.

Seed lots of most sagebrush taxa may remain viable

for 2 to 4 years depending upon storage conditions

(Stevens and Jorgensen 1994). Older seed lots with

low viability may be seeded if sufficient amounts are

sown. Seeds should be properly stored and tested to

assure high quality seeds are used whenever possible.

Sagebrush plants produce numerous small seeds.

When harvested, seed lots usually contain a considerable amount of leaves and floral debris. During seed

processing, most large sticks are removed, but small

leaf and floral tissue is left with the seed. Seed lots

having a purity of 8 to 18 percent are commonly sold.

The condition of the seed lot can influence the way seed

is planted. If the seed lot is chopped before stems are

removed by cleaning, the material may not flow through

some drills. If the collected material is first screened to

remove sticks and then chopped or processed with a

debearder, the seeds and debris can be planted much

easier. The seed debris is very lightweight and, if not

properly cleaned to remove stems, may not flow uniformly through most conventional drills. Consequently,

a carrier or seed of other species may be added to cause

the material to flow freely and uniformly. Seed lots

that are cleaned to a purity exceeding 12 to 15 percent

will most often flow very well. Seed lots with high

purity (generally over 20 percent) consist of many

small seeds. Most seeding equipment or machines are

not capable of precisely metering the seed; consequently, the seed must be diluted to be uniformly

planted. It is not recommended to clean seed lots above

15 to 20 percent purity for use with standard seeding

equipment of if seeded alone.

Sagebrush seed is frequently mixed with seeds of

other species to aid in dispensing the sagebrush seed

and diluting the seeding rate. This is a useful technique, but sagebrush should not be directly sown with

aggressive herbs. Sagebrush can be sown separately

in alternate rows with herbs using most conventional

drills if the seed is properly cleaned and seeded at the

appropriate depth.

Seeds of sagebrush are almost exclusively collected

from wildland stands. In many cases, the identity of

the taxon is not known. More than any other wildland

species, sagebrush seeds are collected and planted

over a broad range of sites. Failure to correctly identify specific species, subspecies, and plant-adapted

ecotypes can result in poor seeding success.

Seeds of sagebrush taxa are very small, often exceeding 1 million per pound (2.2 million per kg) (Shaw

and Monsen 1990) and require light to germinate

(McDonough and Harniss 1974a,b). However, the response to light varies among seed lots and with environmental conditions (Bewley and Black 1984; Meyer

and others 1990b). Seeds must be planted on or near

the soil surface to promote germination and ensure

establishment. It is often difficult to plant sagebrush

seed near the soil surface using conventional drills.

Most seeding equipment is designed to place seeds at

deeper depths. When seeded with other species that

require deep placement in the soil, sagebrush should

be planted in a separate operation or seeded in separate rows. Sagebrush seeds can be dispensed through

conventional drills, but seed should not be planted at

the bottom of the furrow. Seed tubes attached to the

furrow opener can be removed and positioned so the

end of the tubes extend behind the furrow openers,

which allows the sagebrush seed to be dropped behind

the furrow opener on the disturbed soil surface. A

“sagebrush seeder” employing a gang of truck tires

and a drill box has been developed (Boltz 1994) and is

being used with good success. Seed is metered out

ahead of the gang of tires and then compressed into the

soil.

Sagebrush seeds require adequate moisture to germinate. Goodwin (1956) reported that the highest field

germination occurred when the soil was saturated.

Weldon and others (1959) found that germination of

big sagebrush declined by 60 percent when water

potential of the soil medium was reduced to –0.80 MPa.

The soil surface of most planting sites dries quickly,

adversely affecting seedling establishment. The presence of surface litter and retention of a snow cover

benefit sagebrush seedling establishment. Meyer

(1990) found greater numbers of big sagebrush seedlings within areas where snow collected compared to

open surfaces. Sagebrush seeds were able to germinate beneath the snow in a moist environment, and

were protected from spring frosts, as young seedlings

have little frost tolerance. Natural seedlings of big

sagebrush normally establish near mature shrubs,

and around and under downed pinyon-juniper trees

and litter piles. The existing shrubs and downed trees

obviously entrap snow and provide more favorable

seedbed conditions than exposed sites. Seeding sagebrush in large, open disturbances has usually been

unsuccessful because snow does not collect or is not

retained for more than a few days. Within these

areas, soil surfaces dry rapidly, and favorable conditions do not exist for seed germination or seedling

establishment.

Meyer and Monsen (1992) found that germination

response among sagebrush collections correlated to

the habitat from which the seed is produced. Seed

collections of mountain big sagebrush from severe

winter sites had a larger dormant seed fraction and

slower germination rates than collections from mild

winter sites. Collections from severe winter sites require up to 113 days to germinate, while collections

from mild winter sites require as few as 6 days. Habitatcorrelated variation appears to be an adaptive feature
236 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

that prevents precocious germination, and promotes

germination when frost damage potential is low and

when the best chance of success occurs. Planting

unadapted seed lots can undoubtedly lessen the chance

of seedling establishment.

Sagebrush seedling establishment is related to the

presence and composition of understory grasses and

broadleaf herbs. Sagebrush seedlings are generally

unable to compete with annual grasses, particularly

cheatgrass (Evans and Young 1987a). Dense stands of

perennial native and introduced grasses have been

reported to reduce sagebrush seedling establishment

and growth (Blaisdell 1949; Holmgren 1954). However, sagebrush seedings have frequently been able to

invade many seeded areas (Blaisdell and others 1982).

In general, sagebrush seedlings are less likely to

reestablish and spread throughout areas receiving

less than 12 inches (30 cm) of annual moisture than

sites receiving greater amounts.

The relationship of sagebrush seedling establishment to native understory grasses and broadleaf

herbs is not well understood. However, natural spread

of sagebrush seedlings into established stands of

understory herbs is frequently observed. In addition,

seeding sagebrush directly into established stands of

native herbs has also been successful.

Sagebrush seedlings establish satisfactorily using

surface-type seeders such as a Brillion seeder (Monsen

and Meyer 1990). Seedlings also establish well by

aerial or broadcast seeding on a rough surface. Aerial

seeding following chaining has been highly successful

through the juniper-pinyon and big sagebrush communities. Broadcast seeding onto snow over disturbed

soil 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 (Monsen

and Stevens 1987; Stevens 1980b). Interseeding in

rows or strips is a practical method of establishing

shrubs and providing a seed source for further spread.

Adapted Species and Mixtures:

Considerations in Selecting Species

To Be Seeded

Extensive areas of sagebrush, particularly species

of big sagebrush, have been seeded with introduced

grasses to reestablish a herbaceous understory that

was eliminated by previous mismanagement. Conversion of sagebrush shrublands to introduced forage

grasses has provided a stable and productive forage

base for livestock, enhanced watershed conditions,

and has helped to control weed invasion. Wildlife

resources have been enhanced occasionally; in most

cases they have been dramatically reduced. Native

species and community recovery have been prevented,

and multiple-use management has been reduced or

eliminated by converting shrublands to stands of introduced grass.

Converting or altering sagebrush communities must

be done carefully to assure that desired resource

values are retained or achieved. Numerous species are

available to seed sagebrush sites. However, the communities that ultimately develop from mixed seedings

must be recognized and appropriate seed mixtures

utilized.

Revegetation efforts in the Wyoming big sagebrush

and some basin big sagebrush habitat types are often

only partially successful. These sites frequently receive inadequate moisture to sustain new seedlings.

If seedings are completed in years of normal precipitation, planted species usually survive.

Attempts have been made to introduce other more

palatable, shrub species and convert the existing shrub

composition to more preferred and palatable species to

Wyoming big sagebrush and basin big sagebrush communities. Few other woody plants naturally grow with

these two shrubs. Antelope bitterbrush has been extensively planted throughout these sagebrush communities with limited success. In most instances,

antelope bitterbrush should not be indiscriminately

planted in “offsite” circumstances.

Sources of fourwing saltbush and winterfat have

been collected from native stands occurring intermixed with both Wyoming and basin big sagebrush

communities. These selections have been planted on

broad areas throughout the big sagebrush types. Some

individual selections demonstrate good longevity, but

little natural spread has been recorded. No population

of fourwing saltbush has been identified that is widely

adapted to the Wyoming big sagebrush communities.

Numerous Intermountain collections of fourwing

Figure 27—Big sagebrush seedlings have successfully established from midwinter aerial seeding

on sites covered by snow.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 237

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

saltbush have been planted in southern Idaho, Utah,

and Nevada, where Wyoming big sagebrush occurs. To

date, some sources have established and produced

seeds but no seedling recruitment has occurred. A

number of sources from southern Utah, Arizona, New

Mexico, and Texas have survived for less than 10 years

when seeded in the northern portion of the Intermountain region. Ecotypes of fourwing saltbush that naturally occur intermixed with basin big sagebrush have

established and persisted well if planted on sites

similar to the area of collection. In most situations,

however, it has not been practical to seed different

species of shrubs on Wyoming big sagebrush types.

In situations where the density of fourwing saltbush, winterfat, or other shrubs is being increased by

artificial seeding, it is imperative that an adapted seed

source is planted. A number of cultivars of different

native shrubs have been developed for use in the big

sagebrush type (McArthur and others 1984b; Monsen

and others 1985a; Welch and McArthur 1979a). Each

cultivar has regional areas of adaptation and is not

universally adapted to all conditions where big sagebrush occurs. Various attempts have been made to

plant “Rincon” fourwing saltbush, “Hatch” winterfat,

“Lassen” antelope bitterbrush, and “Hobble Creek”

and “Gordon Creek” big sagebrush throughout the big

sagebrush zone. These cultivars are adapted to specific locations, and plantings should be confined to

these situations.

Most big sagebrush rangelands are subjected to

wildfires, particularly sites that support an understory of cheatgrass. Burning reduces the density and

recruitment of many species, particularly shrubs. It is

advisable that species that are seeded into sagebrushcheatgrass rangelands are able to withstand fires and

recover by natural seeding. To date, ecotypes of

fourwing saltbush and winterfat that have been planted

in these areas have not survived fires, particularly on

sites that burn frequently.

Few native forbs are available in sufficient amounts

to seed large disturbances. Seed of blue aster, Palmer

penstemon, western yarrow, globemallow, and Lewis

flax are available to seed moderately sized disturbances. All available sources are adapted to specific

site conditions. Broadleaf forbs are essential to arid

shrublands, and development of additional sources is

necessary.

Selections of alfalfa and small burnet have been

developed and used to improve forage diversity, extend grazing periods, and enhance forage quality

throughout the big sagebrush type. Both species are

well adapted to sites receiving more than 12 inches

(304 mm) of annual precipitation. Mountain big sagebrush and some basin big sagebrush and Wyoming big

sagebrush stands receive this amount of precipitation.

Stands of highly preferred species have not been

maintained when small amounts of seed have been

planted. Small burnet and alfalfa have frequently

been planted at only 0.5 to 1.0 lb (0.2 to 0.45 kg) per

acre within the big sagebrush types. These broadleaf

herbs receive heavy use by all classes of animals,

which may eliminate the plants from the seeded area.

When highly preferred species are planted in mixtures, enough seed (2.5 to 4 lbs [1.2 to 1.8 kg]) should

be seeded to establish a large enough population to

reduce damage from concentrated grazing. Sufficiently

large tracts should be seeded to lessen concentration of

animals and heavy browsing of the more preferred

species.

Many introduced and native species that have been

seeded in the sagebrush types exhibit a wide range of

adaptability. Crested wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass,

intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass,

Sandberg bluegrass, and bottlebrush squirreltail are

widely adapted to the different habitat types of Wyoming and to basin big sagebrush. Bluebunch wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, streambank wheatgrass,

thickspike wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, and

Russian wildrye are more sensitive to particular soil

types occupied by these two shrubs, but are still widely

used. Great Basin wildrye is more restricted to particular habitat types, and should only be seeded in

areas of natural occurrence.

Desert wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent wheatgrass, Canby bluegrass, streambank wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass,

and hard sheep fescue have been widely seeded in

sagebrush communities. Numerous sites have been

converted from a shrub-dominated community to an

exotic perennial grass type. Desert wheatgrass has

proven better adapted to more arid sites. Crested,

pubescent, and intermediate wheatgrass, and hard

sheep fescue are more suited to upland situations with

southern smooth brome being suited to sites with

higher amounts of precipitation. ‘Hycrest’ crested

wheatgrass, a cross between desert and crested wheatgrass, and ‘Douglas’ wheatgrass express excellent

establishment traits and are able to compete well with

annual weeds. These two selections are not as drought

tolerant as desert or crested wheatgrass. ‘Douglas’

wheatgrass is the least drought tolerant. ‘Hycrest’

wheatgrass has been widely planted, however, extensive stands have been lost in drought years. Desert,

crested, ‘Hycrest’, intermediate wheatgrass, smooth

brome, and hard sheep fescue have not proven compatible with most native herbs. When seeded in most

sagebrush communities, these species will gain dominance and restrict recovery of native herbs. The lack of

species diversity adversely affects wildlife habitat,

and does not provide the seasonal herbage or watershed values as mixed communities do. Dominant

stands of crested, desert, pubescent, intermediate
238 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

wheatgrass, smooth brome, and hard sheep fescue

have, in many situations, prevented shrub seedling

recruitment. Loss of sagebrush and other woody species slowly occurs in many situations when these

grasses have been planted. Wildlife habitat and other

resource values have been adversely affected. Seeding

crested, desert, or intermediate wheatgrass and hard

sheep fescue throughout the sagebrush communities

should be evaluated to be sure management objectives

will be achieved. Use of native herbs is desirable where

diverse communities are required.

Basin Big Sagebrush ____________

Basin big sagebrush (fig. 26, 27) is one of the most

abundant shrubs in Western North America (McArthur

and others 1979a). This plant occurs on plains, valley

and canyon bottoms, and foothill ranges. It is most

prevalent on deep, well-drained, fertile soils with a pH

ranging from slightly acidic to highly alkaline. Within

the Intermountain West, basin big sagebrush can be

found 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 West

were once dominated by basin big sagebrush. A large

number of native and introduced grasses and forbs do

well on these lands. The productive potential of the

basin big sagebrush type is reported to be higher than

that of the Wyoming big sagebrush type but less than

the mountain big sagebrush type (Winward 1980).

Basin big sagebrush is not readily eaten by livestock

or big game when it occurs with other, more preferred

species (Hanks and others 1973; Sheehy and Winward

1981; Welch and others 1981). However, it does contain high levels of protein (McArthur and others 1979a;

Welch 1981). The herbage is digestible (Welch 1981),

and plants withstand heavy browsing. Deer and sheep

use this shrub seasonally. This species is critical on

deer winter ranges, especially during extended and

deep snow accumulation and cold periods. Sage-grouse

also use this subspecies throughout the entire year

(Call 1979).

Removal of Competition

The question arises of how much basin big sagebrush is enough. Should it be controlled, reduced, or

seeded? The value of the shrub cover should be carefully evaluated before attempts are made to reduce

shrub density. This subspecies occurs in differing

densities, with various types and amounts of associated species, and in differing climates and soils. Various range improvement treatments are thus required

for satisfactory control. Complete or near complete

elimination of basin big sagebrush can be accomplished 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 chaining

is determined by the number of times a site is chained,

the type of chain used, and the method and season of

treatments. Similar results can be accomplished with

a pipe harrow.

Disk chains and various types of disk plows have

been developed that can be used to uproot and thin or

remove dense stands of sagebrush. Disks can be adjusted to regulate the percent of plants uprooted.

Disking and plowing can, however, result in kill of

associated, desirable vegetation. Fire can be effective

in eliminating or reducing basin big sagebrush. This

shrub has essentially no fire tolerance. For fire to move

through basin big sagebrush stands, there must be

sufficient understory to carry the fire. Density of basin

big sagebrush generally must be reduced to obtain

satisfactory establishment of seeded understory species (fig. 28). Once a basin big sagebrush area is

disturbed, it is imperative the area is seeded the same

year (during the appropriate season) so undesirable

species do not establish.

Planting Season

Fall and early winter planting is recommended;

however, plantings at low elevations may be extended

into midwinter or until frozen ground prevents tillage.

Seeding on top of snow over areas that have been

disturbed has proven successful (fig. 27). Spring

plantings are not advised within this shrub type.

Planting Procedures

Seeding large areas can be best accomplished by

aerial seeding using either a fixed-wing aircraft or

helicopter. This should be followed by some method of

seed coverage. Hand broadcasting is effective in planting small, isolated tracts. The rangeland drill, and

other types of heavy duty drills, can be used to seed

areas where debris and rocks are absent and the

ground is fairly level. Species can be interplanted into

sagebrush stands using a scalper and seeder combination (Stevens and others 1981b). The Hansen seed

dribbler and thimble seeder are also effective equipment that can be used to seed many forbs and shrubs.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

A number of species, accessions, and varieties are

adapted to and recommended for seeding areas formerly inhabited or occupied by basin big sagebrush

(table 18). Species recommended for seeding mixed

fourwing saltbush-basin big sagebrush sites are listed

in table 17. A number of introduced grasses and
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 239

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

A large number of grass, forb, and shrub species

grow in association with this shrub (Winward 1980),

and usually produce an abundance of forage. Livestock, big and small game, and upland game birds

prefer mountain big sagebrush (McArthur and others

1979a; Welch 1981). Open stands with good, diverse

understory are essential to sage-grouse and must be

used in treatment projects to maintain sufficient shrub

density and cover for sage-grouse. It is essential that

desirable understory species and woody species associated with mountain big sagebrush be retained or

reestablished as part of the revegetation effort.

Removal of Competition

The use of herbicides, plowing, and disking are

effective techniques in reducing competition, but often

are not recommended for renovating mountain big

sagebrush stands, particularly areas supporting big

game and sage-grouse. These techniques usually kill

most associated herbs and existing shrubs. Because

mountain big sagebrush provides palatable and nutritious forage for wildlife throughout the year, it is not

advisable to eliminate this shrub. Sage-grouse strutting, wintering, and chick-rearing areas can be seriously altered if mountain big sagebrush and associated native forbs are removed.

Mechanical treatments, including once- or twiceover chaining or pipe harrowing, will normally eliminate enough mountain big sagebrush to reduce competition, create a suitable seedbed, and preserve valuable

forbs. If annual weeds dominate the understory and

sagebrush density is extremely high, more aggressive Figure 28—(A) Dense stands of basin big sagebrush often develop that lack understory species

essential to wildlife. (B) Thinning stands of big sagebrush can be accomplished using a disk-chain to

facilitate seeding of herbaceous species.

A

B

broadleaf herbs have been developed to revegetate

these communities. In addition, some of the principal

native grasses and some broadleaf herbs are available.

The objectives of the project and availability of seed of

adapted 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 to

9,800 ft (1,060 to 3,000 m) and occurs from foothills to

subalpine zones. Annual precipitation ranges from

12 to 30 inches (300 to 760 mm). Soils on which

mountain big sagebrush grows range from slightly

acid to slightly alkaline (McArthur and others 1979a),

and are generally well drained. Soil moisture is usually favorable throughout the growing season.

Figure 29—Mountain big sagebrush frequently

grows in association with Gambel oak and an

assembly of grasses and broadleaf herbs.
240 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

methods are required to reduce the competition. However, in many situations, thinning of mountain big

sagebrush may be all that is required.

When herbicides are used, mountain big sagebrush

should be treated at an earlier stage of growth than the

other big sagebrush species. As leaves appear, it is

especially susceptible to herbicides. It can be sprayed

in early spring prior to the emergence of most understory species. If sprayed at a later date (late spring and

early summer), mountain big sagebrush is less susceptible, and herbicides can be more detrimental to understory herbaceous species.

In stands where the associated herbaceous vegetation has been depleted by grazing or other causes,

mountain big sagebrush can increase in density and

size (Winward and Tisdale 1977). Early spring burns

that occur soon after the snow starts to melt generally

do not completely eliminate a stand. Burns at these

dates will likely create a mosaic of shrubs and herbs.

Herbicides can also be sprayed in similar patterns to

create mosaics. Size and shape of areas treated must

be designed to maintain or improve wildlife habitat,

particularly for sage-grouse.

Planting Season

Late fall and early winter plantings are recommended. At higher elevations, plantings can be terminated by early heavy snowfall. Sites should not be

spring planted. Sagebrush reduction or thinning operations in areas with healthy understory herbs may

not require seeding. Areas that lack desirable herbaceous plants and those that are plowed or disked

require seeding. Table 19 lists species that are adapted

to the mountain big sagebrush type. The most successful seedings are those that include a mixture of species

and are conducted in the fall just prior to snowfall.

Planting Procedures

Aerial broadcasting by fixed-wing plane or helicopter is recommended for seeding herbs and sagebrush

seeds on large areas. Hand broadcasting or broadcasting with spreaders mounted on ground transport units

are effective methods for seeding small tracts. Anchor

chaining or pipe harrowing are economical and effective methods for covering broadcast seeds on depleted

sites and large disked or plowed areas, burns, or

herbicide-treated ranges. Mountain big sagebrush can

be successfully seeded by broadcasting from aerial or

ground units. This shrub can spread well by natural

seeding. Chaining or other surface-manipulation practices will enhance natural spread. Seedlings of mountain sagebrush are competitive and able to establish

and persist with some herbs; consequently, mixed

plantings are normally successful.

Antelope bitterbrush, mountain snowberry,

Stansbury cliffrose, mountain mahogany, sakatoon

serviceberry, and chokecherry occur intermixed with

mountain big sagebrush. These species should be drill

seeded to assure seeds are placed in the soil at appropriate depths. The Hansen seed dribbler is very effective in seeding most shrub and forb species. This

seeder is normally mounted on the truck or crawler

tractor used to chain or pipe harrow mountain big

sagebrush sites. Browse seeds can also be seeded in

alternate rows with grasses and forbs with rangeland

drills or modified browse seeders.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Mountain big sagebrush communities normally support a diverse composition of species, and plantings

should be designed to reestablish the entire community structure. Small but important stands of serviceberry, chokecherry, mountain mahogany, mountain

snowberry, antelope bitterbrush, and Stansbury

cliffrose are desirable and should be reestablished

within mountain big sagebrush restoration projects

where appropriate. It is important that understory

herbs are reestablished along with the shrubs on

depleted sites. Table 19 lists the primary species

adapted to mountain big sagebrush sites.

Wyoming Big Sagebrush _________

This subspecies can be found throughout the Intermountain West on xeric sites, foothills, valleys, and

mesas between 2,500 and 7,000 ft (760 and 2,100 m).

Annual precipitation varies from 7 to 15 inches (180 to

280 mm). Soils on which Wyoming big sagebrush

occurs are usually well drained, gravelly to stony, and

may have low water-holding capacity. Soils are shallow, usually less than about 18 inches (46 cm) deep.

Fewer herbaceous species are associated with Wyoming big sagebrush than with basin or mountain big

sagebrush (Winward 1980). Native bunchgrasses are

often important understory species in Wyoming big

sagebrush communities. In some areas, this sagebrush may be used extensively throughout the year by

livestock, big game, and upland game birds.

Removal of Competition

Following disturbance, Wyoming big sagebrush generally does not reestablish as rapidly as mountain big

sagebrush. Cheatgrass has often displaced Wyoming

big sagebrush and associated understory species. Control and eradication measures must be designed to

replace this weed if plantings of perennial herbs and

sagebrush are to be successful.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 241

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Stands of Wyoming big sagebrush normally do not

produce abundant seed crops each year. Natural spread

onto disturbed sites can be delayed until years when

seeds are produced and favorable moisture conditions

occur to support new seedlings. Attempts to seed this

shrub in semiarid sites have not always been successful because of adverse climatic conditions. The amount

and timing of late winter and early spring precipitation is critical for sagebrush seed germination and

seedling survival, particularly on areas that receive

less than 10 inches (250 mm) annual precipitation.

Lack of spring and summer moisture often limit seedling survival. Wyoming big sagebrush can be successfully seeded on sites that receive 10 to 12 inches (250

to 300 mm) precipitation.

Natural spread of Wyoming big sagebrush has often

been restricted by cheatgrass. This annual grass is

extremely competitive and limits shrub regeneration.

Seedings of crested, desert, pubescent, and intermediate wheatgrass have, in many areas, also prevented

natural recovery of this shrub.

Removal of Competition

Usually sites supporting Wyoming big sagebrush

receive low amounts of precipitation, and weed control

is essential for the establishment of all seeded species.

