United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical 

Report

PNW-GTR-864

October 2012

Natural and Cultural 

History of Beargrass 

(Xerophyllum tenax)

Susan Hummel, Sarah Foltz-Jordan, and Sophia Polasky 
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national 

grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a 

growing Nation.

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, sexual 

orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training 

programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or 

activities).

If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.),

contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD).

If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than 

English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA

office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 

632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at 

(800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). You may use USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Forms AD-3027 or AD-3027s (Spanish) which can be found at: 

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or upon request from a local Forest 

Service office. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Authors

Susan Hummel is a research forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 620 SW 

Main Street, Suite 400 Portland, OR 97205; Sarah Foltz-Jordan is a conservation 

associate, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 628 NE Broadway, Suite 

200, Portland, OR 97232; and Sophia Polasky is a forestry technician, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry 

Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Cover photograph by Frank Lake.
Natural and Cultural History of 

Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Susan Hummel, Sarah Foltz-Jordan, and Sophia Polasky 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station 

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-864

October 2012

Published in cooperation with:

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation

Portland, Oregon
Abstract 

Hummel, Susan; Foltz-Jordan, Sarah; Polasky, Sophia. 2012. Natural and 

cultural history of beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax). Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-864. Portland, OR: U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 80 p.

Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.) is a source of food, habitat, and raw 

material for animals, pollinating insects, and people across its range in the Western 

United States. The plant has long been used by Native Americans, who harvest 

the leaves for basketry and other crafts. More recently, beargrass has become 

an important component of international trade for the commercial floral greens 

industry. Changes in natural and anthropogenic disturbances are occurring within 

the range of beargrass, including fire frequency and severity, plant harvest intensity, 

and land use. This report documents how changes in disturbance patterns might 

affect beargrass and its associated ecosystem diversity, identifies gaps in knowledge 

or potential conflicts in human use, and records quantitative and qualitative information on the natural and cultural history of beargrass. We list and discuss some 

key sociocultural, environmental, and economic issues that relate to managing 

beargrass and the forested ecosystems in which it grows. These include a lack of 

information on the main factors affecting beargrass reproduction and persistence, 

including the importance of pollinators and light environment on plant fitness; 

differences in desired leaf properties sought by traditional and commercial harvesters; and inconsistent documentation on the volume and properties of harvested 

beargrass in total and by harvester group. Future research needs include advancing knowledge of the effects of human and natural disturbances on the plant and 

its habitat, including silvicultural practices, leaf harvest practices, and fire (both 

prescribed and wild). 

Keywords: Beargrass, Xerophyllum tenax, community diversity, forest management, floral greens, basketry, fire pollination ecology, reproductive strategies.
Contents

1 Introduction 

1 Beargrass Characteristics

1 Taxonomy and Nomenclature 

3 Morphology and Reproduction

4 Plant Growth and Development 

5 Cultivation

6 Range 

6 Habitat 

12 Ecosystem Roles 

13 Beargrass Pollination Biology 

13 Beargrass Pollination

17 Life History Patterns of Main Pollinating Species/Guilds

18 Importance of Pollinators to Beargrass 

21 Importance of Beargrass to Pollinators

22 Tribal and Contemporary Uses and Values for Beargrass

22 Native American Uses and Values

23 Cultural Value of Basketry

26 Native American Harvesters 

27 Seasonality and Location of Native American Harvest

28 Traditional Harvest Practices 

28 Commercial Value of Basketry

30 The Commercial Floral Greens Industry 

31 Market Stakeholders 

31 Harvesting Practices 

33 Permitting and Regulation 

34 Economic Value of Commercial Beargrass Harvesting

35 Additional Benefits and Costs of Commercial Beargrass Harvesting 

35 Beargrass Disturbances 

36 Fire 

39 Vegetative Reproduction, Percentage of Cover, and Leaf Characteristics 

40 Sexual Reproduction 

40 Establishment and Survival
41 Effects of Fire Suppression on Beargrass

43 Effects of Fire Disturbance on Pollinator Community 

45 Harvest by Native Americans 

48 The Floral Greens Industry 

50 Timber Harvest 

52 Invasive Species 

53 Root Diseases 

53 Avalanches and Landslides 

54 Management and Research Considerations for Beargrass Ecosystems

55 Social and Cultural Considerations 

55 Environmental Considerations

57 Ecosystem Considerations

57 Economic Considerations

58 Beargrass Management Considerations

58 Research Needs and Opportunities 

60 Potential Management Activities 

63 Conserving Beargrass Ecosystem Diversity 

64 References 
1

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Introduction

Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt.) is a source of food, habitat, and raw 

material for animals, pollinating insects, and people across its range in the Western 

United States (fig. 1). Some of its colloquial names hint at its many virtues: bear 

lily, deer grass, elk grass, pine-lily, soap grass, Indian basket grass, American grass, 

and western turkeybeard. Beargrass is a herbaceous, perennial monocot with long, 

fibrous, evergreen leaves and a succulent rhizome. The flowers are displayed on a 

distinctively tall stalk (fig. 2). The plant has long been used by Native Americans, 

who harvest the leaves for basketry and other crafts. More recently, beargrass has 

become an important component of international trade for the commercial floral 

greens industry. 