Where cheatgrass occurs in dense stands, plowing or

spraying may be required to adequately control this

weed. In many situations, cheatgrass and other annual weeds exist intermixed with Wyoming big sagebrush and perennial herbs. Under these conditions

the annual weeds can provide sufficient competition to

prevent natural recruitment of native plants, including Wyoming big sagebrush. Cheatgrass competition

must also be reduced to assure establishment of seeded

species. Control measures used should not destroy

existing perennial herbs. Interseeding shrubs and/or

herbs into cleared strips or spots is a satisfactory

method of interplanting. This technique can be used to

reintroduce desirable plants and ultimately create

parental stock from which natural recruitment may

occur. However, annual weeds must be controlled to

allow natural spread.

Weed-infested sites can be burned after cheatgrass

seeds are ripe and the foliage has dried, but before the

seeds fall. Burning during this period consumes most

seed; however, some seeds usually escape, but the

resulting competition may be reduced enough to allow

establishment of seeded species. Cheatgrass can recover quickly following burning, and sites must be

planted in the fall months after the burn. Waiting to

seed beyond one season allows weeds adequate time to

fully recover. Seeding burned areas that remain heavily

infested with annual weeds is not advised. Burning

will kill existing Wyoming big sagebrush, but fires

normally will not seriously impact many existing

perennial herbs. If burns are relatively small, shrub

recruitment by natural seeding may occur, depending

on the success attained in replacing annual weeds

with native perennial herbs.

Reduction in density of Wyoming big sagebrush may

be required where thick stands of this shrub have

developed, but the shrub can easily be controlled by

disking, plowing, burning, or use of herbicides. Shrub

density can also be regulated by anchor chaining or

pipe harrowing. Either practice can be modified to

attain different levels of control. Treating in midwinter when stems are cold and brittle results in higher

kill than late fall or early spring treatments when

plants are more flexible. Significant differences in kill

can also be attained by using different weight chains

and modifying methods of operation (operating at

different speeds, adjusting width and spacing of tractors, once- or twice-over chaining). Brush beaters are

also effective in removing mature shrubs, but use is

restricted to level terrain and sites free of rock. Herbicides can be used to remove Wyoming big sagebrush,

but the treatment often kills too much of the shrub

stand and eliminates valuable forbs.

Planting Season

If possible, planting in winter is advisable, but late

fall through early winter has been generally successful. Planting may continue through December, January, and February, or until the ground has frozen,

preventing operation of equipment. Planting on snow

over disturbed soil is acceptable. Newly disturbed

sites should be seeded in the fall or winter months

following disturbance.

Planting Procedures

Seeding practices described for mountain and basin

big sagebrush sites apply to treatment of Wyoming big

sagebrush communities. Extensive areas occupied by

Wyoming big sagebrush occur on relatively level terrain where conventional drills can operate; consequently, large areas have been planted with rangeland drills coupled together in gangs of two to five

drills drawn with a single tractor.

Broadcast seeding followed by anchor chaining or

pipe harrowing is an appropriate practice for seeding

extensive areas in a very short time. Most herbs and

Wyoming big sagebrush can be seeded in this manner.

In some situations, reestablishing sagebrush on large

barren areas created by wildfires has been difficult to

accomplish. Studies by Meyer (1994) indicate that

sites receiving winter snow that persists until early

spring (March) significantly favor shrub seedling establishment. Young and others (1990) reported destruction of soil surface morphology caused by various disturbances destroys seedbed conditions, diminishing
242 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

seedling establishment. Soils throughout many Wyoming sagebrush communities have been altered by

grazing, weed invasion, and frequent fires. In addition, loss of shrub cover and surface litter over extensive areas results in poor seedbed conditions. Large

open sites often do not receive a winter snow cover and

soil surfaces dry rapidly, reducing emergence and

survival of small seedlings.

Standing cover and surface litter provided by mature shrubs or perennial grasses significantly improves seedbed conditions for Wyoming big sagebrush

seedlings. Attempts to modify seedbed conditions by

diking, pitting, or deep furrow drilling have not

improved shrub seedling success; however, use of the

“sagebrush-seeder” has improved sagebrush establishment and survival over conventional drilling practices. The sagebrush-seeder deposits and firms seed

onto the soil surface without further modification of

the seedbed (Boltz 1994). Although this practice does

not ensure planting success in all situations, it is

advisable to use this equipment or other surface seeders when planting small seeds of sagebrush.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Within Wyoming big sagebrush areas, where annual precipitation is near 10 inches (250 mm) or less

and soils are light textured, Sandberg bluegrass, Indian ricegrass, bottlebush squirreltail, and Bluebunch

wheatgrass may be used if plants occur naturally.

Thurber needlegrass, western wheatgrass, and sand

dropseed are other recommended native grasses. Not

all species are universally adapted to all Wyoming big

sagebrush sites. Crested and desert wheatgrass, Russian wildrye, and pubescent wheatgrass are the primary introductions adapted to this shrub type. Areas

receiving more than 12 inches (300 mm) of annual

precipitation will support bluebunch wheatgrass,

western wheatgrass, alfalfa, small burnet, and intermediate wheatgrass. Winterfat, antelope bitterbrush, fourwing saltbush, or other shrubs seeded on

Wyoming big sagebrush sites should be confined to

areas where these species naturally occur. Attempting

to convert Wyoming big sagebrush to other native

shrub species is not advisable. Seeds of certain native

broadleaf herbs, including Lewis flax, Palmer

penstemon, Utah sweetvetch, and gooseberryleaf

globemallow, may be sufficiently available to be included in large seedings. These species are only recommended for sites in which they naturally exist. Attempts to seed them in more arid or offsite conditions

are not advised. Near pure stands of fourwing saltbush occur in some Wyoming big sagebrush areas. In

some locations, the two shrubs can be intermixed.

Soils in which fourwing saltbush occur are generally

deeper, possess more clay, and have a slightly higher

pH. Species recommended for seeding Wyoming big

sagebrush sites are listed in table 20. When fourwing

saltbush is intermixed with Wyoming big sagebrush,

adapted species for seeding vary and are listed in

table 17.

Plantings of forage kochia (fig. 30) have demonstrated adaptability to much of the Wyoming big

sagebrush type (Stevens 1985b). This introduced

shrub establishes well amid considerable competition from annual weeds (McArthur and others 1990a;

Monsen and others 1990; Monsen and Turnipseed

1990; Stevens and McArthur 1990), provides excellent

wildlife habitat, and forage, and restricts the spread of

annual weeds (Monsen and others 1990). This shrub is

also effective in controlling wildfires when planted as

greenstrips or fuel breaks in weed infested rangelands

(Pellent 1994). Currently, this low half-shrub is a

useful species for planting semiarid sites where seedling establishment of other species is difficult to attain.

Completely replacing sagebrush with forage kochia is

not advised. Forage kochia furnishes excellent winter

forage for livestock under controlled grazing conditions, but it does not provide the habitat required for

sage-grouse and other wildlife.

Black Sagebrush ________________

Black sagebrush is highly palatable to livestock, big

game and sage-grouse. The species generally occurs

between 4,900 and 8,000 ft (1,500 and 2,400 m), but

can be encountered at lower elevations. A majority of

the black sagebrush communities occur on calcareous

soils, derived from limestone. There are, however,

extensive areas where black sagebrush occurs on

Figure 30—Forage kochia and fourwing saltbush have

been successfully seeded into weed-infested sites that

once supported Wyoming big sagebrush.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 243

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

volcanic soils. Black sagebrush is encountered with

horsebrush, greasewood, shadscale, ephedra, pinyonjuniper, big sagebrush, and in salt desert shrub communities. In general, it grows in pinyon-juniper communities and at lower elevations; however, it is also

encountered on rocky soils at higher elevations. Low

sagebrush is often confused with black sagebrush.

Low sagebrush, however, normally grows with pinyon-juniper, mountain brush, white fir, aspen, and

spruce-fir communities.

Annual precipitation of black sagebrush sites range

from 7 to 18 inches (180 to 460 mm). Because of the low

moisture-holding capacity of most soils, only a small

portion of the annual precipitation is available. Black

sagebrush may occur on warmer and well-drained

soils, and on more xeric sites than Wyoming big sagebrush. Salt desert shrub species normally occur on

sites that are too xeric or saline for black sagebrush.

Removal of Competition

Generally, stand reduction should not be attempted

in black sagebrush types. This is due to low precipitation, poor moisture-holding capacity of the soil, and

the small number of beneficial grasses, forbs, and

shrubs that can be successfully seeded. Black sagebrush is a very important forage species and should be

retained, not eliminated or altered. Some black sagebrush areas have been invaded by Utah juniper,

singleleaf pinyon or pinyon. Removal of the trees by

anchor chaining can result in substantial recovery of

residual black sagebrush plants and original understory species. Where stands of black sagebrush have

been eliminated by a combination of grazing and

burning, cheatgrass and red brome have frequently

invaded and dominate. These annual weeds can be

controlled using practices described for Wyoming big

sagebrush.

Black sagebrush does recover well when sites are

protected from extensive grazing. Seedlings of this

shrub are extremely competitive, and natural recruitment proceeds well if disturbances are protected.

Interseeding black sagebrush into disturbances can

certainly speed up natural recruitment processes.

Once established, black sagebrush plants compete

well with annual weeds. Through protective management, weakened stands of black sagebrush can displace annual weeds and regain dominance.

Seeded grasses, including desert, crested, and Siberian wheatgrass, have not persisted well amid stands

of black sagebrush. Although some native grasses and

broadleaf herbs occur intermixed with this shrub,

black sagebrush is extremely competitive and may not

allow for the development of extensive stands of grass.

Disturbances within the black sagebrush type that

have been seeded to drought-tolerant grasses have

reverted to a shrub cover within 10 to 20 years.

Planting Season

When seeding is attempted, every effort should be

made to conserve and utilize available soil moisture.

Late fall or early winter seedings are recommended.

Seeding should be delayed until some winter moisture

has been received. Seeding into water catchments,

holding basins, or deep furrows can improve seedling

establishment. Broadcast seeding black sagebrush

with a mixture of native and introduced grasses has

not diminished shrub seedling establishment.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Species with potential for seeding disturbed sites in

the black sage type are listed in table 21. Desert,

crested, and Siberian wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye

are introduced species that have established in black

sagebrush sites. These species have not persisted in all

areas, particularly as black sagebrush recovers. Western wheatgrass, Indian ricegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and needle-and-threadgrass are native species

common in this shrub type. They persist better with

black sagebrush than do most introduced grasses, but

may occur as subdominant understory species. All can

be seeded with good success. There are generally few

forbs that are associated with black sagebrush. Attempts should not be made to seed shrub species that

do not naturally occur with black sagebrush.

Low Sagebrush _________________

Low sagebrush can be found growing on more moist

sites, and generally at slightly higher elevations than

black sagebrush. Soils in which low sagebrush occurs

are dry, rocky, and often alkaline, some have shallow

clay pans, and most are not well drained. Sites may be

subjected to spring flooding. Areas of occurrence ranging from 2,300 to 11,500 ft (700 to 3,500 m) (McArthur

and others 1979a) and receive 9 to 20 inches (230 to

510 mm) of annual precipitation.

Low sagebrush is an important and useful species,

and attempts to convert this shrub type to introduced

herbs is not advised. If the associated understory has

been removed, the potential for herbaceous vegetation

improvement through seeding is fairly good on most

low sagebrush areas. Species adapted to the low sagebrush types are listed in table 22. Seeding should occur

in the fall or early winter prior to snowfall. Low

sagebrush has not been as widely seeded as other

species of sagebrush; however, direct seedings are

usually quite successful.

Some reduction of low sagebrush may be required to

reestablish seedlings of displaced species, but

elimination of this shrub is not recommended. If

necessary, density of low sagebrush can be reduced

with anchor chains and pipe harrows. These two
244 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

pieces of equipment are also useful for covering seed.

Plowing, disking, fire, and herbicides are effective

techniques for killing low sagebrush, but are not

recommended. These techniques cause major damage

and can kill existing shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Seeding should be done in the fall or early winter prior to

snowfall.

Threetip Sagebrush _____________

Within the Intermountain West, threetip sagebrush

occurs in northern Utah, northern Nevada, and southern Idaho. It can be found between the lower, warmer

dry sites dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush and

the higher, cooler mountain big sagebrush type

(Schlatterer 1973). Soils are quite variable, but are

usually moderately deep, ranging from fine loam to

very gravelly. Annual precipitation ranges from 10 to

20 inches (250 to 500 mm) and elevations from 3,000

to 9,000 ft (900 to 2,750 m) (Beetle 1960).

A number of forbs, grasses, and other shrubs grow in

association with threetip sagebrush. The potential for

reestablishing herbaceous species through seeding is

fairly high, but not as great as in mountain big sagebrush areas. Threetip sagebrush may resprout from

the base following fire, defoliation, or other disturbances. Practices can be used to initially reduce woody

competition and allow understory species to establish,

yet favoring the recovery of the sage. Threetip sagebrush sites should be seeded with adapted and available species (table 23) at the same season as described

for mountain big sagebrush, using similar practices.

Best seeding success has been achieved by seeding in

the late fall just before snowfall .

Threetip sagebrush communities normally support

a wide array of herbaceous and woody species. Sites

usually are not invested with annual weeds. Areas

disrupted by grazing normally recover with protection. Threetip sagebrush plants usually produce abundant seeds each year, facilitating natural recruitment.

Stands of threetip disrupted by burning or extended

periods of grazing can be restored by broadcast seeding. Aerial seeding of fresh burns or broadcasting prior

to chaining or pipe harrowing are quite successful.

Seeding threetip sagebrush with herbaceous species

has 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). Precipitation

ranges from 18 to 30 inches (460 to 760 mm) annually.

Soil texture ranges from loam to sandy loam. Many

sites are poorly drained, with some having seasonally

high water tables. Some sites often collect a heavy

snow pack that remains late into the spring. As snow

melts, the soil is saturated for a period of time.

Two other silver sagebrush subspecies occur in the

west: Bolander silver sagebrush occurs primarily in

the Sierra-Nevada Mountains, and plains silver

sagebrush occurs principally east of the Continental

Divide (Shultz 1986). Timberline sagebrush grows in

association with silver sagebrush, especially when

there is heavy snow pack. Subalpine big sagebrush

also occurs on more open areas with silver sagebrush.

Considerable variations of understory species occur

among mountain silver sagebrush sites. Consequently,

care should be taken when selecting species to seed

within a particular mountain silver sagebrush community. Mountain silver sagebrush communities

should not be altered or converted to other species.

However, where disturbances have occurred, mountain

silver sagebrush density can be reduced with anchor

chains, pipe harrows, disks, and disk chain if necessary. Fire and herbicides are also effective means for

reducing silver sagebrush. Species that are adapted to

the mountain silver sagebrush, timberline sagebrush

and subalpine big sagebrush areas are listed in table 24.

Ecotypes of mountain silver sagebrush demonstrate

excellent establishment features. Some ecotypes compete well with annual weeds. Natural spread of mountain silver sagebrush into weed infested sites often

occurs. This shrub resprouts following burning, and

may be used to seed areas occupied by flammable

annual 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 extensive

areas along the foothill ranges from south-central

Montana southward into Wyoming, northern Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, and Oregon (Blaisdell and

others 1982). Alkali sagebrush usually occurs on heavy

textured and poorly drained soils. This shrub is unlike

most other woody sagebrushes, with the exception of

low sagebrush or silver sagebrush, as it is able to grow

on wet sites. It is frequently mixed with antelope

bitterbrush, and basin big, threetip, and low sagebrush, particularly in south-central Idaho. Yet, when

growing with these shrubs, it usually occurs in separate and distinct patches.

Alkali sagebrush is useful forage for game birds,

livestock, and big game animals. It is important habitat for sage-grouse and provides forage for sheep and

antelope, especially as spring herbage. Rehabilitation

or conversion of alkali sagebrush-dominated communities should not be initiated until the impacts on

these game birds are considered.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 245

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Alkali sagebrush sites normally support a diverse

understory of grasses and herbs. Sites that have been

well managed support Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Letterman needlegrass. It is not uncommon

to encounter mixed communities of alkali sagebrush

and antelope bitterbrush.

Areas that are heavily grazed usually lack a satisfactory understory of herbs. In these situations, the density of alkali sagebrush increases significantly. Once

this occurs, the native herbs are slow to reestablish.

Alkali sagebrush-dominated areas in south-central

Idaho have been rested from grazing for over 30 years

without much community change or improvement.

Removal of Competition

Improvement of alkali sagebrush ranges can be

attained by artificial measures. Grasses and broadleaf

herbs can be interseeded into clearings created by

burning or disking. Alkali sagebrush can also be effectively controlled with chaining, disking, or spraying;

however, chaining is the most effective treatment

(Monsen and Shaw 1986). Complete removal of the

existing shrubs is neither necessary nor desirable. A

reduction of 25 to 50 percent in density of the shrubs

is sufficient to allow seedling establishment of additional species. Alkali sagebrush stands exposed to

burning or chaining recover quickly, often within 3 to

5 years. Consequently, it is essential to immediately

seed after these treatments. However, thinning by

chaining, burning, spraying, or disking can result in a

rapid improvement of understory herbs (Monsen and

Shaw 1986). Following burning or chaining, alkali

sagebrush plants recover quickly by sprouting. This

shrub normally produces a good seed crop each year.

Clearing techniques, including chaining or disking,

usually improve the seedbed and result in rapid recovery of new shrub seedlings.

Burning of alkali sagebrush stands is usually not

difficult if conducted at the right season. Sites dominated by this shrub may lack a dense understory. If so,

fires may burn erratically leaving a mosaic pattern. If

an understory does exist, seeding following burning is

not required. Most associated plants recover following

burning and chaining.

Alkali sagebrush begins growth much earlier than

either basin big sagebrush or low sagebrush. Plants

normally flower a month before low sagebrush. Consequently, if herbicides are used to control alkali sagebrush, treatment should be completed much earlier

than would be scheduled for basin big sagebrush.

Planting Season

Fall seeding is normally recommended, although

some sites receive sufficient moisture to support early

spring plantings.

Planting Procedures

Aerial seeding followed by anchor chaining is a satisfactory means of planting. Sites that are burned may be

aerially seeded or drill seeded. Areas that have been

burned may be drill seeded using a rangeland drill or

similar type drill that is capable of operating on sites

supporting considerable standing litter and debris.

Rocky outcrops often occur amid alkali sagebrush

communities and can restrict the methods used to seed

an area. Anchor chaining is normally the most practical and effective method of seeding rocky sites.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Species recommended for rehabilitating alkali sagebrush sites are similar to those used for basin big

sagebrush (table 18) or low sagebrush sites (table 22).

Idaho fescue, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Letterman’s

needlegrass are also adapted to these sites.

Alkali sagebrush plants spread well by natural seeding. Attempts to improve a site by seeding understory

herbs normally results in the overall recovery of the

shrub. This shrub is not difficult to establish by direct

seeding. Seedlings are quite competitive and can be

established in combination with some herbs. Seeds are

relatively large compared with those of most other

sagebrushes, and are easily cleaned and planted with

most 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 an

important group of woody species including bud sagebrush, shadscale, winterfat, spiny hopsage, and fourwing

saltbush. Maintaining these communities and preventing weed invasion is essential because these sites are

difficult to restore.
246 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

plains and hills. It is well adapted to xeric conditions

and is often associated with shadscale saltbush, black

greasewood, and other salt-tolerant shrubs (fig. 31). In

some places it can be found growing in association

with black sagebrush and basin big sagebrush. Budsage

sites are generally not recommended for rehabilitation because of arid conditions that prevail. If a site is

disturbed, few species can be recommended for seeding. Attempts made to seed this species have not been

very successful because of poor quality seed and harsh

planting conditions. Seeds are small and seedlings do

not grow rapidly. Stands of bud sagebrush should be

protected and carefully managed to avoid loss.

Salt Desert Shrub

Communities ___________________

Salt desert shrub communities occur throughout the

Western United States, Canada, and Mexico. Chenopod shrubs dominate many of these communities,

providing a diverse group of species (McArthur and

Sanderson 1984) (fig. 31). Some species that occupy

the salt desert shrublands are encountered in both

cold desert and warm desert communities described

by Shreve (1942). Various species of sagebrush exist in

association with certain salt desert communities, but

they normally grow at higher elevations and on better

drained soils. Generally, salt desert species occur on

heavy textured lowland soils containing some salt in

the subsoil. Not all sites have a developed carbonate

layer, and salt content may vary throughout the soil

profile.

Salt desert communities occupy harsh and somewhat unique sites, including waste places, temperate

salt marshes, deserts, and semidesert regions (Goodall

1982; McArthur and Sanderson 1984). Salt desert

shrublands occur as extensive rangelands occupying

broad valleys throughout southeastern Oregon and

southern Idaho, southward through the Great Basin

into southern California and western Arizona (Oosting

1956). Precipitation is low, normally less than 10

inches (250 mm), and erratic. Locally, physical differences in topography, soils, and aspect produce distinct

patterns in the distribution of different plant communities. It is important to recognize that quite different

vegetative associations occur throughout the salt desert

shrublands, reflecting the effects of soil conditions,

water accumulation, evaporation, and salt deposition.

Accumulation of salts create zonal patterns of vegetation around playa lakes and areas where flooding or

runoff may occur (Billings 1980). Where salt content is

excessive, samphire glasswort and iodine bush dominate. Shadscale, greasewood, gray molly, winterfat,

blackbrush, Nevada ephedra, and spiny hopsage exist

on sites with less salt.

Differences in site conditions must be considered in

any vegetative improvement projects. Salt desert

shrublands may be difficult sites to restore or revegetate. Seasonal precipitation is not only low but very

erratic, and planting success is closely regulated by

availability of soil moisture in the spring and early

summer. Restoration or revegetation measures must

be developed to properly treat different communities

and site conditions.

It is important that rehabilitation procedures selected apply to the specific plant association being

treated. To date, disturbances within the salt desert

shrublands have generally been seeded with crested

wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass, Siberian wheatgrass,

Russian wildrye, Great Basin wildrye, and bottlebrush squirreltail (Plummer and others 1968). Although attempts have been made to reestablish native

shrubs and associated herbs, erratic success has resulted. Most revegetation projects have relied on the

use of grasses, using species capable of developing

uniform stands under adverse establishment conditions. Although native shrubs have evolved to populate these sites, natural and artificial seedings generally do not provide reliable seedling establishment

each year. Recent studies with some semiarid shrubs

demonstrate that by selecting adapted ecotypes

(Meyer and Monsen 1990; Shaw and Haferkamp

1990), proper seedbed preparation (Stevens and others 1986), and aggressive weed control (Monsen and

Pellant 1989), a number of species can be seeded with

good success. Recent development of native and introduced ecotypes has also provided additional plant

materials for seeding salt desert disturbances

(McArthur and others 1982; Stevens and McArthur

1990; Stevens and others 1977; Welch and McArthur

1986).

Shadscale-Saltbush _____________

Shadscale-saltbush communities occur over 50,000

square miles (129,00 km2

) ranging from Canada to

Mexico, and from 1,500 to 7,000 ft (450 to 2,100 m) in

elevation (Hanson 1962). These species dominate

broad valley bottoms and adjacent foothills where

they merge with big sagebrush and juniper-pinyon.

Shadscale is the most common and abundant shrub of

the salt desert shrubland (Blaisdell and Holmgren

1984). Shadscale is found in heavy soils with soluble

salts ranging from 160 to 3,000 ppm and pH of 7.4 to

10.3 (Hanson 1962). On highly alkaline soils, shadscale

occurs in nearly pure stands. Annual precipitation on

these areas is generally less than 10 inches (250 mm),

with many areas receiving from 3 to 8 inches (80 to

200 mm). Both pure and mixed stands of shadscale

occur in the Colorado River drainage in western Utah
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 247

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(fig. 31), and throughout Nevada, eastern Oregon,

southern Idaho, and southwestern Wyoming. Community composition may be predominantly shadscale

or other saltbush species. Numerous shadscale communities have been described by various investigators

(Hutchings and Stewart 1953; Stewart and others

1940; Wood 1966). West and Ibrahim (1968) described

four habitat types with distinctly different floristic

composition and soil features in southeastern Utah.

Shadscale exists as nearly pure stands with large open

spaces among plants in valley bottoms. On higher

slopes it exists in fairly complex mixtures with other

low shrubs and some grasses (Hutchings and Stewart

1953).

Shadscale plants can be completely killed by fires.

Vest (1962) reported that shadscale is more sensitive

to extended periods of drought than any other of the

salt desert shrubs. Extensive stands have also been

killed by periods of heavy precipitation and seasonal

periods of flooding or soil saturation.

Although heavy or improper seasons of grazing can

diminish stands of shadscale, this species is reported

to replace palatable shrubs and grasses where grazing

has been excessive (Blaisdell 1958).

Most successful range improvement projects in

shadscale-saltbush communities have occurred where

annual precipitation exceeds 8 inches (200 mm) (Bleak

and others 1965; Plummer 1966; Plummer and others

1968). Techniques and plant materials are limited at

the present time to ensure consistent, acceptable, longterm success in areas that receive less than 8 inches

(200 mm) of precipitation. The presence of juniper or

pinyon in a shadscale community indicates that adequate precipitation is generally available to successfully seed the area.

Normally, areas with Gardner or mat saltbush are

too dry or saline for successful seeding. However,

treatments may be successful in shadscale or mixed

shrub communities, which include fourwing saltbush,

winterfat, black greasewood, blackbrush, basin big

sagebrush, spiny hopsage, horsebrush, and juniper.

Bud sage is often codominant or subdominant with

shadscale. Disturbed shadscale areas are usually occupied by Russian thistle, cheatgrass (fig. 32), and

halogeton. It is important to revegetate these disturbances to reduce erosion and to check the increase of

undesirable annuals, poisonous plants, and noxious

weeds, and to control wildfires.

Natural recovery of large stands of shadscale has

frequently occurred following fires. In some situations, plants appeared 3 to 4 years after disturbance,

indicating seeds survive in the soil and may remain

viable for a number of years. Shadscale seedlings are

able to compete with some herbaceous competition,

but recent trials indicate seedlings are susceptible to

competition.

Removal of Competition

Disturbance of the perennial plant cover may

threaten soil stability (Bleak and others 1965; Plummer

1966). Typically, perennial plant density is low with

major openings existing between individual shrubs.

Annual and perennial weeds have often invaded disturbances and sites where plant density is low or

where shrubs have been burned by wildfires. Weeds

have also established on sites where shrub density has

not been diminished. Weed invasion and persistence

fluctuates annually, creating the potential for large

and disruptive fires.

Where cheatgrass brome (fig. 32) has become established and gained control, removal of weedy competition should follow the same general procedure as

outlined in guides for seeding into cheatgrass, red

brome, and medusahead types. Likewise, where halogeton and Russian thistle have established, the treatments described in this chapter for seeding into low

annual weed communities would be appropriate.

If a reduction in shrub density is desired, this can be

accomplished by anchor chaining, shallow plowing,

and disking, or with disk-chains, pipe harrows, and

scalpers of various types (McArthur and others 1978b).

Shrubs within this type are generally very brittle and

easily removed. Destruction of shrub cover should

not be done unless specific objectives would justify

conversion to a different community.

Control of annual weeds is a major problem throughout most of the salt desert communities. Annual weeds

have invaded many sites and restrict natural recruitment of native species. The annual weeds also flourish

following a wildfire or other disturbance. Once in

Figure 32—Shadscale communities are often invaded

by cheatgrass following wildfires, creating serious problems in restoration of this native shrub.
248 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

place, the weeds dominate and prevent establishment of artificial seedings. Cheatgrass is highly

competitive and produces abundant seed crops, providing a seedbank that persists for more than one

season. Any attempt to plant these disturbances

requires removal of existing plants and elimination of

the seedbank. Single treatments, including mechanical tillage or application of herbicides, are not always

successful.

Planting Season

If soils are not frozen, midwinter seeding is recommended. Disking, drill seeding, or other disturbances

when soils are wet can cause surface crusting, which

prevents emergence of most seedlings. Generally, lowelevation sites can be seeded from late fall until early

spring. Spring planting should be completed before

winter moisture has diminished and soil surfaces are

dry.

Planting Procedures

Unless weeds are present, drill seeding can usually

be accomplished with little reduction of existing cover

(Plummer 1966). Where the objective is to improve

ground cover and increase production by leaving perennial vegetation and adding some additional species, direct seeding with the rangeland drill is especially successful. If shrubs are seeded, they should be

planted in alternate rows separated from seeded

grasses. Good results can be obtained when the drill

makes wide furrows, permitting the maximum amount

of precipitation to be collected in the depressions.

However, a drill can often compact the furrow, which

may interfere with seedling emergence. The use of

scalpers, pitters, and land imprinters to create depressions where moisture will collect, combined with broadcast seeding, has resulted in improved establishment

(Ferguson and Frischknecht 1981; Fisser and others

1974; Giunta and others 1975; Hull 1963b; Knudson

1977; Lavin and others 1981; Stevens 1980b, 1981;

Wein and West 1971; Wight and White 1974). Furrows

and pits are useful for collecting and conserving moisture on heavy soils with slow infiltration rates (Bleak

and others 1965). Anchor chains and pipe harrows are

not recommended for seed coverage where existing

stands of shadscale occur, as the brittle shrubs will be

seriously damaged. If shadscale shrubs have been

destroyed by burning or other disturbances, chaining

or harrowing can be used to cover broadcast seeds.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Species that are adapted to the shadscale type are

listed in table 25 (Bleak and others 1965; Ferguson

and Frischknecht 1981; McArthur and others 1978b;

McKell and VanEpps 1981; Monsen and Plummer

1978; Plummer 1966, 1977; Plummer and others 1968).

Seeding shadscale onto sites where wildfires or

other disturbances have removed the shrub has frequently been attempted. Erratic stands have often

developed from direct seedings, yet new shadscale

plants appear over a number of years, eventually

producing good stands. If a seedbank has been developed in the soil, natural recovery of shadscale has

occurred following burns at a number of locations.

Natural seedlings compete well with other species,

and mature individuals develop in 3 to 5 years. Heavy

and continuous grazing has weakened and killed existing plants. Weakened plants may fail to produce

normal seed crops, slowing the recovery process.

Natural recovery following extended periods of destructive grazing can be slow or may not occur. Weed

invasion can also prevent shrub recruitment.

Natural recovery of shadscale can be expected on

recent burns if weeds are absent and a seedbank has

accumulated in the soil. Seeding shadscale or other

species may not be required. If weed invasion is apparent, planting is usually necessary to ensure shrub

recovery. Seeding introduced perennial grasses following wildfires is often recommended to stabilize

soils and control weed invasion. However, plantings of

crested wheatgrass on upland foothills and plains has

prevented shadscale recovery. This practice should be

avoided if conditions suggest shadscale is capable of

recovery.

Seed lots of shadscale obtained from native collections often have less than 40 percent viability. A large

percentage of the seed fails to develop, and many empty

utricles are formed. In addition, the hard utricle prevents germination. Once the utricle is fractured or

opened, seeds germinate rapidly. Procedures have not

been developed to open the utricle and permit uniform

germination. Seed from various native stands germinate more freely than others, and collections from

north-central Nevada, southern Idaho, and eastern

Utah have germinated better than collections from

most other areas. This demonstrates the practicality of

improving stand establishment through controlled

breeding and selection.

Plantings of forage kochia (fig. 30), an introduced

half-shrub, have demonstrated adaptability to and

can establish in the shadscale type (McArthur and

others 1990a). This plant is competitive as a seedling

(Monsen and Turnipseed 1990; Stevens and McArthur

1990) and has established very well when seeded amid

sites occupied by annual weeds. This introduced shrub

provides useful herbage, competes well with annuals,

and has significantly reduced the incident of wildfires

where cheatgrass has invaded. Converting shadscale

communities to forage kochia is not advised, but existing disturbances currently occupied by cheatgrass
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 249

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(McArthur and others 1990a), Russian thistle, or halogeton (Stevens and McArthur 1990) can be converted to a more manageable and productive cover

with forage kochia. In addition, this shrub can be used

to control the further spread of weeds and restrict

further decline in site productivity and erosion. Forage kochia is able to outcompete summer annuals

because 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 on

salt-bearing shale outcrops in canyons and on foothills (fig. 33). Sites vary in respect to soil texture and

availability of ground water. Some areas are wet

with high water tables, and others are dry with welldrained soils.

Black greasewood occurs in pure or mixed stands.

The plant contains oxalic acid and can cause poisoning, particularly when grazed in the spring (USDA

1968). Livestock can safely consume moderate amounts

of greasewood when it is eaten in conjunction with

other forage. Black greasewood is not known to be

poisonous to game animals and, in fact, has some

forage value. However, forage production and ground

cover can often be increased by establishing additional

species within greasewood stands.

Removal of Competition

Some stands of black greasewood have been converted to herbaceous species for livestock pastures or

cultivated fields. Many black greasewood sites can be

relatively productive areas, and increases in forage

production can economically support development

costs. Introduced perennial grasses are commonly

seeded to provide spring/fall pastures.

Many black greasewood sites have been invaded by

cheatgrass and summer annuals. These sites frequently burn, which decreases shrub density and

diminishes understory herbs. Where control of annual

weeds and fire suppression is a major concern, planting introduced perennial grasses has been justified.

Reestablishment of the native understory is attainable in many situations, although seed availability

currently limits restoration programs.

Many black greasewood sites are important for

maintaining wildlife habitat and soil protection.

Streams and riparian zones often align this plant type.

Consequently, restoration measures are often required

to restore the understory vegetation. Complete elimination of all shrubs is not necessary or advisable.

Shrub density should only be decreased to facilitate

planting understory species. Converting this woody

community to other shrub species is not advisable in

most situations.

Black greasewood is not very competitive with seeded

herbs. However, some thinning of the shrubs is usually required to reduce competition and facilitate seeding. A heavy offset disk, disk-chain (fig. 34), pipe

harrows, brushland plow, or similar equipment can be

used to remove top growth and eliminate plants. Pipe

harrowing, chaining, mowing, beating, or use of the

land imprinter effectively reduce top growth, and

leave litter on the ground as mulch. These treatments

do not kill or remove all greasewood plants. Top

growth of greasewood can be removed with fire when

Figure 33—Black greasewood sites often exist

with a limited cover of understory herbs, and are

subject to invasion by annual weeds, including

cheatgrass.

Figure 34—Mechanical tillage is often used to

reduce competition from black greasewood and

establish understory species.
250 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

there is sufficient fuel to carry a fire. Greasewood can

be satisfactorily controlled with 2,4-D (Cluff and others 1983b; Roundy and others 1983).

Soil crusting in the black greasewood type is a major

problem. Mulching helps to reduce crusting and provides improved seedling emergence and establishment. Every effort should be made to leave mulch on

the soil surface.

Planting Season

If the surface is dry or moist, February is the preferred time for planting because the soil crusts less

following tillage or seeding than in late fall or early

winter. However, planting from late fall (mid-October)

through January can produce good stands. Seeding in

March and early April is normally successful if soils

are dry and firm. Spring tillage or seeding dries the

soil surface and prevents seed germination and seedling establishment.

Planting Procedures

Broadcasting by aerial or hand-seeding techniques,

followed by anchor chaining or pipe harrowing, are

suitable and practical procedures. Anchor chaining

and pipe harrowing after seeding are usually preferred treatments, as litter is scattered over the soil

surface. Drilling or imprint seeding can be used unless

numerous woody stems are left on the soil surface.

Surface planting using a Brillon seeder often prevents

surface compaction and crusting, and produces adequate stands.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Even though few species (table 26) are adapted to

the akaline soils of greasewood communities, good

opportunities exist for improving forage production,

ground cover, and soil stabilization. Bottlebrush

squirreltail, western wheatgrass, and Great Basin

wildrye are the principal native grasses adapted to

this shrub type. “Fairway” and “Ephraim” crested

wheatgrass, and Russian wildrye are all well-adapted

introductions and useful forage species. Russian

wildrye provides excellent forage during late spring

and summer periods and helps control reinvasion of

weeds. Although greasewood is not eliminated by the

presence of seeded herbs, shrub density can be controlled by the presence of understory species and

seasonal 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 Canada

to the Great Basin and Rocky Mountain States to

California, Mexico, and eastward to Texas and North

Dakota (Blaisdell and Holmgren 1984). This shrub is

abundant on low foothill ranges, dry valley bottoms,

and plains, growing on subalkaline soils (Gates and

others 1956; Shantz and Piemeisel 1940). It is not

uncommon to find this shrub in nearly pure stands

over extensive areas (Branson and others 1967).

Winterfat may frequently dominate upland or foothill sites, normally growing with some understory

grasses in these situations. Blaisdell and Holmgren

(1984) conclude that winterfat appears as a dominant

species in three major salt desert shrub communities:

winterfat-low rabbitbrush, winterfat-low rabbitbrushgrass, and winterfat-grass. It also exists as almost

pure stands or intermixed with shadscale on alluvial

soils on broad valley bottoms and lower valley slopes.

Indian ricegrass, galleta, and black sagebrush are

frequently associated with winterfat. Throughout the

salt desert communities, winterfat is second only to

shadscale in importance.

Salt desert shrub communities occur on soils with

extreme salinity, alkalinity, or both (West 1982) where

precipitation is mostly under 6 inches (15 cm). This

combination of factors creates climatically and physiologically dry soils (Billings 1945). Winterfat differs

from some other salt desert shrubs in that it grows on

soils relatively low in salt and sodium (Naphan 1966).

Although it may occur on coarser textured soils with

low water holding capacity, it also occupies fertile,

moist sites.

Winterfat is highly palatable and nutritious. Its

tolerance to winter grazing is remarkable. Even so,

persistent and continuous overgrazing, especially in

spring and summer, has reduced its density on many

ranges, and in places, has completely eliminated stands.

Low rabbitbrush, snakeweed, shadscale saltbush, and

such annuals as Russian thistle, cheatgrass, red brome,

and halogeton now occupy extensive areas that were

formerly dominated by winterfat (Stevens and others

1977a). Spring and summer grazing essentially eliminates seed production.

Winterfat can survive through extensive moisture

shortage. It has an extensively fibrous and deep taproot. During prolonged drought, growth is negligible

and plants may even appear to be dead. However, the

woody crowns often survive. With moisture, it has a

remarkable ability to recover. The more successful

range improvement projects have occurred where annual precipitation is in excess of 8 inches (200 mm).

Removal of Competition

Winterfat has been eliminated by grazing or other

disturbances and replaced by cheatgrass, red brome,
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 251

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Russian thistle, and halogeton. These sites frequently

burn and further reduce shrub density and understory

herbs. Techniques described in the chapter for treating these annual communities should be employed.

Where control of annual weeds and fire suppression is

a major concern, planting of introduced perennial

grasses has been justified. However, reestablishment

of natives can occur in many situations.

When winterfat stands have been invaded by or

replaced with low rabbitbrush, rubber rabbitbrush,

and snakeweed, the density of these species must be

reduced to facilitate seeding. A Dixie chain or pipe

harrow can effectively reduce competition from these

species and prepare a favorable seedbed. Plowing or

disking will kill and eliminate winterfat plants that

may be present. Working the soil when it is damp or

wet will cause soil crusting and prevent seedling

emergence.

Planting Season

The most ideal time for seeding winterfat and associated species is in the fall before the soil freezes.

Where summer storms occur, particularly in the southwest, seeding prior to these storms has resulted in

good success.

Planting Procedures

A major factor in successful seeding is seed coverage.

Winterfat seeds are encircled by two cottony, hairy

bracts. Seed should not be removed from these bracts.

Winterfat seed does best when it is surface seeded. The

bracts, when embedded in soil, help to anchor the seed

to the soil and provide for successful germination and

seedling establishment. Aerial broadcasting onto disturbed sites or with slight disturbance with chaining

or pipe harrowing can be successful. Drill seeding can

be successful when a picker wheel or chaffy seed

dispenser is incorporated in the seedbox. Seed should

be deposited behind the furrow openers and in front of

the drag chain. Winterfat should be seeded in alternate rows separated from grasses. The use of scalpers,

pitters, and land imprinters that form depressions for

moisture collection has resulted in good seedings.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Ecotypic variations exist in winterfat. Generally,

low-growing, drought-tolerant forms are found in valley bottoms with heavier soils. Tall-growing, more

woody types occur on more upland sites with higher

precipitation, generally associated with ponderosa

pine and pinyon-juniper (Stevens and others 1977a).

When seeding winterfat, it is imperative that adaptive ecotypes be selected and seeded.

Species adapted to seeding onto winterfat vary with

climatic and edaphic conditions. Winterfat most often

occurs in association with other species. Species recommended for seeding are listed by associated species

in table 13 (mountain brush-ponderosa pine); tables

14 to 16 (juniper-pinyon); table 17 (fourwing saltbush); table 18 (basin big sagebrush); table 20 (Wyoming 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 into

the Great Plains on the east and nearly to the Pacific

Ocean on the west, from Canada on the north and

south into Mexico. It occurs from below sea level in the

Mojave Desert to over 8,000 ft (3,280 m). It is found in

pure stands and in scattered stands associated with

shadscale saltbush, Gardner saltbush, juniper-pinyon, basin big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush.

Over its wide range of distribution, fourwing saltbush exhibits extensive variations in growth form,

seed production, germination, establishment, drought

tolerance, cold tolerance, grazing, palatability to livestock, and adaptability to soil type.

Removal of Competition

Fourwing saltbush has been eliminated or reduced

in density on many sites by overgrazing and/or fire.

Grazing has also depleted or eliminated associated

understory species. Cheatgrass brome, red brome, and

spring and summer annuals have invaded and occupy

the understory of many fourwing saltbush areas.

The objective of most seedings has been to establish

perennial understory and retain and increase fourwing

saltbush density. This requires removal of grazing

pressure, reduction of competitive annuals, and seeding of adapted understory species and fourwing saltbush. Treatment used to reduce competition will vary

with density and composition of existing understory

communites and associated perennial species. Techniques are described in the chapter for treating the

various community conditions. These are listed by

major species types: juniper-pinyon, basin big sagebrush, 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.
252 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Planting Procedures

Fourwing saltbush seed requires that the seed be

planted at least 1/4 inch (6 mm) deep, preferably in a

firm seedbed. When drill seeding, this species does

best seeded separately from grasses. Broadcast

seeding will accomplish this, but provisions must be

made to ensure the seed is covered. Seeding through

a Hansen seed dribbler or thimble seeder mounted on a

crawler tractor can result in superior establishment.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Ecotypic variations in fourwing saltbush require

that only seed sources adapted to the planting site be

seeded. Sources from warmer, more southern climates

cannot be moved to cooler, northern areas. Likewise,

lower elevation sources cannot be moved to higher

elevations. When this occurs, few seedlings generally

survive.

A large majority of the fourwing saltbush seed that

is produced and harvested comes from Texas, New

Mexico, Arizona, southern Utah, Nevada, and California. These ecotypes should not be seeded in northern

Colorado, Utah and Nevada, southern Idaho, Wyoming,

or eastern Oregon. Species adapted to fourwing saltbush sites are listed by associated species. Table 17

lists species adapted to areas where fourwing saltbush

occurs in assocation with juniper-pinyon, basin big

sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush; table 25,

shadscale saltbush; table 27, blackbrush; and table 28,

areas where cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead

dominate.

Blackbrush Communities _________

Blackbrush grows on fairly large tracts in the Colorado river drainage, Arizona, and New Mexico. In

some locations, it occurs with few associated species

(Bowns and West 1976). In some areas, spreading

creosotebush, desert peachbrush, silver buffaloberry,

Utah serviceberry, basin big sagebrush, and various

cacti, yuccas, and Utah juniper grow in association

with blackbrush. Annual precipitation ranges from 6

to 16 inches (150 and 400 mm). Seedings are usually

not successful where annual precipitation averages

less than 9 inches (220 mm). Blackbrush is a valuable

shrub for livestock (fig. 35) and deer. It should not be

disturbed, nor should attempts be made to convert it to

another vegetative type.

Cheatgrass and red brome grow under the crowns of

blackbrush plants. In wet years, these annuals may be

so abundant that once they dry out, fires may burn

across large acreages. Since blackbrush is not fire

tolerant, these burned areas automatically become

annual cheatgrass and red brome ranges and, therefore, special problem areas. Unless such disturbances

are seeded, the annual grasses may persist for many

years.

Removal of Competition

Control of plant competition is required only in areas

where red brome and cheatgrass brome have invaded.

Seeding is recommended following wildfires as a means

of controlling the spread of the annual grasses. Once

annuals have gained control, these plants must be

significantly reduced in density to allow shrubs and

native herbs to recover. Because the chief aim in improving blackbrush areas is the retention of blackbrush,

and because blackbrush is not tolerant of fire, burning

to control the annual grasses should be avoided. Disking

or spraying with ground equipment can be used to treat

specific sites, while avoiding scattered shrubs.

Planting Season

Storm patterns favor late June to early July seedings,

just prior to summer storms (Jordon 1981, 1983). Fall

and winter seedings can, however, be successful. Work

can continue from November through February.

Pendleton and others (1995) reported that natural

emergence of blackbrush seedlings in southern Utah

occurred between December and February. In addition, these authors found that blackbrush seeds require 4 to 6 months of stratification to break seed

dormancy. Consequently, fall seeding is required to

assure stratification and emergence of blackbrush

seedlings. Occasional low temperatures seldom delay

Figure 35—Domestic livestock often graze

blackbrush sites, but these areas are also important

to big game animals.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 253

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

ground treatment or planting for more than a few

days. Rodents gather and feed on planted seeds and

graze young sprouts, causing considerable damage

and loss of a high percent of all seeds and seedlings

(Longland 1994). As a precaution against undue loss of

seeds to small rodents, plantings may be delayed until

December when rodents are less active.

Planting Procedures

Probably the best method of seeding herbaceous

species is aerial broadcasting followed by anchor

chaining or pipe harrowing. This method is particularly applicable on rocky areas, where it is difficult to

drill. Chaining can be detrimental to blackbrush plants

and should not be used where these shrubs are present.

In rock-free areas, where the rangeland drill or other

disk-type drills can be used, good stands can be attained with these machines. Planting seeds of

blackbrush in alternate rows with herbaceous species

is recommended. Shrub seeds can also be sown using

a seed dribbler or thimble seeder mounted on crawler

tractors.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Because temperatures are much warmer in this type

than in more northern shrublands, a mixture of adapted

species that can tolerate heat is required (table 27).

Seed mixtures may be modified according to difference

in climate and availability of seed. Seed of adapted

native grasses is currently quite limited, and is not

always sufficient for planting large acreages. Indian

ricegrass and squirreltail are adapted native species

for which seed is most available. In areas that have a

fair amount of summer rainfall, sand dropseed can be

planted.

Pendleton and others (1995) found that natural

recruitment and artificial seedings are quite successful during years when sites receive adequate spring

and winter moisture. Environmentally accepted

methods are not currently available to control seed

depredation by rodents, yet planting few seeds per

spot and planting in discontinuous rows or furrows

decrease seed gathering. In addition, planting open

areas or sites free of cover tends to enhance seedling

establishment, as rodents seek some protective cover.

Seeding during periods when rodent populations are

low can increase seedling survival.

Seeds of blackbrush are limited and expensive, which

restricts their use on large-scale projects. Big sagebrush, desert bitterbrush, Apache plume, fourwing

saltbush, and winterfat can be included in seedings in

the blackbrush type where these species naturally

occur.

Cheatgrass Brome, Red Brome, and

Medusahead Communities________

Cheatgrass brome, red brome, and medusahead

dominate large areas of depleted foothill and valley

rangelands (Mack 1981; Piemeisel 1938; Stewart and

Young 1939; Young and Evans 1970, 1971; Young and

others 1968). These grasses germinate in fall or spring

and demonstrate phenomenal ability to utilize space

and soil moisture to the exclusion of perennial grass

and herb seedlings (Evans 1961; Hull and Hansen

1974; Robertson and Pearse 1945). The competitive

influence exerted by these plants enables them to

dominate vast areas for many years.

Piemeisel (1951) reported that sites in southern

Idaho infested with cheatgrass and other annuals

continued to support a weedy cover for over 50 years,

even when protected from grazing. Natural reestablishment of desirable perennials occurs slowly on sites

where annual weeds exist. On most sites, particularly

arid rangelands where native seedbanks have been

depleted, changes in plant composition will not occur

unless aided by revegetation (Hull and Holmgren

1964; Monsen and Kitchen 1994; Monsen and McArthur

1985; Young 1983). Annual grasses, particularly

cheatgrass brome, are extremely difficult to control,

but must be significantly reduced in density prior to

seeding other species.