Changes in natural and anthropogenic disturbances are occurring within the 

range of beargrass, including fire frequency and severity, plant harvest intensity, 

and land use. This report will document how changes in disturbance patterns might 

affect beargrass and its associated ecosystem diversity, identify gaps in knowledge 

or potential conflicts in human use, and record quantitative and qualitative information on the natural and cultural history of beargrass. Such information is prerequisite to informed research and management of the ecosystems in which beargrass 

grows.

Beargrass Characteristics

Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Beargrass is not a true grass but is classified as a lily (order Liliales). It is in the 

Melanthiaceae family, together with the genera Trillium and Paris, which differ 

morphologically from beargrass (Rudall et al. 2000). Only two members of the 

Xerophyllum genus exist. The congeneric Xerophyllum asphodeloides (L.) Nutt.—

or eastern turkeybeard—is restricted to the Southeastern United States. Eastern 

turkeybeard is similar to beargrass in form, but is smaller than beargrass in both 

basal area and size of flower, or inflorescence (Rentz 2003). Beargrass is not listed 

as a threatened plant (Higgins et al. 2004, Maule 1959, Rentz 2003, USDA FS 2011), 

whereas eastern turkeybeard is classified as threatened in Tennessee and rare in 

Georgia (USDA FS 2011). 

The scientific name of beargrass is derived from Greek: xeros (dry), phyllon 

(leaf); and Latin: tenax (grasping, tenacious) (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). Its 

prevaling common name is derived from being a food source for bears (Crane 

1990). 
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Figure 1—Map of beargrass global range, showing two disjunct distributions.

Figure 2—Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) in flower.

 Chris Schepf, University of Idaho, Bugwood.org
3

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Morphology and Reproduction

Beargrass is a herbaceous, rhizomatous plant with a perennial mass of narrow, long, 

basally clustered leaves (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). The plant can reproduce 

both vegetatively (by sprouting from the rhizome) and sexually (by flowering). 

The rhizome is a tuberous, semiwoody rootstock, 1 to 2 cm thick with cordlike roots (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Maule 1959). Each vegetative shoot 

arises from the upper surface of the rhizome at the leaf base (Crane 1990). The 

basal leaves are tough, fibrous and wiry and occur in large clumps (Hitchcock and 

Cronquist 1973, Pojar and MacKinnon 1994). Beargrass leaves can be 15 to 100 cm 

long and 2 to 10 mm wide at their base, decreasing in width to a thin, stiff, wiry tip 

(Maule 1959, Rentz 2003, Vance et al. 2001). Leaves typically have one series of 

unbranched parallel veins, with a keeled rib-line and edges that are rough and finely 

toothed (Rentz 2003). The stem leaves are much shorter than the basal leaves (Pojar 

and MacKinnon 1994). The leaves of beargrass are typical of xerophytic plants 

in that they have a thickened cuticle and restriction of stomata to the lower leaf 

surface. Such adaptations minimize water loss during periods of drought (Rentz 

2003). In addition, a thick-walled epidermis provides beargrass with insulation and 

contributes to its frost tolerance (Rentz 2003). 

When flowering, beargrass produces a single, erect, unbranched flowering 

stalk that bears a dense, terminal inflorescence of 50 to 400 flowers (Munger 2003, 

Vance et al. 2001) (fig. 2). The flowers mature successively from the bottom to the 

top, so that midway through the flowering season (approximately May–August), 

the raceme appears as a conical or cylindrical cluster of opened flowers topped 

by unopened floral buds (Maule 1959, Vance et al. 2004). The lily-like flowers 

are approximately 1.3 cm across, white to cream colored, with six distinct tepals 

(Munger 2003). The ovaries are three-celled (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973). 

Each flower has six stamens with long violet filaments and yellowish pollen 

released on the anthers (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Vance et al. 2001). There 

is no conspicuous difference in pollen morphology between beargrass and eastern 

turkeybeard (Takahashi and Kawano 1989). Pollen size is reported as 22.6 by 29.0 

μm in the major axis of the ellipse and 14.9 by 19.9 μm in the polar axis (Takahashi 

and Kawano 1989). Floral nectar is not present at any stage in the floral lifespan 

of beargrass (Vance et al. 2004), and floral scent is variable. For example, Vance 

et al. (2004) reported that one-fifth of the beargrass flowers in their sample had a 

sweet smell like cultivated lilacs (Syringa), while the remaining four-fifths smelled 

musty-acrid. 
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Beargrass fruits are three-lobed, ovoid, acute, dry capsules, generally about 5 

to 7 mm in length (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973, Pojar and MacKinnon 1994). 