Cheatgrass (fig. 36) now dominates former brush

and tree types in the following approximate order of

decreasing importance: big sagebrush (fig. 28, 30),

juniper-pinyon (fig. 20), blackbrush, shadscale saltbush (fig. 32), and mountain brush (Monsen and

McArthur 1985). Cheatgrass has recently invaded

Figure 36—Cheatgrass now dominates extensive

areas previously occupied by Wyoming big sagebrush, increasing wildfire and fire suppression

problems throughout the West.
254 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

southern desert shrub regions. Major areas of concern,

where restoration is needed, are within the blackbrush

and associated shrub types where red brome may also

occur (fig. 37). Both annual grasses spread quickly and

gain control soon after the perennial cover is disturbed. Wherever red brome dominates, it should be

treated in much the same way as cheatgrass brome.

Different methods are required to revegetate sites

infested with annual grasses than would be required

if these annuals were not present. Consequently, the

annual weeds have been considered as a separate

major vegetative type.

Both cheatgrass and red brome provide a short

grazing season for livestock and game animals. Forage

production varies greatly between wet and dry years

(Klemmedson and Smith 1964; Stewart and Young

1939). Seeds and new shoots provide valuable sustenance for chuckars, partridge, Gambel quail, and

mourning doves. Both grasses are grazed in spring

and fall by livestock and big game.

As with other annuals, production of cheatgrass, red

brome, and medusahead is often negligible in dry

years. All three species are serious fire hazards, particularly in wet years. Areas dominated by these two

bromes and medusahead frequently burn and gradually extend their areas of dominance (Pickford 1932;

Wright 1985; Wright and Klemmedson 1965; Young

and Evans 1978b). Because they become a fire hazard

in wet years, produce little forage in dry years, and

prevent reestablishment of native species, attempts

should be made to replace these annuals with adapted

perennials. These two bromes can persist as minor

components in perennial stands (fig. 32) (Astroth and

Frischknecht 1984; Barney and Frischknecht 1974).

They are, however, able to take advantage of any

reduction or weakness in the perennial stand. For this

reason, any major increase in establishment of either

of 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 sagebrush

sites (Young and Evans 1971). This annual grass

exhibits characteristics similar to those of cheatgrass,

and usually occurs in similar climatic zones. Where

both occur together, medusahead has sometimes

been able to replace cheatgrass. It has been able to

advance into clay or heavy textured soils, particularly

on sites lacking a competitive plant cover (Young and

Evans 1971). Well-drained or coarse-textured soils are

usually not inhabited by this grass. Plants normally

occur in closed, dense patches. Medusahead (fig. 38) is

a highly competitive winter annual. An abundance of

seed and litter builds on the soil surface. This creates

serious fire management problems, as highly flammable foliage is present every year (Bunting 1985).

Medusahead seeds are not consumed by ground fires

as readily as cheatgrass seeds, and intense and slowburning fires are required to destroy accumulated

seeds. Medusahead is a poor forage plant. Sites dominated by this weedy annual must be treated in a

manner similar to cheatgrass sites, using competitive

perennials. Once a perennial cover is established, the

grass can be controlled, but not eliminated.

Cheatgrass, medusahead, and red brome possess a

number of traits that must be recognized before restoration practices are initiated. Cheatgrass has spread

to occupy a wide array of habitats throughout the

Western United States (Mack 1981) and has quickly

developed habitat-adapted populations. Although red

Figure 37—Red brome is a serious invader in more arid

environments than those occupied by cheatgrass or

other annual weeds. It is as competitive as cheatgrass

and has created similar fire problems.

Figure 38—Medusahead is an annual grass that is

rapidly expanding its area of occupation, and is now

found on sites once dominated by cheatgrass.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 255

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

brome and medusahead occupy less diverse habitats,

populations of all three species are well suited to the

variety of sites they occupy. Plants of all species are

able to respond to differences in annual climatic conditions, and to mature and produce some seeds each

year, even during years of relatively high stress (Rice

and Mack 1991). Generally, plants produce an abundant seed crop. Seed germination patterns vary among

populations of cheatgrass, although a high percent of

seeds will germinate if moisture is available (Hull

and Hansen 1974). Hulbert (1955) reported that

recently harvested seeds of cheatgrass from eastern

Washington and southern Idaho were conditionally

dormant at summer incubation temperatures, but

became nondormant with autumn temperatures.

Young and others (1969a) reported that freshly harvested seed from western Nevada were nondormant.

Beckstead and others (1993) concluded that high summer dormancy has evolved with populations growing

in climates with plentiful summer rain, as opposed to

nondormant populations occurring in areas with less

chance of premature germination from summer rains.

Most studies demonstrate that seed of cheatgrass

fully afterripens and germinates in response to fall

rains. Seeds that are partially covered with litter or soil

readily germinate and become established. Medusahead and red brome seeds also fall germinate at

similar periods as reported for cheatgrass. Seeds that

do not fall germinate are left on the soil surface and

will carryover until the following spring (Evans and

Young 1972b; Wicks and others 1971; Young and

others 1969a). Regular spring germination is common

in many regions with little carryover beyond this date

(Mack and Pyke 1983). Young and Evans (1975) found

that seeds from western Nevada were induced into

secondary dormancy under winter conditions, which

delayed germination, resulting in substantial carryover

until the second year. Hull and Hansen (1974) reported similar results from seeds of northern Utah.

Consequently, a sufficient reservoir, or seedbank remained from year to year (Wright 1985).

Plants of cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead

are highly competitive. The number of seedlings germinating and becoming established varies from year

to year. Regardless of the number of seedlings to

appear, the plants can extract all available soil moisture throughout their rooting depth. One large plant

may be as competitive as a large number of small,

individual plants (Monsen and McArthur 1985). Thus,

reducing the density of seedlings may not significantly

reduce the overall effect on soil moisture.

Cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead are winter

annuals. Seeds may germinate either in fall or spring

months, depending on weather conditions (Bunting

1985). Seeds that germinate in the fall produce plants

that overwinter and resume growth in the early spring

(Young and Evans 1973). Seeds that germinate in the

spring do so prior to most seeded or native perennials

(Buman and others 1988). In addition, seedling vigor

and rate of growth is superior to that of most perennials (Harris 1967); therefore, they provide serious competition to newly developing seedlings of other species.

To eliminate or reduce density of these weedy annuals,

any treatment must effectively control live plants and

both fall- and spring-germinated seeds (Monsen 1994).

Removal of Competition

Burning before seeds shatter is an economical treatment, particularly on rocky rangelands. To be most

effective, burning should be done before seeds are

dispersed (Hull 1944; Pechanec and Hull 1945). Fires

must burn slowly or hot enough to consume seeds left

on the soil surface. Most fires destroy only a portion of

the seed, particularly medusahead seed. Cheatgrass

is often infested with smut (Fisher 1937), which may

destroy over 95 percent of the seeds. Scheduling treatments to coincide with smut outbreaks may not always

be practical, yet sites that are heavily infested can be

treated to good advantage with fire.

Deep furrow drilling or other methods to control

these annuals may be required to reduce competition

within the seeded area. Plowing, shallow disking, or

pipe harrowing young plants before seeds mature can

be effective on areas that are accessible to tractor

drawn equipment. Except on small tracts, disking or

plowing is more costly than burning. Offset disks, disk

chains, pipe harrows, and disk harrows are satisfactory implements for removing competition.

Ogg (1994) summarizes the status and potential use

of herbicides to control annual grasses. More than 20

herbicides are registered for use. Cheatgrass seedlings are easily killed with herbicides. The main problem is to develop methods that selectively control the

weed, but retain desirable plants. Pronamide applied

late in the fall will selectively control cheatgrass

without damage to slender wheatgrass, tall wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, crested wheatgrass, intermediate wheatgrass, creeping foxtail, or orchardgrass.

Currently, labeling permits grazing of treated grasses

(Ogg 1994). Evans and others (1967, l983) reported

that Paraquat, a contact herbicide, could be applied in

the spring followed by spring seeding.

Glyphosate is a foliage-active herbicide that will

control cheatgrass when applied at rates as low as 0.3

kg/ha. This herbicide can be applied early in spring

when cheatgrass growth is quite active, with little

damage to dormant perennials. This herbicide can be

effectively used where extensive stands of cheatgrass

occur. Glyphosate can also be used to spray strips that

are about 3 ft (1 m) wide to allow interseeding of other

species. Cheatgrass plants can be fall or spring treated
256 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

if these plants are actively growing. Spraying and

seeding can be done in one operation if care is given to

prevent overturning soil from the seeding operation

onto sprayed plants.

Drilling seeds in scalped furrows 16 to 32 inches

(40 to 60 cm) wide with an interseeder eliminates

competition for one or two seasons and allows sufficient time for new seedlings to establish (Monsen

1980a,b; Nyren and others 1980; Stevens 1994). The

scalps create good barriers against the spread of wildfires in the same season. On hillsides too steep for

machinery, shoveled scalps 3.3 ft2 (l m2) remove competition sufficiently for planting shrubs (Giunta and

others 1975).

No single method is completely effective for eliminating live plants and seeds of annual grasses. To be

most effective, disturbances should be treated before

these annuals have gained dominance.

Planting Season

Late fall (mid-October) through February is recommended for seeding. Planting in winter is preferable,

especially on sites in the southern desert shrub type.

If herbicides are used, planting must be scheduled

following recommendations for the specific herbicide.

Sites should not be seeded in the summer or early fall

months. Burned areas are frequently planted immediately after wildfires regardless of the date of the burn.

This is a mistake and should not be done. Early

seeding does not reduce the reestablishment of the

annual grasses. Seeds planted too early in the season

may germinate after a light rainfall, only to succumb

as soils quickly dry.

Planting Procedures

Aerial broadcasting, using fixed-wing aircraft or

helicopters, followed by anchor chaining or pipe harrowing, can be widely used on both rocky and rock-free

sites. This treatment is especially useful on extensive

burns. Selected areas referred to as “greenbelts,” or

“fuel barriers,” can be planted to help contain range

fires. Small areas can be broadcast seeded with a

cyclone seeder or by hand, but seeds must be covered

afterward. Failure to cover the seed, or planting out of

season, will often result in failure of the project. Ash

and litter remaining on the soil following burns cannot

be expected to adequately cover seeded perennials.

Drilling is successful on plowed, machine-scalped,

and burned areas. The rangeland drill, with its disks

regulated to make deep, wide furrows, can satisfactorily interseed perennial grasses into cheatgrass stands.

The drill can also plant forbs and shrubs on burned

cheatgrass ranges. Depth bands should be used on the

disks to insure that drills do not plant too deep in loose

seedbeds. Both the browse seeder and the rangeland

drill can be used to plant browse seeds in alternate

rows with herbs. The browse seeder, equipped with

wide scalpers, has been the most satisfactory planter

used for seeding into cheatgrass. Recently developed

drills with multiple seed boxes can plant individual

species in separate drill rows. In addition, press wheels

have been added that firm the seedbed and improve

seedling establishment. It is important that sites are

correctly seeded, as annual grass will quickly recover

and occupy openings. Seeded plants must compete

with the weeds, and should be established in the most

optimal sites.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Cheatgrass sites must be planted with perennials to

reduce the reestablishment of the annual grass. If

perennials are not established the first season after

treatment, cheatgrass will regain dominance. If perennial seedlings survive the first growing season,

they will usually attain dominance. The time required

for seeded plants to develop a mature stand is dependent on annual climatic conditions. The perennial

grasses usually require at least two growing seasons

to fully establish. Seeded stands generally reach full

maturity 4 to 6 years after planting. Treated areas

must be carefully managed to ensure development of

the seeded species.

Individual species and mixtures recommended for

use in cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead areas

are essentially the same as those recommended for

whatever vegetative type existed prior to invasion of

the annual weeds. Some species are more competitive

and have the potential to establish and spread in

annual grass communities (table 28). Included in this

group are Sandberg bluegrass, Lewis flax streambank

wheatgrass, bottlebrush squirreltail (Stevens 1998),

crested wheatgrass, desert wheatgrass, and rubber

rabbitbrush (fig. 30). At higher elevations, muttongrass,

sheep fescue, intermediate wheatgrass, pubescent

wheatgrass, and small burnet compete and increase

well with annual grasses. Other species can also compete with the annuals, but may require a longer period

to attain maturity and dominate the site. Some examples are western yarrow, Pacific aster, Thurber

needlegrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, and needle-andthreadgrass.

Lowland Annual Weed

Communities ___________________

There are two types of lowland annual weed communities; those that prosper in the spring, and those that

develop in the summer (fig. 39).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 257

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Spring-Growing Annuals _________

Spring-growing annuals germinate early (February

through April), grow rapidly, and flower before summer arrives. Major spring-growing species found on

valley and foothill ranges in the Intermountain West

are bur buttercup, tumble mustard, blue mustard,

tansy mustard, prickly lettuce, fiddleneck, and African

mustard. These annuals can be found in pure or mixed

stands, mainly in the sagebrush zone. Abandoned

farmlands, sheep bedgrounds, feeding areas, and sites

where the native vegetation has been severely depleted are typical areas for these weeds. Annual precipitation throughout these areas varies from 9 to 16

inches (230 to 410 mm), and soils are generally basic.

Spring-growing annuals germinate early, sometimes

under snow cover. To establish desirable perennials in

communities of spring-growing annuals, the following

should be done: (1) eliminate the annual seed source,

(2) use perennial species that exhibit early germination or that have vigorous seedlings that are able to

compete with the established annual seedlings, and

(3) seed at the most opportunistic time.

Removal of Competition

Most spring-growing annuals can be controlled by

shallow disking using offset disks, pipe harrows, disk

chains, or anchor chains. Seeds of most weed species

are small and germinate on or near the soil surface.

Plowing or deep disking can be used to bury these

seeds in areas where elimination of other species is not

a concern. Weeds can be removed with broadleaf

herbicides applied prior to seed maturation. Most

spring-growing annuals are not as competitive as

cheatgrass, and desirable species can be established

by reducing competition. Some weed-infested sites can

improve if livestock grazing is better regulated; however, many sites will require control measures to

promote recovery.

Planting Season

Areas dominated by spring-growing annuals generally are best seeded in the fall or winter. Seeds of many

perennial species exhibit dormancy, which can be

overcome by fall or winter seeding. Fall, winter, and

spring seedings generally require reduction or removal of weedy species and their seeds. Control measures should be designed not only to reduce competition, but to conserve soil moisture and aid in seedbed

preparation and planting.

Spring seedings are not recommended. By the time

soil surfaces dry enough to operate planting equipment, annuals have germinated and soil moisture has

nearly been depleted. Consequently, sufficient soil

moisture is not available to support germination and

establishment of new seedlings.

Planting Procedures

Seedling establishment can be enhanced by seeding

into scalps or furrows created to remove the annual

weeds. Various types of equipment are available that

make scalps or furrows and plant seeds into the

cleared depression (Larson 1980). Scalps 4 to 8 inches

(10 to 20 cm) wide are generally sufficient for seeding

adapted grasses. Strips of this width can be created

using offset disks on the rangeland drill or other

commercial drills. Shrubs and perennial forbs do better with wider clearings. Scalps should be at least 12

to 24 inches (30 to 60 cm) wide for shrubs. The more

competition, or potential competition (seed), that is

removed, the greater chance for success.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Species seeded into spring-growing annual communities can face considerable competition until they are

well established. Seeded areas should not be grazed

until there is a good, healthy stand of the seeded

species. This generally requires at least 2 to 4 years of

nonuse. One should not expect stand density to be

exceptionally high the first 2 to 4 years. However,

some sites do respond rapidly.

Species recommended for seeding are those recommended for seeding the vegetative type that existed

prior to disturbance. These include juniper-pinyon

(tables 14 through 16), fourwing saltbush (table 17),

basin big sagebrush (table 18), Wyoming big sagebrush (table 20), black sagebrush (table 21), low sagebrush (table 22), shadscale saltbush (table 25), black

greasewood (table 26), and blackbrush (table 27).

Figure 39—Interplanting and interseeding shrubs

and herbs on sites infested with annual weeds have

been successful methods of facilitating establishment and spread of the desired species.
258 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Summer-Growing Annuals ________

Major summer-growing annuals are Russian thistle

and halogeton. Two species of Russian thistle have

been identified (Welsh and others 1987). Both grow

with halogeton and are widespread on lower elevation

ranges (Beatley 1973; Evans and Young 1980). These

plants are most abundant on abused, deteriorated

areas in the salt desert shrub and basin big sagebrush

types. Soils are basic, and annual precipitation usually ranges from 5 to 16 inches (130 to 410 mm). Most

improvement can be gained on areas that receive more

than 9 inches (230 mm) of annual precipitation. Areas

that receive less than 9 inches (230 mm) of precipitation may, however, warrant treatment. Russian thistle

and halogeton are early spring germinators, but do

not grow much until midsummer. When both species

grow rapidly (Cook and Stoddart 1953; Dwyer and

Wolde-Yhannia 1972; Evans and Young 1972a, 1980).

Removal of Competition

Chaining, disk chaining, disking, scalping, or pipe

harrowing generally eliminate sufficient competition so adapted perennials can be established. Deep

furrow drills can also be used to clear strips adjacent

to the seeded furrow to assure establishment of

seeded species.

Burning is not effective in removal or control of these

summer annuals. Both species generally remain green

until late summer and are not easily burned. Abundant seed crops are formed each year, and primary

control measures must be developed to eliminate or

remove weed seeds. Broadleaf herbicides can be used

to kill established plants, but sufficient seed persists

in the soil to germinate the following season. To be

most effective, mechanical or herbicide treatments

should be conducted when weeds are young, generally

each summer. However, sites cannot be seeded at this

date, and planting should be delayed until the fall.

Weeds quickly reinvade treated areas, and sites should

be fall seeded to prevent weed invasion.

These weeds invade and increase rapidly following

disturbances. It is important to seed new disturbances

as soon as possible. Sites should not be allowed to

remain open or occupied by these weeds because a

seedbank will quickly develop. Disturbances that have

been occupied by these weeds for a number of years

may require 1 to 2 years of fallowing to exhaust the

seedbank. Once perennial herbs or shrubs have reestablished, weeds can be controlled.

Because early season competition from these two

annuals is usually not serious, perennial species that

germinate early and quickly develop a root system

that can be most successful. If environmental conditions are adequate and seeded species become established, Russian thistle and halogeton density can be

reduced substantially.

Planting Season

Fall seedings are essential in summer-growing annual communities.

Planting Procedures

Most disturbances can be seeded with a number of

methods. Sites can be aerial seeded, and seeds covered

with a drag, harrow, or similar implement. Drill seeding is a primary method of planting, and deep furrow

drills are commonly used to remove weeds in a narrow

strip or scalp. Interseeding using the Hansen seeder or

similar equipment is particularly effective in reestablishing desired species.

Many species established from interseedings will

naturally spread by seedling recruitment into the

weedy areas. Russian thistle density fluctuates from

year to year, allowing for invasion of other species.

Adapted Species and Mixtures

Summer-growing annuals have established and become dominant over areas in a number of vegetative

types. Species recommended for seeding summer-growing annual communities are essentially the same as

those recommended for seeding the vegetative type

that 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), black

sagebrush (table 21), low sagebrush (table 22),

shadscale saltbush (table 25), black greasewood (table

26), and blackbrush (table 27).
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 259

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(con.)

Table 1—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding subalpine herblands and

upper-elevation aspen openings.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses and sedges

Barley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Bentgrass, redtop P,E X ME ME PO

Bluegrass, big E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, meadow P,E X EX EX ME

Brome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Brome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

(northern)

Brome, subalpine E,L X ME EX EX

Fescue, sulcata P,E,L X X PO EX ME

sheep

Fescue, tall P,E X EX EX ME

Foxtail, creeping P,E,L X ME EX EX

Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EX

Hairgrass, tufted P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Needlegrass, subalpine E,L X ME ME ME

Oniongrass P,E X ME ME PO

Orchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX ME

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX ME

Reedgrass, chee E,L X PO PO EX

Sedge, ovalhead E,L X X PO ME EX

Timothy P,E X EX EX PO

Timothy, alpine P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, P X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Aster, leafybract E,L X PO PO PO

alpine

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Aster, smooth P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Bluebell, tall E,L X PO PO EX

Cinquefoil, gland E,L X ME ME ME

Columbine, E X PO ME ME

Colorado

Cowparsnip E,L X ME ME ME

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME ME

Fleabane, Bear River E,L X ME ME ME

Fleabane, Oregon E,L X

Geranium, sticky and P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Richardson

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Goldenrod, low E,L X X ME EX ME

Groundsel, butterweed E,L X ME ME ME

Helianthella, P,E X ME ME ME

oneflower

Ligusticum, Porter P,E,L X ME ME ME

Lomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME ME

Lupine, mountain E,L X ME ME EX
260 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Lupine, silky E,L X ME ME EX

Meadowrue, Fendler L X PO ME ME

Painted-cup, sulphur L X ME ME EX

Penstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Mountain

Penstemon, Rydberg P,E X X PO ME ME

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E X X ME ME ME

Sage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME ME

Solomon-plume, fat E,L X PO PO ME

Sweetanise P,E,L X ME EX ME

Valerian, edible E,L X PO PO EX

Vetch, American L X X ME ME ME

Violet, Nuttall P,E,L X ME EX ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Shrubs

Cinquefoil, shrubby E,L X PO PO EX

Currant, sticky E,L X PO PO EX

Currant, wax E,L X PO PO EX

Elderberry, red E,L X PO ME EX

Rabbitbrush, low P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

mountain rubber

Rabbitbrush, Parry P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Rose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EX

Sagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

big mountain

Sagebrush, big timberline P,E,L X EX EX EX

Sagebrush, silver P,L X ME ME ME

Snowberry, mountain E,L X X PO PO EX

Soil seeding rate

Growth form Well drained Moist

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6 4 to 6

Forbs 6 to 8 6 to 8

Shrubs 1 to 2 1 to 2

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 1 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 261

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 2—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding wet and semiwet

meadows.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses and sedges

Barley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Bentgrass, redtop P,E X X ME ME PO

Brome, mountain P,E,L X X

Brome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

(northern)

Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X PO ME EX

Hairgrass, tufted P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX ME

Sedge, ovalhead E,L X PO ME EX

Timothy P,E X EX EX PO

Wheatgrass, tall P,L X EX EX EX

Wildrye, Great Basin E,L X PO PO ME

Forbs

Aster, alpine P,E,L X X PO PO PO

leafybract

Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Cinquefoil, gland P,E,L X ME ME EX

Clover, alsike E,L X ME ME ME

Clover, strawberry P,E,L X ME ME ME

Geranium, sticky and P,E,L X ME ME EX

Richardson

Medick, black P,E,L X EX EX ME

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME EX

Sainfoin E X ME ME PO

Sage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME ME

Sweetanise P,E,L X ME ME ME

Valerian, edible E,L X PO PO EX

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Soil seeding rate

Growth form Well drained Moist

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 5 3 to 4

Forbs 5 to 7 6 to 8

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
262 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 3—Ecological status, use index, and competitiveness for shrubs recommended for transplanting in wet meadows.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses and sedges

Birch, water P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cinquefoil, bush E,L X ME ME EX

Dogwood, redosier E,L X PO ME EX

Honeysuckle, Utah E,L X PO PO EX

Rose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EX

Willows (see table 11) P,E,L X X PO PO EX

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness 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.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Fescue, tall P,E,L X EX EX PO

Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME EX ME

Sacaton, alkali P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME

crested

Wheatgrass, ‘NewHy’ P,E,L X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, P,L X X ME ME EX

streambank

Wheatgrass, tall P,L X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

Wildrye, Salina P,L X PO PO ME

Forbs

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Clover, strawberry P,E,L X ME ME ME

Medick, black P,E X EX EX PO

Summercypress, P,E X EX EX PO

Belvedere

Sweetclover, yellow P X EX EX PO

Shrubs

Buffaloberry, silverc E,L X PO PO EX

Greasewood, black E,L X PO PO EX

Honeysuckle, E,L X PO PO EX

tatarianc

Plum, Americanc E,L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, rubber P,E X X ME ME ME

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Saltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Willow, purpleosierc E,L X EX

Soil seeding rate

Growth form Wet and dry soils

Pls lb/acred

Grasses 6 to 8

Forbs 2 to 3

Shrubs 1 to 2

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor.

c

Established most successfully by tansplants.

d

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 263

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

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, restricted

to water’s edge.

Rush, Baltic Val.-Asp. Wet and semiwet meadows Abundant Rhizomatous Principal species for stabilization.

Use adapted ecotypes, spreads

aggressively, persists with grazing.

Rush, Drummond LPP-Alp. Wet and dry meadows Common Caespitose Spreads after disturbance, occupies

infertile 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, wide

rhizomatous 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, low

tolerant rootstocks, palatability.

long culms,

increases

under grazing

Sedge, downy Alp. Dry and wet meadows Abundant Rhizomatous Vigorous, spreads rapidly.

Sedge, golden Val.-SF Marsh, wet Frequent Caespitose, Widely distributed, good

long 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, invades

long 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 species

for streambank stabilization.

Spikerush, common Val.-SF Wet meadows and streams, Abundant Rhizomatous Spreads rapidly, low palatability,

alkali tolerant wide elevational range.

a

Areas: 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.
264 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 6—Characteristics of broadleaf herbs recommended for planting riparian sites (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Areas of Seeding Transplant Growth

Species adaptationa Origin trait capability rate

Alfalfa Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Good Rapid

Aster, Pacific Asp.-V Native Poor Excellent Moderate

Bassia, fivehook PJ-SDS Native Excellent Good Rapid

Checker-mallow, Oregon Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Good Good Moderate

Clover, alsike Asp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Fair Moderate

Clover, strawberry V Introduced Good Fair Moderate

Cinquefoil, gland Asp.-PP Native Good Excellent Moderate

Cowparsnip Alp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Poor Poor

Crownvetch PJ-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Excellent Rapid

Fireweed Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Excellent Good Rapid

Flax, Lewis Asp.-Sage Native Excellent Good Moderate

Groundsel, butterweed Asp.-PP Native Good Excellent Moderate

Medick, black Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Good Moderate

Sage, Louisiana Alp.-Sage Native Excellent Excellent Rapid

Solomon-seal, western Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Fair Slow

Sweetclover, yellow Asp.-Sage Introduced Excellent Poor Rapid

Valerian, edible Asp.-Mtn. B. Native Poor Fair Slow

Yarrow, western Alp.-V Native Excellent Excellent Rapid

a

Areas 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 others

1987).

Areas of Seeding Transplant Growth

Species adaptationa Origin trait capability rate

Barley, meadow Alp.-Asp. Native Excellent Excellent Moderate

Bentgrass, redtop Salp.-SF Introduced Fair Good Moderate

Bluegrass, Sandberg Mtn. B.-Sage Native Fair Good Slow

Brome, meadow Alp.-PJ Introduced Excellent Excellent Moderate

Brome, mountain Alp.-PJ Native Excellent Excellent Rapid

Brome, smooth Alp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Excellent Moderate

Fescue, tall Asp.-SDS Introduced Excellent Excellent Rapid

Foxtail, meadow Alp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Excellent Good Rapid

Hairgrass, tufted Alp.-SF Native Poor Fair Slow

Orchardgrass Alp.-Sage Introduced Good Good Rapid

Reedgrass, bluejoint SF-Sage Native Good Excellent Moderate

Reedgrass, chee Alp.-PJ Introduced Poor Good Slow

Ryegrass, perennial SF-PP Introduced Excellent Good Rapid

Sacaton, alkali Sage-SDS Native Fair Good Slow

Saltgrass V Native Poor Excellent Slow

Squirreltail, bottlebrush Mtn. B.-V Native Good Fair Moderate

Timothy Asp.-Mtn. B. Introduced Good Good Rapid

Wheatgrass, slender SF-PJ Native Excellent Excellent Rapid

Wheatgrass, tall Mtn. B.-V Introduced Excellent Good Rapid

Wheatgrass, western PP-Sage Native Fair Excellent Slow

Wildrye, creeping JP-V Introduced Good Excellent Moderate

Wildrye, Great Basin Mtn. B.-V Native Good Good Moderate

Wildrye, mammoth Mtn. B.-Sage Introduced Fair Good Moderate

Wildrye, Russian Mtn. B.-V Introduced Fair Good Moderate

a

Areas 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.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 265

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 8—Characteristics of grasses adapted for direct seeding and transplanting riparian sites (from Monsen in Platts and others

1987).

Growth Salinity Flooding

Species habit tolerancea tolerance Palatability Spreadability

Barley, meadow Rhizomatous T Tolerant Fair Good

Bentgrass, redtop Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good Rapid

Bluegrass, Sandberg Bunch MT Moderate Good Fair

Brome, meadow Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good Rapid

Brome, mountain Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good Good

Brome, smooth Rhizomatous MT Moderate Good Rapid

Fescue, tall Rhizomatous T Tolerant Good Rapid

Foxtail, meadow Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good Rapid

Hairgrass, tufted Bunch MT Tolerant Fair Poor

Orchardgrass Bunch MS Sensitive Excellent Fair

Reedgrass, bluejoint Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good Rapid

Reedgrass, chee Rhizomatous MT Tolerant Good Good

Ryegrass, perennial Small bunch MT Sensitive Good Good

Sacaton, alkali Bunch MT Moderate Good Rapid

Saltgrass Rhizomatous T Tolerant Fair Rapid

Squirreltail, bottlebrush Bunch MT Moderate Good Good

Timothy Bunch MS Moderate Good Good

Wheatgrass, slender Rhizomatous MS Sensitive Excellent Good

Wheatgrass, tall Large clump MT Moderate Fair Good

Wheatgrass, western Rhizomatous MS Moderate Good Good

Wildrye, creeping Rhizomatous T Tolerant Poor Good

Wildrye, Great Basin Large clump T Moderate Good Fair

Wildrye, mammoth Rhizomatous T Tolerant Good Good

a

Salinity tolerance: MS = moderately sensitive; MT = moderately tolerant; T = tolerant.
266 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 9—Characteristics of woody species recommended for riparian disturbances (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Areas of occurrence Adaptation to Methods

Species 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, RC

streams 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, RC

stream 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, RC

ponds, 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, CS

flooded 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, CS

flooding 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, RC

and valley bottoms

Thimbleberry Asp.-PP Well-drained soils, frequently wet sites Excellent NS, CS, W, RC

Willows (see table 11)

a

Areas 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. b

Methods of culture: DS = direct seeding; RC = rooted cuttings; NS = nursery-grown seedling; CS = container-grown seedling; W = wilding.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 267

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 10—Characteristics of woody species recommended for riparian disturbances (from Monsen in Platts and others 1987).

Establishment traits

Seedling 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.

 threadleaf

Rockspirea 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)
268 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

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

occasionally

well-drained

soils

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 rooting

aspen-upper streams, length of stem capabilities

sagebrush frequent in

wet meadows

Willow, grayleaf Subalpine- Wet and dry Roots throughout Few to moderate 10 10 Requires special

spruce-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 stem

brush streams and

ponds

Willow, peachleaf Aspen-big Stream edges, Callus cut Moderate 10–20 10 Moderate

sagebrush 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, some

times welldrained soils

Willow, Scouler Spruce-fir Well-drained Callus cut Moderate 10–15 10–15 Requires special

soils, forest treatment to

understory 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-third

that remain dry

for short periods
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 269

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(con.)

Table 12—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding aspen and coniferous

forests and associated openings.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Barley, foxtail P,E X ME ME ME

Barley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Bentgrass redtop P,E,L X EX EX ME

Bluegrass, Canada P,E X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, big P,E X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Kentucky P,E,L X X ME ME ME,NC

Brome, meadow P,E,L X EX EX ME

Brome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Brome, nodding P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Brome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, smooth P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

northern

Brome, subalpine P,E,L X ME EX EX

Fescue, alta P,E,L X ME ME ME

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X PO ME ME

Fescue, red P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Fescue, thurber P,E X ME ME PO

Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EX

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Needlegrass, Letterman P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Needlegrass, subalpine P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME PO

Orchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX ME

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX PO

Timothy P,E X EX EX ME

Timothy, alpine P,E,L X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wildrye, blue P,E,L X X EX ME ME

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Angelica, small leaf P,E,L X EX EX ME

Aster, P,E,L X EX EX ME

alpine leafybract

Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Aster, Engelmann P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Aster, smooth P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Bluebell, tall E,L X PO ME EX

Columbine, Colorado E,L X PO ME ME

Cowparsnip P,E,L X ME ME ME

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EX

Eriogonum, cushion P,E,L X ME ME ME

Geranium, sticky and P,E,L X PO PO ME

Richardson

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Goldenrod, Canada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Goldenrod, low P,E,L X X ME ME ME
270 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Groundsel, butterweed P,E,L X ME ME ME

Helianthella, P,E X X EX EX ME

oneflower

Ligusticum, Porter P,E X ME ME EX

Lomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME ME

Lupine, mountain E,L X ME ME EX

Lupine, silky E,L X ME ME EX

Medick, black P,E,L X ME ME ME

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME EX ME

Peavine, thickleaf P,E,L X PO ME ME

Peavine, Utah P,E,L X PO ME EX

Penstemon, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Rocky Mountain

Penstemon, Rydberg P,E X X PO ME PO

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X ME ME ME

Sainfoin P,E X ME ME PO

Sage, Louisiana P,E X X PO ME ME

Sweetanise P,E,L X ME ME EX

Sweetroot, spreading P,E,L X ME ME ME

Vetch, American P,E,L X PO ME EX

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Shrubs

Alder, thinleaf P,E,L X ME EX EX

Bitterbrush, antelope P,L X ME ME EX

Chokecherry, black P,L X PO PO EX

Cinquefoil, shrubby E,L X PO PO EX

Elderberry, blue E,L X PO PO EX

Elderberry, red E,L X PO PO EX

Maple, bigtooth P,E,L X ME ME EX

Mountain ash, Greene’s L X PO ME EX

Oregon grape L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E X ME ME ME

rubber mountain

Rabbitbrush, rubber P,E X X ME EX EX

whitestem mountain

and basin

Rose, Woods E,L X X PO PO EX

Sagebrush, big P,E,L X X ME ME EX

mountain

Serviceberry, E,L X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Snowberry, mountain E,L X PO PO EX

Seeding rate

Growth form Wet and dry sites

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 5 to 6

Forbs 6 to 8

Shrubs 1 to 2

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 12 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Forbs (con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 271

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(con.)

Table 13—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding mountain brush and

ponderosa pine communities.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

-Grasses

Bluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, mountain P,E X X EX EX ME

Brome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX ME

Brome, smooth P,L X EX EX EX,NC

northern and southern

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

Fescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Junegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME ME

Orchardgrass P,E,L X ME ME EX

Orchardgrass,‘Paiute’ P,E,L X ME ME EX

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Timothy P,E X EX EX ME

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX

intermediate

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, tall P,E X EX EX ME

Wheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX EX

(drought tolerant)

Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Balsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Balsamroot, cutleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Balsamroot, hairy E,L X PO PO EX

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EX

Eriogonum, cushion P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Goldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

showy

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Goldenrod, Canada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Groundsel, butterweed P,E,L X ME ME EX

Lomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME ME

Lupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME ME

Lupine, silky E,L X ME ME ME

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX ME

Penstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Penstemon, Rocky P,E,L X ME ME EX

Mountain

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX ME

Sage, Louisiana P,E,L X X PO ME EX
272 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Sainfoin P,E,L X ME ME ME

Sweetclover, yellow P X EX EX PO

Sweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME EX

Trefoil, birdsfoot P,E X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Shrubs

Alder, thinleaf P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Ceanothus, Martin P,E,L X PO ME EX

Ceanothus, redstem P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Ceanothus, snowbush P,E,L X ME EX EX

Cherry, bitter P,E,L X PO PO EX

Chokecherry, black E,L X PO PO EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cotoneaster, Peking P,E X PO PO ME

Elderberry, blue E,L X PO ME EX

Ephedra, green P,E,L X ME ME ME

Eriogonum, sulfur P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Honeysuckle, Tatarian P,E,L X PO ME ME

Honeysuckle, Utah E,L X PO ME ME

Maple, Rocky Mountain E,L X X ME ME EX

Mountain ash, E,L X PO ME EX

Greene’s

Mountain mahogany, P,L X X PO ME EX

true

Mountain mahogany, P,L X X PO ME EX

curlleaf

Penstemon, bush P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME

rubber

Rabbitbrush, Parry P,E X X ME ME ME

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Sagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

mountain big

Sagebrush, silver P,E,L X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Serviceberry, E,L X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Serviceberry, Utah E,L X PO PO EX

Snowberry, longleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Snowberry, mountain E,L X PO PO EX

Squawapple E,L X PO PO EX

Sumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X X PO ME EX

smooth

Sumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Seeding rate

Exposure

Growth form North and East South and West

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 5 to 6 6 to 8

Forbs 5 to 6 3 to 5

Shrubs 2 to 4 2 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 13 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Forbs (con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 273

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 14—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sites

that receive less than 11 inches (280 mm) of annual precipitation.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME ME

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X PO ME ME

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NC

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX

Muttongrass P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Rye, winter P X EX EX PO

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X ME EX ME

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Goldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X EX EX ME

showy

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Sweetclover, yellow P X EX EX PO

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Shrubs

Apache plume P,L X PO ME EX

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Bitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Buffaloberry, L X PO PO EX

roundleaf

Ceanothus, Fendler P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME ME

Ephedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EX

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EX

Hopsage, spineless P,L X PO ME EX

Kochia, forage P,E X EX EX ME

‘Immigrant’ (con.)
274 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Mountain mahogany, P,L X PO ME EX

littleleaf

Peachbrush, desert P,L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Sagebrush, fringed P,L X PO ME EX

Sagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X PO ME EX

big

Sagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Serviceberry, Utah P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6

Forbs 4 to 6

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 14 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Shrubs (con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 275

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(con.)

Table 15—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sites

that receive 11 to 15 inches (280 to 380 mm) of annual precipitation.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Brome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, smooth P,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern)

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME ME,NC

Fescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Junegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME ME

Muttongrass P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX PO

Rye, winter P X EX EX PO

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME EX EX

thickspike

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX EX

(drought tolerant)

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Balsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Globemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

gooseberryleaf

Goldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME ME

showy

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Sainfoin P,E,L X ME ME ME

Sweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

Sweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME
276 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Shrubs

Apache plume P,L X PO ME EX

Ash, singleleaf P,E,L X PO PO EX

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Bitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Ceanothus, Fendler P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cypress, Arizona P,L X PO PO ME

Elderberry, blue E,L X PO ME EX

Ephedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EX

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EX

Eriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Kochia, forage P,E X EX EX ME

Mountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

curlleaf

Mountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

littleleaf

Mountain mahogany, P,L X ME ME EX

true

Peachbrush, desert P,L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME

rubber

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Sagebrush, foothill P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Serviceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Serviceberry, Utah P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Snowberry, mountain P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Squawapple E,L X PO PO EX

Sumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X X PO ME EX

smooth

Sumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6

Forbs 4 to 6

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 15 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 277

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 16—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rates for species adapted for seeding juniper-pinyon sites

that receive more than 15 inches (380 mm) of annual precipitation.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada P,E,L X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Brome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX ME

Brome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(northern and southern)

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

Fescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX

Junegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX PO

Rye, winter P,E X EX EX PO

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X ME ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Aster, Pacific P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Balsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Balsamroot, cutleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Balsamroot, hairy E,L X PO PO EX

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME ME

Eriogonum, cushion P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Goldenrod, Parry P,E,L X ME ME ME

Helianthella, P,E X ME ME ME

oneflower

Lupine, Nevada E,L X PO PO EX

Lupine, silky E,L X PO PO ME

Lomatium, Nuttall P,E,L X ME ME ME

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Penstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X ME ME PO

Mountain

Penstemon, thickleaf P,E,L X ME ME ME

Penstemon, toadflax P,E,L X PO ME ME

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX ME

(con.)
278 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Sainfoin P,E,L X ME ME ME

Sage, Louisiana P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Sage, tarragon P,E,L X PO PO ME

Sweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

Sweetvetch, Utah P,E X PO ME ME

Shrubs

Ash, singleleaf P,E,L X PO PO ME

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Ceanothus, Martin P,E,L X ME ME EX

Chokecherry, black P,L X PO ME EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EX

Cotoneaster, Peking P,E X PO ME ME

Cypress, Arizona P,E X PO PO ME

Elderberry, blue P,E,L X PO ME EX

Ephedra, green P,E,L X ME ME EX

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EX

Eriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X EX EX ME

Kochia, forage P,E X EX EX ME

Mountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

curlleaf

Mountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

true

Maple, Rocky Mountain E,L X ME ME EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain rubber

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Sagebrush, P,E,L X X ME EX EX

mountain big

Sagebrush, foothill P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Serviceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Snowberry, longflower E,L X PO PO EX

Snowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO ME EX

Squawapple P,E,L X PO ME EX

Sumac, Rocky P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Mountain smooth

Sumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Seeding rate

Soils

Growth form Neutral pH Basic pH

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 3 to 5 4 to 7

Forbs 4 to 5 5 to 6

Shrubs 3 to 4 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 16 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Forbs (con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 279

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 17—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding fourwing saltbush sites

occurring in association with juniper-pinyon, basin big sagebrush, and Wyoming big sagebrush.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Galleta E,L X ME ME EX

Needle-and-thread E,L X ME ME ME

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sacaton, alkali P,E,L X ME ME ME

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

streambank

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspike

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

Forbs

Burnet, small P,E X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME ME

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME PO

Sweetclover, yellow P X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Shrubs

Ephedra, green P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Hopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO PO EX

Kochia, forage P,E X EX EX ME

Rabbitbrush, low P,E X X EX EX ME

Sagebrush, basin big E,L X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, foothills E,L X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, low E,L X X ME EX ME

Sagebrush, Wyoming E,L X X ME ME ME

big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Saltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Shadscale P,E,L X PO PO ME

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6

Forbs 4 to 6

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
280 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

(con.)

Table 18—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding basin big sagebrush

sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME ME

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X PO ME ME

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NC

Fescue, Idaho E,L X PO ME ME

Fescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME ME,NC

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X ME ME EX

Orchardgrass,‘Paiute’ P,E,L X ME ME ME

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME EX EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX ME

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch E,L X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspike

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Aster, Pacific P,E X X ME ME ME

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Goldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME PO

showy

Globemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

gooseberryleaf

and scarlet

Lupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME EX

Penstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX ME

Penstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Sweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

Sweetvetch, Utah E,L X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X ME EX EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EX

Ephedra, green P,E,L X PO ME EX
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 281

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO ME EX

Hopsage, spiny P,E,L X ME ME EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain low

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Sagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X ME EX EX

big

Sagebrush, foothills P,E,L X ME ME EX

big

Sagebrush, low P,E,L X ME EX EX

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Seeding rate

Precipitation

Growth form 9 to 13 inches 13+ inches

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 5 4 to 5

Forbs 4 to 5 5 to 6

Shrubs 3 to 4 4 to 5

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 18 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Shrubs (con.)
282 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 19—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding mountain big sagebrush

sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, big P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada E,L X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, Regar P,E,L X EX EX ME

Brome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern)

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NC

Fescue, Idaho E,L X PO ME ME

Fescue, sulcata sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Junegrass, prairie P,E,L X ME ME ME

Muttongrass P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, P,E,L X ME ME ME

Letterman

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME ME ME

Orchardgrass, ‘Paiute’ P,E,L X EX EX EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME EX ME

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX ME

Squirreltail, P,E X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX ME

bluebunch

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X EX EX ME

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspike

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E X PO ME ME

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X EX EX ME

(drought tolerant)

Aster, Pacific P,E X X ME ME ME

Balsamroot, arrowleaf E,L X PO PO EX

Burnet, small P,E,L X EX EX ME

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME PO

Lupine, mountain E,L X PO ME ME

Lupine, silky E,L X ME ME ME

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Eaton P,E,L X EX EX ME

Penstemon, low P,E,L X EX EX EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X EX EX PO

(con.)
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 283

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Penstemon, Rocky P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Mountain

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E,L X EX EX ME

Sainfoin P,E X ME ME ME

Sweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

Sweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X ME ME ME

Trefoil, birdsfoot P,E X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Ceanothus, Martin P,E,L X PO ME EX

Ceanothus, snowbush P,E,L X ME ME EX

Chokecherry, black E,L X PO PO EX

Cliffrose, Stansbury P,E,L X ME ME EX

Elderberry, blue P,E,L X PO ME EX

Ephedra, green E,L X ME ME ME

Eriogonum, sulfur P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Eriogonum, Wyeth P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Kochia, forage P,E X ME EX ME

Mountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

curlleaf

Mountain mahogany, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

true

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain low

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain rubber

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EX

and basin whitestem

rubber

Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Sagebrush, low P,E,L X EX EX ME

Sagebrush, mountain big P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Sagebrush, silver P,E,L X EX EX ME

Sagebrush, foothills P,E,L X X EX EX EX

big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME ME

Serviceberry, P,E,L X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Snowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO PO EX

Squawapple P,E,L X PO PO EX

Sumac, skunkbush P,E,L X PO ME EX

Sumac, Rocky Mountain P,E,L X PO ME EX

smooth

Seeding rate

Precipitation

Growth form 12 to 17 inches 17+ inches

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6 4 to 5

Forbs 4 to 6 3 to 5

Shrubs 3 to 4 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 19 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Forbs (con.)
284 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 20—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding Wyoming big

sagebrush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME EX

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX

Fescue, Idaho P,E,L X PO ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X ME ME EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX ME

Squirreltail, bottlebrush P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, thickspike P,E,L X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X ME ME PO

Burnet, small P,E,L X ME ME PO

Flax, Lewis P,E,L X X ME ME PO

Goldeneye, Nevada P,E,L X X ME ME PO

showy

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Lupine, Nevada E,L X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E,L X X ME ME PO

Sweetclover, yellow P,E X EX EX PO

Shrubs

Ephedra, green P,E,L X PO PO PO

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO PO ME

Hopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO ME EX

Kochia, forage P,E,L X EX EX ME

Peachbrush, desert P,E,L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

mountain low

Rabbitbrush, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

mountain and basin

whitestem rubber

Sagebrush, foothills big P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Sagebrush, Wyoming big P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Saltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME ME

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 5 to 6

Forbs 4 to 5

Shrubs 2 to 3

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 285

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 21—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding black sagebrush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME ME ME

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X ME ME ME

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX EX

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX ME,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO PO ME

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X EX EX PO

Shrubs

Ephedra, green P,E,L X PO ME PO

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X PO ME PO

Rabbitbrush, low P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, low P,E,L X ME ME EX

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 6 to 8

Forbs 2 to 3

Shrubs 2 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
286 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 22—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding low sagebrush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X X EX EX EX,NC

Fescue, Idaho E,L X X ME ME ME

Muttongrass P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X ME EX PO

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX PO

Squirreltail, P,E X X ME EX PO

bottlebrush

Sacatoon, alkali P,E,L X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, bluebunch P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX ME,NC

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME EX ME

thickspike

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X ME EX EX

Forbs

Burnet, small P,E X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME ME

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME PO

Sweetclover, yellow P X ME ME ME

Shrubs

Rabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME ME

Rabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain whitestem

rubber

Sagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X ME ME EX

big

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6

Forbs 2 to 3

Shrubs 2 to 3

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 287

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 23—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding threetip sagebrush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Brome, Regar P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(southern and northern)

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

Fescue, Idaho P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Junegrass, prairie P,E X PO ME ME

Muttongrass P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, green E,L X X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, Thurber P,E,L X PO EX ME

Oatgrass, tall P,E X EX EX ME

Orchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E X X ME EX EX

Rye, mountain P,E X EX EX PO

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch E,L X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

intermediate

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, slender E,L X X ME EX ME

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

streambank

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X ME ME EX

thickspike

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO ME EX

Forbs

Alfalfa P,E,L X ME ME EX

(drought tolerant)

Balsamroot, arrowleaf P,E X X PO ME EX

Balsamroot, cutleaf P,E X X PO ME EX

Burnet, small P,E X ME ME ME

Flax, Lewis P,E X X ME ME ME

Goldeneye, showy P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Globemallow, P,E X PO ME EX

gooseberry

Lupine, silky E,L X PO PO EX

Penstemon, Eaton P,E X X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X ME ME ME

Sweetvetch, Utah P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Sunflower P,E X X ME EX ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME EX EX

(con.)
288 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Shrubs

Bitterbrush, antelope P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Ceanothus, snowbush P,E X X ME EX EX

Chokecherry, black P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Elderberry, blue P,E X X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain low

Rabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain rubber

Rabbitbrush, mountain P,E X X ME ME ME

and basin whitestem

rubber

Rose, Woods P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Spirea, rock P,E X PO PO EX

Sagebrush, basin big P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

mountain big

Sagebrush, threetip P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, Wyoming P,E,L X X ME ME ME

big

Serviceberry, P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Saskatoon

Snowberry, mountain P,E,L X PO PO EX

Sumac, skunkbush P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 5

Forbs 3 to 5

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 23 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 289

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 24—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding silver sagebrush,

timberline sagebrush, and subalpine big sagebrush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses and sedges

Barley, meadow P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Bluegrass, big E,L X X ME ME ME

Bluegrass, Canada E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, meadow P,E,L X ME ME ME

Brome, mountain P,E,L X X EX EX EX

Brome, smooth P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

(northern and southern)

Brome, subalpine E,L X ME EX EX,NC

Fescue, hard sheep P,E,L X ME ME EX,NC

Fescue, sheep P,E,L X X ME ME EX,NC

Foxtail, creeping P,E,L X ME EX EX

Foxtail, meadow P,E,L X ME ME EX

Needlegrass, green P,E,L X ME ME ME

Needlegrass, Letterman P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Oatgrass, tall P,E X ME EX ME

Orchardgrass P,E,L X EX EX ME

Hairgrass, tufted P,E X X PO ME ME

Sedge, ovalhead P,E,L X PO ME EX

Timothy P,E X EX EX PO

Timothy, alpine P,E,L X EX EX ME

Wheatgrass, slender P,E,L X X EX EX ME

Forbs

Alfalfa (nonirrigated type) P,E X EX EX ME

Aster, blueleaf P,E,L X ME ME EX

Aster, Engelmann P,E,L X PO ME EX

Crownvetch P,E,L X ME ME EX

Geranium, sticky and P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Richardson

Goldeneye, showy P,E X ME EX EX

Goldenrod, Canada P,E,L X ME ME EX

Groundsel, butterweed P,E X PO ME EX

Lupine, mountain P,E X ME ME EX

Lupine, silky P,E X ME ME EX

Milkvetch, cicer P,E,L X ME EX ME

Penstemon, Eaton P,E X X ME ME ME

Penstemon, low P,E X X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Rocky P,E X X ME ME ME

Mountain

Penstemon, Wasatch P,E X X ME ME EX

Sage, Lousiana P,E X X ME ME PO

Sainfoin P,E X ME EX ME

Sweetanise P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME ME

(con.)
290 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Shrubs

Ceanothus, Martin P,E,L X X PO ME EX

Ceanothus, snowbush P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Chokecherry, black P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Cinquefoil, shrubby P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Elderberry, blue P,E X X PO ME EX

Elderberry, red P,E X X PO ME EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

mountain low

Sagebrush, silver P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, subalpine big P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, timberline big P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Snowberry, mountain big P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 5

Forbs 3 to 4

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.

Table 24 (Con.)

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 291

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 25—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding shadscale saltbush sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

crested

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X EX EX EX,NC

Wheatgrass, streambank P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X PO ME ME

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

Wildrye, Salina P,E,L X PO PO EX

Forbs

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

scarlet

Yarrow, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Shrubs

Budsage P,E,L X PO PO EX

Hopsage, spineless P,E,L X PO ME EX

Hopsage, spiny P,E,L X PO ME EX

Peachbrush, desert P,E,L X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, P,E X X ME ME ME

spreading

Rabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Wyoming big

Saltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME ME

Saltbush, Gardner P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Saltbush, mat P,E X X ME ME EX

Shadscale P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 5 to 7

Forbs 1 to 2

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
292 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 26—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding black greasewood sites.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Squirreltail, P,E,L X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, standard P,E,L X EX EX EX

crested

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, P,E,L X X PO ME EX

streambank

Wheatgrass, tall P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Great Basin P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

Forbs

Globemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

gooseberryleaf

Shrubs

Greasewood, black P,E,L X PO PO EX

Kochia, forage P,E,L X EX EX EX

Sagebrush, basin big P,E X X ME ME ME

Saltbush, Castle P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Valley clover

Saltbush, fourwing P,E X X ME ME ME

Saltbush, Gardner P,E X X ME ME ME

Shadscale P,E,L X X PO PO ME

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 6 to 8

Forbs 1

Shrubs 3 to 4

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 293

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

Table 27—Ecological status, use index, competitiveness, and seeding rate for species adapted for seeding in the blackbrush type.

Competitivenessb as a

Use index for: seedling in the presence of:

Ecological Restoration Revegetation Maximum Minimum Mature

Species statusa plantings plantings competition competition plant

Grasses

Dropseed, sand P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Galleta P,E X X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread P,E X X ME ME PO

Ricegrass, Indian P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Squirreltail, P,E X X ME EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, fairway P,E X ME EX ME

crested

Wheatgrass, pubescent P,E,L X EX EX EX

Wheatgrass, Siberian P,E,L X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, standard P,E X ME EX ME

crested

Wheatgrass, western P,E,L X X ME ME EX

Wildrye, Russian P,E,L X PO PO EX

Forbs

Globemallow, P,E,L X X ME ME ME

gooseberryleaf

Globemallow, scarlet P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Penstemon, Palmer P,E X X PO ME ME

Shrubs

Apache plume P,E,L X PO ME EX

Bitterbrush, desert P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Blackbrush P,E,L X ME ME EX

Buffaloberry, P,E,L X PO PO EX

roundleaf

Ephedra, Nevada P,E,L X ME ME EX

Hopsage, spineless P,E,L X ME ME EX

Hopsage, spiny P,E,L X ME ME EX

Kochia, forage P,E X EX EX EX

Peachbrush, desert P,E,L X X PO PO EX

Rabbitbrush, low P,E X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, black P,E,L X X ME ME ME

Sagebrush, sand P,E,L X ME ME ME

Saltbush, fourwing P,E,L X X ME EX ME

Winterfat P,E,L X X ME EX EX

Growth form Seeding rate

Pls lb/acrec

Grasses 4 to 6

Forbs 3 to 4

Shrubs 2 to 3

a

Species status: P = pioneer; E = early seral; L = late seral.

b

Competitiveness rating: PO = poor competitor; ME = medium competitor; EX = excellent competitor; NC = noncompatable with other species. c

Drill rate—broadcast seeding requires 1⁄4 to 1⁄3 more seed.
294 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Chapter 17 Guidelines for Restoration and Rehabilitation of Principal Plant Communities

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

Grasses

Bluegrass, Sandberg X X ME ME ME

Fescue, hard sheep X X EX ME EX

Fescue, Idaho X X ME ME ME

Needle-and-thread X X ME EX ME

Needlegrass, Thurber X X EX ME EX

Ricegrass, Indian X X PO PO EX

Rye, mountain X X EX EX EX

Squirreltail, X X EX EX ME

bottlebrush

Wheatgrass, bluebunch X X X ME EX

Wheatgrass, fairway X X X ME EX EX

crested

Wheatgrass, standard X X X ME EX EX

crested

Wheatgrass, ‘Hycrest’ X X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, intermediate X X ME EX EX

Wheatgrass, pubescent X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, streambank X X X ME ME EX

Wheatgrass, thickspike X X X EX ME EX

Wheatgrass, western X X X ME ME EX

Forbs

Aster, Pacific X X EX ME EX

Burnet, small X X X EX EX ME

Flax, Lewis X X X EX EX EX

Penstemon, Palmer X X X EX EX EX

Yarrow, western X X X EX EX EX

Shrubs

Kochia, forage X X X EX EX EX

Rabbitbrush, low X X X ME ME EX

Sagebrush, big X X ME ME EX

a

Individual species and mixtures recommended for use in cheatgrass, red brome, and medusahead areas are essentially the same as are

recommended 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), Wyoming

big sagebrush (table 20), black sagebrush (table 21), low sagebrush (table 22), threetip sagebrush (table 23),shadscale saltbush (table 25), black

greasewood (table 26), and blackbrush (table 27). b

Key to ability to spread and compete with annual grasses: PO = poor spreader, poor competitor; ME = medium spreadability, medium competitor;

EX = excellent spreadability, excellent competitor.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-1

Index

A

Acer glabrum See maple, Rocky Mountain

Achillea millefolium lanulosa See yarrow, western

Achnatherum hymenoides See ricegrass, Indian

Achnatherum thurberianum See needlegrass, Thurber

acid equivalent 97

aerial broadcasting 77, 205

aerial ignitors 85

aerial seeding 77–79, 205

fixed-wing aircraft 78

helicopter 78–79

aesthetics 133

Agropyron cristatum See wheatgrass, crested; wheatgrass, crested fairway

Agropyron cristatum x A. desertorum See wheatgrass,

crested hybrid

Agropyron dasystachyum See wheatgrass, thickspike

Agropyron desertorum See wheatgrass, crested

standard

Agropyron elongatum See wheatgrass, tall

Agropyron fragile See wheatgrass, crested Siberian

Agropyron inerme See wheatgrass, bluebunch;

wheatgrass, bluebunch bear

Agropyron intermedium See wheatgrass, intermediate

Agropyron repens x A. spicatum See wheatgrass,

hybrid: NewHy

Agropyron sibiricum See wheatgrass, crested Siberian

Agropyron smithii See wheatgrass, western

Agropyron spicatum See wheatgrass, bluebunch

Agropyron spicatum x A. dasystachyum See wheatgrass, hybrid: SL1

Agropyron trachycaulum See wheatgrass, slender

Agropyron trichophorum See wheatgrass, intermediate

Agrostis alba See bentgrass, redtop

Agrostis palustris See bentgrass, redtop

Agrostis stolonifera See bentgrass, redtop

air-screen separator 715

Aira cespitosa See hairgrass, tufted

alder, thinleaf 266–267, 270, 272, 601, 616–618, 748

alfalfa 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 451

Ladak 450–451, 724, 728

Nomad 450, 724

Rambler 450

Rhizoma 451

Runner 451

Spreader 451

Spreader II 451

Teton 451

Travois 451

alfalfa, range type 427

alfalfa, sicklepod 447–448

alfileria 291, 427

Allenrolfea occidentalis See iodine bush

Alnus incana See alder, thinleaf

Alopecurus arundinaceus See foxtail, creeping

Alopecurus pratensis See foxtail, meadow

Alopecurus ventricosus See foxtail, creeping

Amelanchier alnifolia See serviceberry, Saskatoon

Amelanchier utahensis See serviceberry, Utah

ammonium 54

anchor chain 68–69

disk-chain 69

Dixie sager 69–70

Ely 66, 68, 70

smooth 66

swivels 231–232

Andropogon curtipendula See grama, sideoats

angelica, small leaf 269, 427

animal control See depredation

animal depredation See depredation

annuals, spring-growing 257

annuals, summer-growing 258

Apache plume 253, 273, 276, 293, 559, 561–563, 601,

704, 724, 748

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi See manzanita, bearberry

Aristida purpurea See threeawn, red

Aroga websteri See moth, sagebrush defoliator

Arrhenatherum elatius See oatgrass, tall

Artemisia abrotanum See wormwood, oldman

Artemisia arbuscula See sagebrush, low

Artemisia bigelovii See sagebrush Bigelow

Artemisia cana See sagebrush, silver

Artemisia filifolia See sandsage

Artemisia frigida See sage, fringed

Artemisia longiloba See sagebrush, alkali

Artemisia ludoviciana See sage, Louisiana

Artemisia nova See sagebrush, black

Artemisia pygmaea See sagebrush, pygmy

Artemisia rigida See sagebrush, stiff

Artemisia spinescens See budsage

Artemisia tridentata See sagebrush, big

Artemisia tripartita See sagebrush, threetip

artificial seeding 516, 539

ash, singleleaf 276, 278, 601, 650–652, 704, 748

aspen 119, 195, 214, 266–267, 748

aspen communities 118, 215, 308–309

aspen low forb 118

aspen shrub 118

aspen tall forb 118

aspen-conifer 195, 213, 269
Index-2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

mixed forb 118

mixed shrub 118

aspen-conifer communities 9, 216, 601

aspen openings 204–205

aspen openings, upper elevation 201, 259

aster 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, 261

aster, blueleaf 135, 261, 269, 271, 277, 289, 426–427,

433, 702, 724

Aster chilensis See aster, Pacific

aster, Engelmann 269, 289, 427, 702, 724

Aster glaucodes See aster, blueleaf

aster, Pacific 259, 261–262, 264, 269, 271, 275, 277,

280, 282, 294, 426–427, 431–432, 702, 724, 763

aster, smooth 259

Astragalus cicer See milkvetch, cicer

astragalus, giant 731

Atriplex buxifolia 481–482 See also saltbush, Gardner

Atriplex canescens See saltbush, fourwing

Atriplex confertifolia See shadscale

Atriplex corrugata See saltbush, mat

Atriplex cuneata See saltbush, Castle Valley clover

Atriplex falcata 481–482 See also saltbush, Gardner

Atriplex gardneri See saltbush, Gardner

Atriplex hymenelytra See saltbush; saltbush, desert

holly

Atriplex lentiformis See saltbush; saltbush, quailbush

Atriplex obovata See saltbush; saltbush, broadscale

Atriplex polycarpa See saltbush; saltbush, allscale

Atriplex tridentata 481–482 See also saltbush,

Gardner

auger 765

Avena elatior See oatgrass, tall

B

Balsamorhiza hookeri See balsamroot, hairy

Balsamorhiza macrophylla See balsamroot, cutleaf

Balsamorhiza sagittata See balsamroot, arrowleaf

balsamroot, 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, 436

barberry, creeping 601, 704, 748 See also Oregon

grape

barberry, Fremont 614, 704

barberry, shining 613

bareroot stock 739–742, 747, 754–755, 763–767

barley, beardless 311

barley, bulbous 308, 311, 700

barley, common 311

barley, foxtail 269, 311

barley, meadow 259, 261, 264, 265, 269, 289, 308,

311

bassia, fivehook 264

bentgrass, carpet 310 See also bentgrass, redtop

bentgrass, creeping 310 See also bentgrass, redtop

bentgrass, redtop 208, 259, 261, 264, 265, 269, 308,

310, 345–346, 700

Streaker 298, 346

Betula glandulosa See birch, bog

Betula occidentalis See birch, water

Betula papyrifera See birch, paper

big game depredation See depredation

big sagebrush-cheatgrass 106

bighorn sheep 165–166

biological insect control 721

birch, bog 601, 618–620

birch, paper 601, 622, 748

birch, water 262, 266, 267, 601, 620–621

bitterbrush, 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 586

bitterbrush, desert 273, 276, 293, 559, 579–581, 582,

601, 704, 724, 727, 748

blackbrush 195, 199, 232, 246, 247, 252, 253, 254,

257, 258, 293, 294, 552–555, 601, 704, 748

blackbrush communities 9, 252–253, 293, 308, 601

blackcap 751 See raspberry, black

blackthorn 577

bladersenna, common 741

bluebell 741

bluebell, tall 259, 269, 427, 452, 453

bluegrass 102

bluegrass, alpine

Gruening 298

bluegrass, big 228, 259, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 289,

308, 401–402, 700

Sherman 298, 402

bluegrass, bulbous 311

bluegrass, Canada 259, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 289,

308, 311, 402–404, 700

Foothills 298, 404

Reubens 298, 404

bluegrass, Cusick’s 311

bluegrass, Kentucky 196, 269, 308, 311, 406–408, 724

Newport 138, 298, 408

bluegrass, longtongue 311

bluegrass, mutton 308, 311, 404–406

bluegrass, nodding 311

bluegrass, pine 311

bluegrass, 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
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-3

High Plains germplasm 298, 410

Service 298, 410

boron 51, 52, 54

bouncing-bet 427

Bouteloua curtipendula See grama, sideoats

Bouteloua eriopoda See grama, black

Bouteloua gracilis See grama, blue

boxelder 602

Brillion Seeder 80

broadcast ground application 93

broadcast seeder 72, 76–77

broadcast seeding 76, 141

broadcast spray application 92

brome, California 310 See also brome, mountain

Cucamonga 298

brome, cheatgrass See cheatgrass

brome, downy See cheatgrass

brome, erect 310

brome, foxtail 310

brome, fringed 358–360

brome, Hungarian See brome, smooth

brome, meadow 259, 264–265, 269, 289, 310, 

365–367, 700

Fleet 367

Paddock 367

Regar 196, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282, 287, 298, 310,

367, 724, 728

brome, mountain 135, 138, 196, 259, 261, 264, 265,

269, 271, 289, 308, 310, 360–362, 700, 724

Bromar 298, 362

Garnet 362

brome, nodding 308, 310, 358–360

brome, red 254, 255, 310

brome, red communities 9, 253–256, 294

brome, 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 299

Lincoln 299, 365

Manchar 299, 365

northern 259, 308

Polar 299

southern 308, 724

varieties 365

brome, subalpine 259, 269, 289, 308, 700

Bromus anomalus See brome, nodding

Bromus biebersteinii See brome, meadow

Bromus carinatus See brome, California; brome,

mountain

Bromus ciliatus See brome, fringed

Bromus erectus See brome, meadow

Bromus inermis See brome, smooth

Bromus marginatus See brome, mountain

Bromus riparius See brome, meadow

Bromus tomentellus See brome, subalpine

brushland plow 66

buckthorn, cascara 266–267, 601, 704

buckwheat 652–653 See also eriogonum

buckwheat, wild California flattop 704

budsage 245–246, 291, 495, 511–513 See also

sagebrush, budsage

budsage communities 245

buffaloberry, roundleaf 273, 293, 601, 643–644, 704,

748

buffaloberry, russet 601, 642–643, 704, 748

buffaloberry, silver 262, 266–267, 601, 641–642, 704,

731, 748

bulrush, saltmarsh 263

bulrush, tule 263

Bureau of Plant Industry 2, 3

burnet, 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 459

burning, prescribed 101, 106, 160, 168

aspen communities 118–119

cheatgrass 116

effects 105

pinyon-juniper 116–117

postfire management 119

sagebrush 115–116

uses 101

C

cables 67, 68, 69 See also anchor chain

Calamagrostis canadensis See reedgrass, bluejoint

calcium 51, 54, 178–179

calcium nitrate 54

camphorfume, Mediterranean 469, 491

Camphorosoma monspeliaca See camphorfume,

Mediterranean

canarygrass, reed 135, 182–184, 196, 261, 308, 311,

396–398

Ioreed 299, 397

cattle 176, 178–179

Ceanothus 656

Ceanothus cuneatus See ceanothus, wedgeleaf

ceanothus, deerbrush 601, 658–659, 704, 748

ceanothus, desert 657–658

ceanothus, Fendler 273, 276, 601

Ceanothus fendleri See ceanothus Fendler

Ceanothus greggii See ceanothus, desert

Ceanothus integerrimus See ceanothus, deerbrush

ceanothus, Lemmon 659

Ceanothus lemmonii See ceanothus, Lemmon

ceanothus, Martin 143, 196, 222, 272, 278, 283, 290,

601, 661–662, 704, 724, 727, 748

Ceanothus martinii See ceanothus, Martin

ceanothus, prostrate 601, 659–661, 705, 748

Ceanothus prostratus See ceanothus, prostrate
Index-4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

ceanothus, redstem 142–143, 222, 266–267, 272,

601, 662–665, 668, 704, 748

Ceanothus sanguineus See ceanothus, redstem

ceanothus, snowbrush 196, 272, 283, 288, 290, 601,

665–668, 705, 748

Ceanothus velutinus See ceanothus, snowbrush

ceanothus, wedgeleaf 601, 656–657, 705, 749

Celtis reticulata See hackberry, netleaf

Ceratoides lanata See winterfat

Ceratoides lanata subspinosa See winterfat, foothills

Ceratoides latens See winterfat, Pamirian

Cercocarpus betuloides See mountain mahogany,

birchleaf

Cercocarpus intricatus See mountain mahogany,

littleleaf

Cercocarpus ledifolius See mountain mahogany,

curlleaf

Cercocarpus montanus See mountain mahogany, true

certification, seed 734

certified seed See seed, certified

chain See anchor chain

chaining 70, 228–229, 231, 233

cheatgrass 102, 107, 254–255, 310

cheatgrass communities 9, 253–256, 294, 601

checker-mallow, Oregon 264

chemical plant control 62

chenopod 467

cherry, Bessey 573–574, 601, 705, 749

cherry, bitter 217, 222, 272, 574–575, 601, 705, 749

cherry, Nanking 577

cherry, western sand See cherry, Bessey

chokecherry 135, 142–143, 196, 266–267, 270, 272,

278, 283, 288, 290, 577–579, 601, 705, 724, 730,

749

Chrysothamnus See rabbitbrush

Chrysothamnus albidus See rabbitbrush, alkali

Chrysothamnus depressus See rabbitbrush, dwarf

Chrysothamnus greenei See rabbitbrush, Greene’s

Chrysothamnus linifolius See rabbitbrush, spreading

Chrysothamnus nauseosus See rabbitbrush, rubber

Chrysothamnus parryi See rabbitbrush, Parry

Chrysothamnus vaseyi See rabbitbrush, Vasey

Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus See rabbitbrush, low

chukar partridge 170

cinquefoil 749

cinquefoil, bush 601, 705 See also cinquefoil, shrubby

cinquefoil, gland 259, 261, 264, 427

cinquefoil, shrubby 260, 262, 266, 267, 270, 290, 

569–571

Clematis ligusticifolia See virginsbower, western

cliffrose, 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, 124

clover 463

clover, alsike 261, 264, 427, 464, 702

Aurora 464

Dawn 464

clover, Castle Valley See saltbush, Castle Valley clover

clover, red 464

Dollard 464

Kenland 464

Lakeland 464

Pennscott 464

clover, strawberry 261–262, 264, 427, 463–464, 702,

724

clover, white 464

coarse fragment content 41, 43

cold tolerance 128

Coleogyne ramosissima See blackbrush

columbine, Colorado 259, 269, 427

communities, plant 199 See also site preparation and

seeding prescriptions; vegetation types

companion species 62

compatibility

perennial grasses 122

seeding and species 122, 133

competition, plant See plant competition

competitiveness of species 259, 261–262, 269, 271,

273, 279–280, 282, 284–287, 289, 291–293

composite shrubs 493

container stock 739–742, 747, 754, 757, 764

copper 51–52, 54

Cornus sericeus See dogwood, redosier

Cornus stolonifera See dogwood, redosier

Coronilla varia See crownvetch

Cotoneaster acutifolia See cotoneaster, Peking

cotoneaster, Peking 272, 278, 555–556, 705

cottonwood, Fremont 266–267

cottonwood, narrowleaf 266–267, 749

cover See wildlife habitat, cover

Cowania mexicana See cliffrose, Stansbury

Cowania stansburiana See cliffrose, Stansbury

cowparsnip 216, 259, 264, 269, 426–427, 441–442,

702, 724, 727

Crataegus douglasii See hawthorn, Douglas

crown divisions 762

crownvetch 135, 196, 259, 264, 269, 271, 277, 282,

289, 426–427, 437–438, 702, 724, 731, 741

Chemung 438

Emerald 438

Penngift 438

crude fat 177, 180

crude fiber 177, 180

crude protein 177, 180

cultivars 129, 138, 298, 734

Cupressus arizonica See cypress, Arizona

curly grass See galleta

currant, golden 135, 143, 196, 266–267, 601, 

690–691, 705, 725, 727, 741, 749
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-5

currant, sticky 260, 602, 693–694, 705, 749

currant, wax 260, 602, 691–693, 705, 749

cut stump treatment 92

cuttings, hardwood 761–762

cuttings, stem 739, 741

cypress, Arizona 276, 278, 602, 632–633, 705, 749

D

Dactylis glomerata See orchardgrass

daisy, oxeye 427

debearder 713

deer 159, 161, 176, 515

deervetch, birdfoot 427

depredation 144–145, 163, 768

Deschampsia caespitosa See hairgrass, tufted

desert almond 572–573

desert blite 491 See also sumpweed, desert

dibbles 764–765

digestibility 181

disease, plant 601

disks 66–69

Distichlis spicata See saltgrass, inland

dixie sager 67, 69, 70

dogwood, creek See dogwood, redosier

dogwood, redosier 262, 266–267, 602, 630–632, 705,

749

dozers and blades 84

drags 71

drill seeding 205

drills 73

horizon 75

no-till 75

rangeland 73–75, 228

Truax 75

Tye 75

dropseed, sand 135, 142, 182–183, 185, 196, 262,

273, 279–280, 284, 291, 293, 308, 311, 414–416,

700

drought tolerance 127–128

Dybvig separator 714

E

ecotypes 126, 200

edges, vegetative 111

elaeagnus, autumn 602, 705

Elaeagnus commutata See silverberry

elderberry, blue 135, 143, 196, 270, 272, 276, 278,

283, 288, 290, 602, 624–625, 705, 741, 748

elderberry, red 260, 266–267, 270, 290, 602, 625–627,

705

elk 111, 158–164, 176

Elymus angustus See wildrye, Altai

Elymus canadensis See wildrye, Canada

Elymus cinereus See wildrye, Great Basin

Elymus dahuricus See wildrye, Dahurian

Elymus elymoides See squirreltail, bottlebrush

Elymus giganteus See wildrye, mammoth

Elymus glaucus See wildrye, blue

Elymus junceus See wildrye, Russian

Elymus lanceolatus lanceolatus See wheatgrass,

thickspike

Elymus lanceolatus wawawai See wheatgrass,

bluebunch; wheatgrass, Snake River

Elymus salinus See wildrye, Salina

Elymus simplex See wildrye, alkali

Elymus trachycaulus See wheatgrass, slender

Elymus triticoides See wildrye, creeping

Elymus wawawaiensis See wheatgrass, Snake River;

wheatgrass, bluebunch

Elytrigia repens x Pseudoroegneria spicata See

wheatgrass, hybrid: NewHy

energy 176–177

ephedra, 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, Nevada

ephedra, Torrey 705, 749

Ephedra viridis See ephedra, green

eriogonum, cushion 269, 271, 277, 427, 705

Eriogonum heracleoides See eriogonum, Wyeth

eriogonum, sulfur 272, 283, 602, 652, 653–654, 749

Sierra sulfur buckwheat 654

Eriogonum umbellatum See eriogonum, sulfur

eriogonum, Wright 652, 654

Eriogonum wrightii See eriogonum, Wright

eriogonum, Wyeth 143, 196, 276, 278, 283, 602, 652,

652–653, 706, 727, 749

establishment 131

esthetics 60

F

Fallugia paradoxa See Apache plume

fences 172

fertilizers 53, 54, 55

application 55–56

elemental composition 54

fescue, Alpine See fescue, sheep

fescue, Arizona 311

Redondo 299

fescue, bluebunch See fescue, Idaho

fescue, desert 700

fescue, hard See fescue, hard sheep

fescue, 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, 390

fescue, Idaho 102, 139, 182–184, 280, 282, 284, 

286–287, 294, 308, 311, 386–388, 700
Index-6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Joseph 299, 388

Nezpurs 299, 388

fescue, meadow 308, 311, 731

fescue, red 132, 269

fescue, reed 308, 384 See also fescue, tall

fescue, sheep 271, 273, 280, 282, 287, 289, 308, 311,

388, 700

Covar 299, 390

MX86 299

sulcate 259, 271, 275, 277, 280, 282, 389

fescue, spike 308, 311

fescue, tall 209, 259, 262, 264–265, 311, 384–386

Alta 269, 299, 311, 385

Fawn 299, 385

varieties 386

fescue, Thurber 269, 308, 311

Festuca arizonica See fescue, Arizona

Festuca arundinacea See fescue, tall

Festuca idahoensis See fescue, Idaho

Festuca ovina See fescue, sheep

Festuca ovina duriuscula See fescue, hard sheep

filaree See alfileria

fire effects 102–104, 107, 113–114

big sagebrush-cheatgrass 106

bitterbrush, antelope 103

bluegrass 102

cheatgrass 102

fescue, Idaho 102

habitat management 113

horsebrush 103

intensity 113

junegrass, prairie 102

mountain mahogany, curlleaf 103

needlegrass 102

oak, Gambel 103

plant succession 114

rabbitbrush 103

reedgrass, plains 102

ricegrass, Indian 102

riparian 112

sagebrush 103

severity 113

snowberry 103

squirreltail, bottlebrush 102

wheatgrass 102

fire ignitor 85

aerial ignitors 85

flame thrower 85

helitorch 85

ping-pong ball injector 85

teratorch 85

fire intensity 113

fire severity 113

firebreak 114, 115

fireline 115, 117

fireplow 84

fireweed 264, 427

fixed-wing aircraft 78

flame thrower 85

flax, 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, 724

fleabane, Bear River 259

fleabane, Oregon 259

fluted shaft seeder 81

foliage application 92–93

forage production 60

forbs 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185, 259, 702,

724, 727, 731, 741, 763

forestiera, New Mexico 602, 706

fox 178

foxtail, creeping 259, 289, 308, 310, 346–349, 700

Garrison 300, 349

foxtail, meadow 206, 259, 261–262, 264–265, 269,

289, 308, 310, 346–349, 700, 724

Dan 300, 349

foxtail, reed See foxtail, creeping

Fraxinus anomala See ash, singleleaf

G

galleta 183–184, 250, 279, 293, 308, 311, 390–392

Viva 300, 391

geranium 132, 741

geranium, Richardson 426–427, 438, 702, 724

Geranium richardsonii See geranium, Richardson

geranium, sticky 259, 261, 269, 289, 426, 427, 439,

702

Geranium viscosissimum See geranium, sticky

germination 601

giant hyssop, nettleleaf 427

globemallow 132, 135, 196

globemallow, 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 462

globemallow, stream 427

goat's beard See salsify, vegetable-oyster

goldeneye, Nevada 271, 273, 275, 280, 284, 427, 466,

703

goldeneye, 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, 427

goldenrod, Parry 277, 427

goldenweed 534, 706

gouger 84
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-7

grama, black 308, 355–356

Nogal 300, 356

Sonora 356

grama, blue 308, 310, 356–358

Hachita 300, 358

Lovington 300, 358

grama, sideoats 308, 310, 353–355

Butte 300

El Reno 300

Haskell 300

Killdeer 300, 354

Niner 300, 354

Pierre 300, 355

Premier 300

Trailway 300

Vaughn 300, 355

gravity separators 715

Grayia brandegei See hopsage, spineless

Grayia spinosa See hopsage, spiny

grazing 2, 3, 128–129, 601

plant control 59

grazing management 194–198

greasewood 470

greasewood, Bailey 469, 490, 706

greasewood, black 135, 195, 247, 262, 266, 267, 292,

469, 472, 490, 491, 602, 706, 725, 741, 750

greasewood, black communities 9, 249–250, 292,

308–309, 601

Great Basin Experimental Range 16

Great Basin Station 3, 4, 16–17

greenhouse bioassay 53

grid ball 92

grinder-macerator 715

ground broadcast seeding 76, 205

groundsel, butterweed 259, 264, 270–271, 289, 427,

459–460, 702

grouse 178–179

blue 170

Columbian sharp-tail 168–169

ruffed 169–171

sage See sage-grouse

growth rate 128

Gutierrezia See matchbrush; snakeweed

Gutierrezia microcephala See matchbrush, small

headed

Gutierrezia sarothrae See snakeweed, broom

H

habitat improvement projects 156

hackberry, netleaf 602, 696–698

hairgrass, tufted 259, 261, 264–265, 289, 308, 310,

369–371

Norcoast 301, 371

Nortran 301, 371

Peru Creek 301, 371

hammermill 713

Hansen seed dribbler 79

Haplopappus See goldenweed

Haplopappus bloomeri See rabbitbrush, goldenweed

harvester

sprigger 763

harvesting, seed 712

hawthorn, Columbia 561

hawthorn, Douglas 266–267, 560–561, 602, 706, 750

hawthorn, river See hawthorn, Douglas

heat damage 103

Hedysarum boreale See sweetvetch, Utah

helianthella, oneflower 182–183, 185, 259, 270, 277,

426–427, 441, 703, 724

Helianthella uniflora See helianthella, oneflower

helicopter 78–79

helitorch 85

Heracleum lanatum See cowparsnip

herbicide effects 90–91, 96

herbicide sprayer 85–87

herbicide types 94, 97

acid equivalent 97

nonselective 94

selective 94

soil sterilant 94

toxicant 97

herbicides 89, 95, 167, 255

application 92, 98

broadcast ground application 93

broadcast spray application 92

cut stump treatment 92

foilage 92

foilage spray 93

grid ball 92

rate, calculation 97–98

safety considerations 99

soil application 92

soil injection 92

soil surface placement 92

stem 92

timing of application 98

trunk base spray 92

trunk injection 92

wipe on 92, 93

common name

clopyralid 95

dicamba 95

glyphosate 95

Oust 95

paraquat 95

picloram 95

tebuthiuron 95

triclopyr 95

type 95

uses 90
Index-8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Hesperostipa comata See needle-and-thread

Hilaria jamesii See galleta

hoedad 764

Holodiscus discolor See oceanspray, creambush

Holodiscus dumosus See spiraea, rock

honeylocust 602, 706

honeysuckle 731

honeysuckle, bearberry 602, 623–624

honeysuckle, orange 602, 623

honeysuckle, Tatarian 262, 266–267, 272, 706, 750

honeysuckle, Utah 262, 272, 602, 623–624, 706, 750

honeysuckle, western trumpet See honeysuckle,

orange

hopsage, spineless 273, 291, 293, 469, 472, 487, 488,

602, 706, 727

hopsage, spiny 279, 281, 284, 291, 293, 469, 487,

488, 602, 706, 725, 750

Horizon drill 75

horsebrush 103, 534–536

horsebrush, cottonthorn 706

horsebrush, gray 495, 535, 706

horsebrush, littleleaf 495, 706

horsebrush, Nuttall 495, 706

horsebrush, spiny 495

horses 176, 178, 179

human activities 194, 198

hydroseeder 82

I

Indian apple 272, 276, 278, 283, 566–567, 604, 711,

727, 731, 741

inkbush See iodine bush

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 3,

16 See also Intermountain Research Station

Intermountain Research Station 4, 5, 17

interseeder 81

fluted shaft seeder 81

Truax single row seeder 81

interseeding 142, 742–744

iodine bush 469, 491

iris, German 427, 741

iron 51, 52, 54

J

jointfir See ephedra, green; ephedra, Nevada

junegrass, prairie 102, 271, 275, 277, 282, 287, 308,

311, 392–393, 700

juniper 108

juniper, creeping 602, 633–635

juniper, Rocky Mountain 602, 638–640, 706, 750

juniper, Utah 182–183, 185, 602, 635–638, 638, 707,

750

juniper woodlands 38

juniper-pinyon See pinyon-juniper

Juniperus horizontalis See juniper, creeping

Juniperus osteosperma See juniper, Utah

Juniperus scopulorum See juniper, Rocky Mountain

K

kinnikinnik See manzanita, bearberry

Kochia americana See molly, gray

kochia, Belvedere 703

kochia, 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, 725

Kochia prostrata See kochia, forage

Koch’s postulates 188

Koeleria cristata See junegrass, prairie

Koeleria macrantha See junegrass, prairie

Koeleria nitida See junegrass, prairie

L

land imprinter 67, 72

larkspur, tall 204

layering 762

crown divisions 762

runners and stolons 762

shoots 762

stem layers 762

suckers 762

layers 762

legumes 136, 137

Lepidospartum latisquamatum See scalebroom

Leymus angustus See wildrye, Altai

Leymus cinereus See wildrye, Great Basin

Leymus racemosus See wildrye, mammoth

Leymus salinus See wildrye, Salina

Leymus simplex See wildrye, alkali

Leymus triticoides See wildrye, creeping

ligusticum, Porter 259, 270, 426–427, 442–443, 703,

727

Ligusticum porteri See ligusticum, Porter

lilac, common 707, 750

Linum perenne lewisii See flax, Lewis

livestock grazing See grazing; grazing management

locust, black 603, 707, 750

Lomatium kingii See lomatium, Nuttall

lomatium, narrowleaf See lomatium, nineleaf

lomatium, nineleaf 426, 428, 444–445, 703, 724, 728

lomatium, Nuttall 259, 270–271, 277, 426, 428, 

445–446, 703, 727

Lomatium triternatum See lomatium, nineleaf

Lonicera ciliosa See honeysuckle, orange

Lonicera involucrata See honeysuckle, bearberry

Lonicera utahensis See honeysuckle, Utah

lupine 135, 196, 741

lupine, mountain 142, 259, 270, 282, 289, 703, 724,

727, 728

lupine, Nevada 271, 277, 280, 284, 428
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-9

lupine, silky 260, 270–271, 277, 282, 287, 289, 426,

428, 446–447, 703, 724, 727–728

lupine, silvery 428, 448, 703

Lupinus argenteus See lupine, silvery

Lupinus sericeus See lupine, silky

M

MacLeod 764, 765

magnesium 51–52, 54

Mahonia aquifolium See barberry, shining

mahonia, creeping See Oregon grape

Mahonia fremontii See barberry, Fremont

Mahonia repens See Oregon grape

management 28, 32

considerations 26

climate 29

impacts on adjacent areas 31

resource values 31

soil condition 27–28, 30–31

strategy 28

vegetation condition 26–27

manganese 51–52, 54

manzanita, bearberry 601, 647–648, 707, 750

maple 195

maple, bigtooth 270, 603, 750

maple, Rocky Mountain 216, 272, 278, 600–608, 707,

750

matchbrush 493, 534

matchbrush, small head 495

McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928 3

meadowrue, Fendler 260

mechanical plant control 62

brushland plow 66

disk plow 66

disk-chain 66

moldboard plow 66

off-set disk 66

personnel 78

Medicago falcata See alfalfa, sicklepod

Medicago sativa See alfalfa

medick, black 261–262, 264, 270, 428

medusahead 254–255

medusahead communities 253–256, 294

Melilotus officinalis See sweetclover, yellow

Mertensia arizonica See bluebell, tall

milkvetch, Canadian 703

milkvetch, cicer 132, 135, 138, 142, 196, 261, 270,

271, 277, 282, 289, 425–426, 428, 433–434, 703,

724, 728, 731, 741, 763

Lutana 434

milkvetch, Snake River 428

milkvetch, tall 428

mixed seedings 130–134

mockorange, Lewis 687–689, 707

Waterton 689

mockorange, littleleaf 689

moldboard plow 66

molly, gray 469, 488, 603

molybdenum 51–52, 54

moose

Shiras 164

moth, sagebrush defoliator 514

mountain ash, American 707, 750

mountain ash, Greene’s 266–267, 270, 272, 592–594,

601, 603

mountain ash, Sitka 594

mountain brush communities 9, 195, 216, 217, 219,

271, 308–309, 601

mountain lover 222, 266–267, 603, 707

mountain mahogany, birchleaf 138, 544–545, 707, 750

mountain 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 546

mountain mahogany, Intermountain curlleaf 549

mountain mahogany, littleleaf 274, 276, 545, 549, 603,

707, 751

mountain mahogany, true 132, 135, 138, 142–143,

185, 196, 272, 276, 278, 283, 549, 550–552, 603,

707, 725, 727, 730, 741, 751

Montane 552

muhly, spike 731

El Vado 301

mule deer 158, 163, 178

ranges 162

multiple use 131

muttongrass 273, 275, 282, 286–287 See also bluegrass, mutton

muttongrass, longtongue 311

N

Nassella viridula See needlegrass, green

natural spread 134

needle-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, 139

needlegrass, Columbia See needlegrass, subalpine

needlegrass, green 135, 142, 269, 271, 275, 277, 282,

287, 289, 308, 311, 422–424, 700

Cucharas 424

Lodorm 301, 424

needlegrass, Letterman 269, 282, 289, 308, 311, 

419–421, 700

needlegrass, subalpine 259, 269, 308, 311, 416–418,

420

varieties 418

needlegrass, Thurber 280, 284, 287, 294, 308, 311,

421–422

ninebark, dwarf 568
Index-10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

ninebark, mallow 266–267, 567–569, 603, 707, 751

ninebark, mountain 568

ninebark, Pacific 568

nitrogen 51, 52, 54

nitrogen-free extract 177, 180

no-till drill 75

nurseries and facilities 747

nutrient content 112

nutrient requirements of range animals 176

calcium 178

dry material 176

minerals 178

phosphorus 178

protein 177, 178

vitamins 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, 354

oceanspray, bush 565 See also oceanspray, spiraea

oceanspray, creambush 563–565, 603

Office of Grazing Studies 3

olive, autumn 751

oniongrass 259, 308, 311, 701

Onobrychis viciaefolia See sainfoin

orchardgrass 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 368

Latar 301, 368

Paiute 138, 301, 368, 724, 728

Potomac 301

Oregon grape 270, 614–616, 731 See also barberry,

creeping

Oryzopsis hymenoides See ricegrass, Indian

Osmorhiza occidentalis See sweetanise

P

painted-cup 428

painted-cup, sulphur 260

Pascopyrum smithii See wheatgrass, western

pathogen-free planting stock 189

pathogens, plant 187–190

peachbrush, Anderson 707, 751 See almond, desert

peachbrush, desert 274, 276, 284, 291, 293, 575–577,

603, 707, 725

pearly everlasting 763

peashrub, Siberian 731, 751

peavine, flat 428

peavine, perennial 428

peavine, thickleaf 270, 428

peavine, Utah 270, 428

penstemon, bush 272, 603, 694–696, 707, 751

Penstemon cyananthus See penstemon, Wasatch

penstemon, Eaton 139, 271, 277, 280, 282, 287, 289,

428, 456, 703, 731

Richfield 457

Penstemon eatonii See penstemon, Eaton

penstemon, firecracker 456

Penstemon fruticosus See penstemon, bush

Penstemon humilis See penstemon, low

penstemon, littlecup 428

penstemon, low 206, 271, 280, 282, 289, 428, 457,

703, 724, 763

Penstemon pachyphyllus See penstemon, thickleaf

penstemon, 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 456

Penstemon palmeri See penstemon, Palmer

penstemon, Rocky Mountain 132, 135, 260, 270–271,

277, 283, 289, 425, 428, 457

penstemon, Rydberg 260, 270, 428, 457

Penstemon rydbergii See penstemon, Rydberg

penstemon, sidehill 428

Penstemon strictus See penstemon, Rocky Mountain

penstemon, thickleaf 277, 428, 457, 703, 731

penstemon, toadflax 277, 428

penstemon, Wasatch 260, 270–271, 277, 283, 289,

428, 456, 703

Peraphyllum ramosissimum See Indian apple

persistence

species 129

personnel 63

Phalaris arundinacea See canarygrass, reed

pheasant 159, 178–179

Philadelphus lewisii See mockorange, Lewis

Phleum alpinum See timothy, alpine

Phleum pratense See timothy

phosphate, single super 54

phosphate, trebel super 54

phosphoric acid (liquid) 54

phosphorus 51, 52, 54, 178, 179

Physocarpus malvaceus See ninebark, mallow

pine, ponderosa 195

pine, ponderosa communities 222–223, 309, 601

ping-pong ball injector 85

pinyon 108

pinyon-juniper 195, 224, 225, 279

pinyon-juniper communities 9, 37, 223–224, 227–228,

273, 279, 308, 601, 638

pipe harrow 67, 71

plant communities, diverse 130

plant community indicators 124

plant 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
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-11

controlling 57, 65, 147–148

biological 58, 59

burning 60

chemical 62

fallowing 62

grazing 59

herbicides 58

logging 60

mechanical 58, 62, 65

objectives 60

species 21

successional changes 59–60

plant control

herbicides 89

plant disease

fungal diseases 516

plant tissue analysis 53

planting bar 764–767

planting hoe 764–765

planting mixtures, advantages 130–133

planting season 23, 150–151

planting shovels 764–765

planting stock 745–746

plows

brushland 66–67

disk 66

moldboard 66

root 67, 73

PLS See pure live-seed (PLS)

plum, American 262, 571–572, 603, 708, 751

plume, Apache See Apache plume

Poa alpina See bluegrass, alpine

Poa ampla See bluegrass, big

Poa canbyi See bluegrass, Sandberg

Poa compressa See bluegrass, Canada

Poa fendleriana See bluegrass, mutton

Poa longiligula See bluegrass, mutton

Poa nevadensis See bluegrass, Sandberg

Poa pratensis See bluegrass, Kentucky

Poa sandbergii See bluegrass, Sandberg

Poa scabrella See bluegrass, Sandberg

Poa secunda See bluegrass, big; bluegrass, Sandberg

ponderosa pine communities 220, 271, 308

poplar 751

postfire management 119

potash 54

potassium 51–52, 54

Potentilla fruticosa See cinquefoil, shrubby

precipitation 21, 34–35

average annual 34

pronghorn antelope 111, 164–165

propagation See seed propagation; vegetative

propagation

protein 177

proximal analysis 180

Prunus americana See plum, American

Prunus andersonii See almond, desert

Prunus besseyi See cherry, Bessey

Prunus emarginata See cherry, bitter

Prunus fasciculata See peachbrush, desert

Prunus spinosa See blackthorn

Prunus tomentosa See cherry, Nanking

Prunus virginiana See chokecherry

Psathyrostachys juncea See wildrye, Russian

Pseudoroegneria spicata See wheatgrass, bluebunch

Pseudoroegneria spicata inerme See wheatgrass,

beardless

pure live-seed (PLS) 22, 139, 736

Purshia glandulosa See bitterbrush, desert

Purshia tridentata See bitterbrush, antelope

Q

quackgrass 310

quail 178, 179

quailbush See saltbush, quailbush

Quercus gambelii See oak, Gambel

R

rabbit 178

rabbitbrush 103, 493–496, 522–524

rabbitbrush, alkali 495, 533–534, 708

rabbitbrush, Douglas 603

rabbitbrush, dwarf 495, 524, 603, 708

rabbitbrush, goldenweed 534

rabbitbrush, Greene’s 495, 533–534, 708

rabbitbrush, low 135, 182–183, 185, 196, 260, 279,

285–286, 291, 293–294, 495, 531–533, 603, 708

hairy low 533

mountain low 142, 288, 290, 532, 708, 725, 741

narrowleaf low 533, 708

stickyleaf low 532–533, 708

rabbitbrush, Nevada 530

rabbitbrush, Parry 260, 272, 495, 529–531, 603, 708

rabbitbrush, rubber 132, 135, 182–183, 185, 196, 251,

262, 495, 525–529, 603, 751

green rubber 529, 708

green-stemmed rubber 526, 741

leafless rubber 708

leiospermus rubber 708

mountain rubber 270, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 529,

708, 725

mountain whitestem rubber 708

threadleaf rubber 266–267, 528–529, 708, 741

tubinatus rubber 708

whitestem mountain and basin rubber 270, 272,

274, 276, 278, 281, 283–284, 286, 288

whitestem rubber 138, 142–143, 525–526, 528, 725,

727, 730, 741

rabbitbrush, small 603

rabbitbrush, spreading 291, 495, 524, 603, 708, 741

rabbitbrush, Vasey 495, 531, 709
Index-12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

rails 71–72

range, season of use 182–184

Range Seeding Equipment Committee 17

raspberry, black 590, 601

redtop See bentgrass, redtop

reedgrass, bluejoint 264–265, 310

Sourdough 301

reedgrass, chee 259, 264–265, 310, 701, 763

reedgrass, plains 102

rehabilitation 200 See also site preparation and

seeding prescriptions

resistance, host 190

resource values 31

restoration 19, 200 See also revegetation; site preparation and seeding prescriptions

history 1, 15–17

human activities 198

restored sites

grazing 194

human activities 194

management 193

post-treatment 194

revegetation 19, 29, 200, 470, 717, 746 See also

restoration; site preparation and seeding

prescriptions

artificial 29

considerations 19

cost 32

impacts on adjacent areas 31–32

plant competition 21

plant material availability 32

planting season 23

precipitation 21

pure live seed (PLS) 22

resource values 31

seed mixture 22

seedbed 23

site-adapted species and populations 21

soil conditions 27–28, 30

soil types 20

terrain 20

vegetation condition 26–27

weeds 31

history 15–17

human activities 198

impact on resources 28

range 19

site suitability 29–30

wildland 19

Rhizobium 146

rhizomes 763

Rhus aromatica See sumac, skunkbush

Rhus glabra See sumac, Rocky Mountain smooth

Ribes aureum See currant, golden

Ribes cereum See currant, wax

Ribes viscosissimum See currant, sticky

ricegrass, 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, 396

Paloma 301, 397

Ribstone 397

Rimrock 301, 397

riparian communities 9, 209–210, 212–213, 263–267,

309, 601, 668

roads 172, 198

rockspirea 565–566, 709

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station

3 See also Rocky Mountain Research Station

Rocky Mountain Research Station 5

rodents 144

roller chopper 83

root cuttings 762

root-plow 67, 73

Rosa woodsii ultramontana See rose, Woods

rosaceous shrubs 539

rose, Woods 143, 260, 262, 266–267, 270, 272, 278,

283, 288, 586–590, 603, 709, 741, 751

Roundup 96

row spacing 153

Rubus leucodermis See raspberry, black

Rubus parviflorus See thimbleberry

runners and stolons 762

rush, Baltic 263

rush, Drummond 263

rush, longstyle 263

rush, swordleaf 263

rush, Torrey 263

Russian olive 709

rye, mountain 132, 135, 142, 196, 269, 273, 275, 277,

280, 282, 284, 286–287, 294, 309, 311, 724

rye, winter 273, 275, 277, 727

ryegrass, Italian 311

ryegrass, meadow 311

ryegrass, perennial 264, 265, 311

S

sacaton, alkali 196, 262, 264–265, 279, 286, 309, 311,

413–414, 701

Salado 301, 414

Saltalk 301, 414

sage, birdsfoot 495, 522

sage, fringed 274, 495, 505–506, 604, 709, 725

sage, longleaf 495, 522, 709

sage, Louisiana 260–261, 264, 270–271, 278, 289,

426, 428, 430–431, 703, 741, 763

Summit 431

sage, oldman See sandsage
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-13

sage, purple 709, 751

sage, sand See sandsage

sage, tarragon 278, 428

sage-grouse 159, 166–168

sagebrush 108, 236, 493, 494–496

sagebrush communities 115, 234–237 See also site

preparation and seeding prescriptions

sagebrush, alkali 495, 506–507

sagebrush, alkali communities 245

sagebrush, big 132, 181–183, 185, 196, 232, 294,

495, 514–521, 709, 751

big communities 9

basin big 135, 138, 142–143, 195, 238, 266–267,

274, 276, 279, 281, 288, 292, 514–521, 604, 709,

725, 727, 730, 741

Hobble Creek 518

basin big communities 135, 238, 279, 280, 308–309,

601

foothills big 272, 274, 276, 278, 279, 281, 283–284

See 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, 741

Hobble Creek 518

mountain big communities 239–240, 282, 308–309,

601

spicate big 503, 514 See also sagebrush, big:

subalpine big

subalpine big 206, 290

subalpine big communities 289, 308–309

timberline big 244, 260, 289, 290, 520, 709 See also

sagebrush, big: spicate big; sagebrush, big:

subalpine big

timberline big communities 289

Wyoming big 135, 138, 142, 195, 250, 251, 274,

279, 281, 286, 288, 291, 514–521, 604, 725, 730,

741

Gordon Creek 519

Wyoming big communities 240–242, 279, 284,

308–309, 601

xeric big 514, 517 See also sagebrush, big: foothills

big

sagebrush, Bigelow 495, 500–501, 604, 709

sagebrush, 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, 285

sagebrush, budsage 604, 709 See also budsage

budsage communities 245

sagebrush, coaltown 503, 522

sagebrush, early 604 See sagebrush, alkali

sagebrush, fringed See sage, fringed

sagebrush, hotsprings 500

sagebrush, longleaf See sage, longleaf

sagebrush, Louisiana See sage, Louisiana

sagebrush, low 206, 232, 279, 281, 283, 285, 495,

499–500, 506, 604, 709

low communities 244, 286

sagebrush, pygmy 495, 509–510, 604, 709

sagebrush, Rothrock 520, 522

sagebrush, sand 293, 709 See also sandsage

sagebrush, scabland See sagebrush, stiff

sagebrush, silver 232, 260, 266–267, 272, 283, 290,

495, 502–503, 604, 709, 741

Bolander silver 503

mountain silver 502, 503

mountail silver communities 244

plains silver 503

silver communities 289

sagebrush, stiff 495, 510–511, 604, 709

sagebrush, tarragon See sage, tarragon

sagebrush, threetip 232, 288, 495, 521–522, 604

tall threetip 266–267, 522, 709

threetip communities 244, 287

Wyoming threetip 522

sainfoin 132, 135, 138, 196, 261, 270, 272, 275, 278,

283, 289, 453, 703, 724, 741

Eski 454

Melrose 454

Nova 454

Onar 454

Remont 454

Runemex 454

sainfoin, common 142, 428

Salix See willow

Salix bebbiana See willow, Bebb

Salix boothii See willow, Booth

Salix drummondiana See willow, Drummond

Salix exigua See willow, coyote

Salix geyeriana See willow, Geyer

Salix glauca See willow, grayleaf

Salix lasiandra caudata See willow, whiplash

Salix lasiolepis See willow, arroyo

Salix lutea See willow, yellow

Salix planifolia See willow, plainleaf

Salix scouleriana See willow, Scouler

Salix wolfii See willow, Wolf

salsify, vegetable-oyster 428, 703, 724, 727, 741

salt desert shrub communities 246 See also site

preparation and seeding prescriptions

saltbush 469

saltbush, allscale 469, 482–483

saltbush, Australian 469

saltbush, big 469, 710

saltbush, Bonneville 469, 710

saltbush, broadscale 469, 472, 482–483, 710

saltbush, Castle Valley clover 292, 469, 472, 480–481,

604, 710

saltbush, cattle 469, 710

saltbush, cuneate See saltbush, Castle Valley clover
Index-14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

saltbush, desert holly 469, 482–483, 710

saltbush, falcate 469, 710

saltbush, 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, 279

Marana 475, 476

Rincon 475, 476

Wytana 475, 476

saltbush, Gardner 209, 251, 262, 266–267, 279, 291–292,

469–470, 481–482, 604, 710, 725, 752

saltbush, Gardner complex 470, 481–482

saltbush, Garrett 710

saltbush, mat 291, 469, 472, 479–480, 604, 710

saltbush, Navajo 469, 710

saltbush, quailbush 469, 482–483, 604

Casa 483

saltbush, robust 469

saltbush, shadscale 308, 604, 710, 752

shadscale communities 9, 248, 309, 601

saltbush, trident 469, 472, 710

saltbush, wingless 469

saltgrass 199, 208–209, 212, 262, 264–265

saltgrass, desert 763

saltgrass, inland 195, 310, 371–373

inland communities 9, 208–209, 262, 308-309, 601

Sambucus cerulea See elderberry, blue

Sambucus racemosa See elderberry, red See elderberry, red

sand sage See sandsage

sandsage 495, 504–505, 604

Sanguisorba minor See burnet, small

Sarcobatus vermiculatus See greasewood, black

scalebroom 534, 537

scalper 84

sedge, analogue 263

sedge, beaked 263

sedge, black alpine 263

sedge, blackroot 263

sedge, Douglas 263

sedge, downy 263

sedge, golden 263

sedge, Hepburn 263

sedge, hood 263

sedge, Kellogg 263

sedge, Nebraska 263

sedge, ovalhead 259, 261, 289

sedge, rock 263

sedge, russet 263

sedge, slim 263

sedge, smallwing 263

sedge, soft-leaved 263

sedge, valley 263

sedge, woolly 263

sedges 208, 263

seed

afterripening 700, 726

certification 139, 719

certified 137–138

cleaning 699, 713–715

collecting 699, 712, 718, 754

dormancy 127, 726, 730

field 721, 754

germination 139, 205, 723, 724, 727–728, 730–732,

746

inoculation 146

longevity 731

maturity 700

noncertified 138

orchard 718–719, 722, 754

pathogens 146–147

pelleting 76, 146

pretreatment 145–146, 755

production 719

propagation 747–748

purity 139, 700

quality 137

storage 700, 715, 731, 754–755

stratification 700

seed certification 733 See also certification, seed

seed, certified 22

seed dribbler 79–80

seed harvesters

vacuum-type 713

seed mixture 22

seed, noncertified 138

seed production 601

seed testing

requirements 733

seedbed 23, 126, 134

conditions 63

firmness 149, 150

preparation 121

climatic conditions 124

plant community indicators 124

soil

divalent ions 125

monovalent cations 125

seedbed preparation equipment 65 See also anchor

chains; cables; disks; plows

drags 71

herbicide 91

land imprinter 67, 72

pipe harrow 67, 71

rails 71

seeders 65 See also drills

aerial broadcasting 77–78

fixed-wing aircraft 78

helicopters 78–79

Brillion seeder 80

broadcast 72, 76–77
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-15

hand broadcasting 76

Hansen seed dribbler 79

hydroseeder 82

interseeder

fluted shaft seeder 81

Truax single row seeder 81

land imprinter 72

seed dribbler 79–80

surface seeder 80

surface seeders 80

thimble seeder 79–80

Truax Seed Slinger 76

seeding 216

broadcast 141

depth 76, 152–153

ecotype 124

mixed 201

mixed seedings 130

mixes 122, 129

forbs 140

native species 126

plant competition 21

planting season 23

precipitation 21

pure live seed (PLS) 22

rate 22, 78

seed mixture 22

seedbed 23

site-adapted species and populations 21

soil types 20

seeding practices 121

rates 137, 139–141, 145

requirements 135, 143

separate row seeding 154

single species seeding 130, 133

species compatibility 133, 135

spot 142

seeding rates 259, 261, 269, 271, 273, 279–280, 

284–287, 289, 291–293

seeding requirements

row spacing 153

spot seeding 142

seedling

establishment 133, 134

growth rate 135

vigor 135

selenium 52

Senecio serra See groundsel, butterweed

serviceberry, dwarf Saskatoon 541

serviceberry, 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, 515

Shepherdia argentea See buffaloberry, silver

Shepherdia canadensis See buffaloberry, russet

Shepherdia rotundifolia See buffaloberry, roundleaf

Shiras moose 164

shoots 762

shrub enhancement 235

shrub-herb associations 134

Shrubland Biology and Restoration Project 4

shrubs 132, 135, 138, 142, 182–183, 185, 260, 597,

704

silverberry 266–267, 604, 640–641

Sitanion hystrix See squirreltail, bottlebrush

site access 61

site improvement 122

site preparation and seeding prescriptions

aspen communities 215, 309

aspen openings 204–205

aspen-conifer communities 9, 216, 601

Bailey's (1978) 8

blackbrush communities 9, 252–253, 293, 308, 601

brome, red communities 9, 253–256, 294

cheatgrass communities 9, 253–256, 294, 601

greasewood, black communities 9, 249–250, 309,

601

juniper woodlands 38

medusahead communities 253–256, 294

mountain brush communities 9, 219, 309, 601

pine, ponderosa communities 222–223, 309, 601

pinyon-juniper communities 9, 37, 223–224, 227–228,

273, 279, 308, 601, 638

riparian communities 9, 209–210, 212–213, 263–267,

309, 601, 668

sagebrush, alkali communities 245

sagebrush, basin big communities 135, 238, 279,

280, 308–309, 601

sagebrush, big communities 9

sagebrush, mountain big communities 239–240,

282, 308–309, 601

sagebrush, subalpine big communities 289, 308–309

sagebrush, timberline big communities 289

sagebrush, Wyoming big communities 240–242,

279, 284, 308–309, 601

sagebrush, black communities 243, 285

sagebrush, budsage communities 245

sagebrush communities 235–237

sagebrush, low communities 244, 286

sagebrush, silver communities 289

sagebrush, mountain silver communities 244

sagebrush, threetip communities 244, 287

saltbush, fourwing communities 251–252, 279
Index-16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

saltbush, shadscale 246–247, 291

saltbush, shadscale communities 9, 248, 309, 601

saltgrass, inland communities 9, 208, 209, 262, 308,

309, 601

subalpine communities 601

subalpine herblands 9, 204, 205

weeds, annual communities 308, 601

weeds, annual lowland communities 9, 257, 258

wet and semiwet meadows 9, 168, 207, 208, 308,

601

winterfat communities 251

site-adapted species and populations 21

skunk cabbage 204

snakeweed 534, 536

snakeweed, broom 495, 536

snowberry 103

snowberry, common 266–267, 604, 627, 710, 752

snowberry, desert 627–628

snowberry, longflower 278, 604, 710, 752

snowberry, longleaf 272

snowberry, 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, 628–629

snowberry, white See snowberry, common

snowmold 517

snowmold disease 516

soapberry See buffaloberry, russet

softwood cuttings 761–762

soil 40, 125–126

carbon 44

condition 27–28, 30

conditions 125

erosion 28, 40

fertility 40, 52

fertilization 48

improvement 40

moisture 148–149

nitrogen 136

nutrient 40, 47, 48, 49, 50

boron 51–52

calcium 51

concentrations 51

copper 51–52

iron 51–52

magnesium 51–52

manganese 51–52

molybdenum 51–52

nitrogen 50–52

phosphorus 50–52

potassium 51–52

selenium 52

sulfur 50–51

sulphate-sulphur 52

zinc 51–52

pH 45

reclamation potential 40

aspect 47

parent material 47

texture 152

soil application 92

soil carbon 44

soil conditions 36, 39–53, 41

bulk density 41, 42

carbon 44

coarse fragment content 41, 43

depth to limiting layer 41, 44

exchangeable sodium 41, 47

organic matter 41, 44

permeability 41, 43

pH 41, 46

salinity 41, 45, 46

slope 41, 44

structure 41–42

texture 41–42

water-holding capacity 41, 43

soil factors See soil conditions

soil injection 92

soil reaction See soil, pH

soil surface placement 92

soil types 9, 20

Solidago canadensis See goldenrod, Canada

Solomon plume, fat 260, 428

Solomon-seal, western 264

Sorbus scopulina See mountain ash, Greene’s

Sorbus sitchensis See mountain ash, Sitka

species selection

climatic conditions 124–125

cold tolerance 128

compatibility 122, 133

cultivars 129, 137

drought tolerance 127–128

growth rate 135

native species 126–128

palatability 128

persistence 129

seed dormancy 127

soils 125–126

Sphaeralcea coccinea See globemallow, scarlet

Sphaeralcea grossulariifolia See globemallow,

gooseberryleaf

spikerush, common 263

spiraea 594

Spiraea betulifolia See spiraea, bridal wreath

spiraea, birchleaf See spiraea, bridal wreath

spiraea, bridal wreath 594–595, 604

Spiraea densiflora See spiraea, subalpine

spiraea, Douglas 596, 711, 752

Spiraea douglasii See spiraea, Douglas

spiraea, subalpine 596

spiraea, white 594, 595

spirea, rock 266–267, 288, 751 See also rockspirea
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-17

spirea, rock spray 565

Sporobolus airoides See sacaton, alkali

Sporobolus cryptandrus See dropseed, sand

sprigger 763

squirrels 178

squirreltail See squirreltail, bottlebrush

squirreltail, big 411

Sand Hollow 301, 412

squirreltail, 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 412

Toe Jam Creek 412

State Agricultural Experiment Stations 3, 4

steep-slope scarifier and seeder 87

stem application 92

stem cuttings 760

stem layers 762

Stipa columbiana See needlegrass, subalpine

Stipa comata See needle-and-thread

Stipa lettermanii See needlegrass, Letterman

Stipa occidentalis See needlegrass, western

Stipa thurberiana See needlegrass, Thurber

Stipa viridula See needlegrass, green

stork’s bill See alfileria

Suaeda torreyana See desert blite; sumpbush, desert

subalpine communities 601

subalpine herblands 9, 201–202, 204–205, 259

succession, plant 114

successional changes 131

suckers 762

sulfate-sulphur 52

sulphur 51, 54

sumac, Rocky Mountain smooth 272, 276, 278, 283,

604, 611–613, 711, 741, 752

sumac, skunkbush 135, 272, 276, 278, 283, 288, 604,

608–611, 711, 741, 752

Bighorn 611

sumac, smooth 143

summercypress, Belvedere 262

sumpbush, desert 469, 491

sunflower 287

sunflower, annual 701

surface seeder 80

sweetanise 196, 216, 260–261, 270, 289, 426, 428,

454, 704, 724, 728, 731, 741

sweetclover, white 429

sweetclover, yellow 135, 138, 196, 262, 264, 272–273,

275, 278–280, 283–284, 286, 429, 451–452, 704,

724, 728

Goldtop 452

Madrid 452

Yukon 452

sweetroot, spreading 270, 429

sweetvetch, 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 440

Symphoricarpos albus See snowberry, common

Symphoricarpos longiflorus See snowberry, desert

Symphoricarpos occidentalis See snowberry, western

Symphoricarpos oreophilus See snowberry, mountain

syringa See mockorange, Lewis

syringa, Lewis See mockorange, Lewis

T

tarweed, cluster 203

temperature 35

tephritid flies 526

teratorch 85

terrain 20–21, 36, 37

Tetradymia See horsebrush

Tetradymia canescens See horsebrush, gray

Tetradymia glabrata See horsebrush, littleleaf

Tetradymia nuttallii See horsebrush, Nuttall

Tetradymia spinosa See horsebrush, spiny

thimble seeder 79–80

thimbleberry 266–267, 591–592, 601, 605

Thinopyrum intermedium See wheatgrass, intermediate

Thinopyrum ponticum 320 See also wheatgrass, tall

threeawn complex 349

threeawn, fendler 310

threeawn, purple 309–310, 349

threeawn, red See threeawn, purple

timothy 132, 135, 142, 196, 205–206, 208, 215–216,

259, 261, 264–265, 269, 271, 289, 309, 311, 

399–401, 701

Clair 401

Climax 302, 400

Drummond 302

varieties 401

timothy, alpine 259, 269, 289, 309, 311, 398–399, 701,

763

timothy, mountain See timothy, alpine

tissue analysis 53

topography 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

toxicant 97

transplanter 82, 83, 740, 742

transplanting 23, 262, 739

equipment 764, 765

treatment of propagative material 190

treatments

costs 64

economic benefits 64

impacts on resources 64

visual impacts 64

trefoil, birdsfoot 272, 283

trencher 84
Index-18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

Trifolium See clover

Trifolium fragiferum See clover, strawberry

Trifolium hybridum See clover, alsike

Trifolium pratense See clover, red

Trifolium repens See clover, white

trisetum, spike 309, 311

Truax drill 74, 75

Truax Seed Slinger 76

Truax single row seeder 81

turkey 178, 179

Tye drill 75

U

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Agricultural Research Service 4

Bureau of Plant Industry 2, 3

Division of Botany 2

Forest Reserves 2

Forest Service 17

Great Basin Experimental Range 16

Great Basin Station 3–4, 16, 17

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment

Station 3, 16

Intermountain Research Station 4–5, 17

Office of Grazing Studies 3

Rocky Mountain Research Station 5

Shrubland Biology and Restoration Project 4

Natural Resources Conservation Service 5, 17

Plant Materials Centers 4

urea 54

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 4, 17

Utah State Division of Fish and Game 16

V

vacuum-type seed harvesters 713

valerian, edible 260–261, 264, 429

vegetation condition 26

vegetation status 61

vegetation types 7, 9, 11, 13, 34, 36–38, 308, 601 See

also communities, plant

vegetative propagation 748, 759–763

vetch, American 182–183, 260, 270, 429

vetch, bramble 429

Vicia americana See vetch, American

Viguiera miltiflora nevadensis See goldeneye, Nevada

Viguiera multiflora multiflora See goldeneye, showy

violet, Nuttall 260

virginsbower, western 605, 654–656, 711, 752

vitamin A 179

W

water 171–172

water developments 171

watershed 131

weed control 62–63, 131, 147

weeds, annual communities 308, 601

weeds, annual lowland communities 9, 257–258

weeds, noxious 211

wet and semiwet meadow communities 9, 168,

206–208, 261, 308, 601

wet meadows 262

wheatgrass, beardless 310, 701 See also wheatgrass,

bluebunch

Whitmar 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, 341

Goldar 341

Goldlar 302

NewHy 302, 341

P-7 302, 341

Whitmar 342

wheatgrass, bluebunch bearded 310, 701

wheatgrass, crested 182, 312, 316 See wheatgrass,

fairway crested

wheatgrass, desert 182–184, 196 See wheatgrass,

standard crested

wheatgrass, 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, 316

Ephraim 302, 316–317, 724

Fairway 302, 317

Nordan 316

Parkway 302, 317

Ruff 302, 317

wheatgrass, hybrid

CD-II 316

Hycrest 316–317

NewHy 262

SL-1 342

SL1 302

wheatgrass, hybrid crested

CDII 303

Hycrest 294, 303

Kirk 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, 330

Chief 303, 330

Clarke 303, 330

Greenar 330

Greenbar 303

Greenleaf 304, 331

Luna 304, 331, 724

Oahe 303, 330

Ree 330
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004 Index-19

Reliant 303, 330

Rush 303, 330

Slate 303, 330

Tegmar 303, 331

Topar 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 304

Vavilov 304

wheatgrass, slender 142, 196, 259, 264–265, 269,

271, 277, 282, 287, 289, 309–310, 342, 701

Adanac 304, 344

Primar 304, 344

Pryor 304, 345

Revenue 304, 345

San Luis 304, 345

wheatgrass, Snake River 309, 338

Secar 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, 324

Summit 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, 326

Jose 305, 327

Largo 305, 327

Orbit 305, 327

Platte 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, 319

Critana 305

Schwendimar 305, 320

Sodar 305

Soday 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, 336

Barton 305, 336

Flintlock 305, 336

Rodan 305, 336

Rosana 305, 336, 337

Walsh 305, 337

wheatgreass, crested 297

whortleberry 711

wilding stock 739–740, 742, 759

wildlife habitat 109–110, 112, 131, 155, 539

cover 110, 131, 157

edges, vegetative 111

security 162

thermal 161

improvement 156

management 113

wildrye, alkali 309, 311, 382 See also wildrye, low

creeping

wildrye, Altai 309–310

Eejay 306

Pearl 306

Prairieland 306

wildrye, beardless 311 See wildrye, creeping

wildrye, blue 269, 309–310, 377–379

Arlington 306, 378–379

wildrye, Canada 309–310, 373–374

Mandan 306, 374

wildrye, creeping 264, 265, 311, 383–384

Rio 384

Shoshone 384

wildrye, Dahurian

Arthur 306

James 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, 724

Trailhead 306, 377

wildrye, low creeping See wildrye, alkali

wildrye, mammoth 264, 265, 309–310, 702

Volga 306

wildrye, purple 310

wildrye, 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, 380

Cabree 307, 380

Mankota 307, 380

Mayak 307, 381

Swift 307, 381

Tetracan 307, 381

Vinall 307, 381

wildrye, Salina 262, 291, 309–310, 381–382

wildrye, yellow 310

willow 206, 208, 210–11, 213, 262, 266–268, 668–670

willow, arroyo 268, 680–681

Rogue 681

willow, barrenground 268

willow, Bebb 268, 670–672

Wilson 672

willow, Booth 268, 605, 672–673

willow, coyote 605, 676, 752
Index-20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136. 2004

willow, Drummond 268, 605, 673–675

Curlew 674

willow, Geyer 268, 676–677

willow, grayleaf 268, 677–678

willow, Pacific 268

willow, peachleaf 268

willow, plainleaf 683–684

willow, purpleosier 262, 605, 752

willow, sandbar 268 See also willow, coyote

willow, Scouler 268, 605, 684–686, 752

willow, whiplash 605, 679–680

Nehalem 680

Roland 680

willow, Wolf 268, 686–687

willow, yellow 681–683

winterfat 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, 488

winterfat, foothills 486

winterfat, Pamirian 469, 486, 488

wipe-on applicators 92, 93

wormwood 495 See sage, Louisiana

wormwood, common 498

wormwood, dwarf 498

wormwood, oldman 495, 497–498, 605, 711, 741, 753

wortleberry, 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, 54

zuckia, Arizona 469

Zuckia brandegei See hopsage, spineless
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and 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 equal

opportunity provider and employer.

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, 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

RMRS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION
Shadscale—bottlebrush squirreltail plant community Photo by Bob Moseley