Vance et al. (2004) found that the fruits contained an average of seven seeds. Crane 

(1990) reported that beargrass seeds are approximately 4 mm long and average 

about 830,000 per pound (about 1,830,000 per kilogram). Mature seeds are light tan 

in color (Wick et al. 2008).

Plant Growth and Development 

Plants (and individual leaves) may live for several years, producing vegetative 

growth and offshoots (Rentz 2003, Vance et al. 2004). Death of a plant is reported 

to occur upon flowering (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973), but because vegetative 

reproduction (offshoot production from the rhizome) occurs before flowering, the 

plants are persistent and long lived (Crane 1990, Laursen 1984). The phenology 

of this plant (growth, development, and response to changing climate) is not well 

studied. Empirical evidence is lacking if leaving tillers during leaf harvest prevents 

subsequent flowering of the plant.

Vegetative reproduction generally takes place between spring and summer 

(Peter and Shebitz 1996) and may occur throughout an individual’s lifespan (Crane 

1990). Field observations suggest that sprouting of the rhizome may be increased 

by habitat disturbance, including fire and timber harvest (Crane 1990, Shebitz et al. 

2009, Thomas and Schumann 1993). Rhizomes are capable of sprouting following 

severe disturbance and can be relocated by high-elevation mudflows and debris 

slides (Adams et al. 1987).

The onset and length of flowering in beargrass appears to differ with differences in soil temperature, aspect, canopy cover, and elevation. Flowering has been 

reported as early as April (Vance et al. 2004), and as late as September (Maule 

1959). Anthesis (the period of time during which the flower is fully expanded so 

pollination can occur) is successive along the peduncle. It begins with the most 

basal flowers in the raceme and progresses upward; the same inflorescence may 

have receptive flowers for up to 2 weeks, while each individual flower is receptive 

for only a few days (Vance et al. 2004). Fruit set begins in mid-summer (July), and 

mature seeds dehisce in late summer (Crane 1990, Vance et al. 2004). 

In some beargrass populations, flowering occurs in cycles (5- to 7-year) and 

can be synchronous throughout the population, while at other sites, flowering is 

sporadic (Crane 1990, Rentz 2003). At experimental sites in Mount Rainier National 

Park, Washington, profuse blooming was reported to occur almost every year, and 

low flower abundance was the exception rather than the norm (Maule 1959). The 

observed variability in flowering patterns is not well understood, but may be related 

to site-specific environmental conditions (Crane 1990). 
5

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

The relative importance of vegetative vs. sexual reproduction varies with 

habitat characteristics. Flowering in beargrass has been reported to be most prevalent in plants growing in the open, or in forest gaps, and is less frequent as the forest 

canopy recloses (Crane 1990, Maule 1959, Vance et al. 2004). In a study in Mount 

Rainier National Park, Maule (1959) speculated that the amount of light reaching 

the plant was “the most obviously important [factor] in bringing about flowering.” 

In her study, no beargrass plants were observed blooming in deep shade (although 

old flowering stalks were present), and all flowering plants were confined to open 

meadows, forests with filtered light, and shrub-covered areas. Similarly, experimental manipulations of beargrass habitat by Shebitz et al. (2009a) found that both 

flowering and vegetative reproduction (shoot production) increased in areas where 

vegetation and coarse woody debris were manually cleared. Low temperatures, 

particularly soil temperatures, also may inhibit flowering, even independent of light 

environment. Maule (1959) examined soil temperatures of flowering and nonflowering plants at 34 stations in Mount Rainier National Park and found that soil temperatures around the roots of flowering plants (at a depth of 7.6 cm) were between 

0.5 to 2.5 °C higher than those beneath nonflowering plants in the same vicinity 

with approximately the same amount of moisture and sunlight. At only two of the 

stations were the root temperatures of flowering and nonflowering plants the same, 

and in no case was root temperature of a nonflowering plant found to be higher 

than a flowering one. Competition for water or nutrients may also be a factor.

Topography, humus content of the soil, and ground cover characteristics may 

also influence soil temperature and affect flowering patterns. As with many plants, 

beargrass flowering tendencies may be influenced by the length and warmth of the 

growing season of the previous year when the flower buds were formed (Maule 

1959). Overall, vegetative reproduction is reported to occur more frequently than 

flowering (Vance et al. 2001).

Cultivation

Beargrass is considered difficult, but possible, to cultivate (Vance et al. 2001). 

Wild-collected seeds may be sown either in greenhouses or in the wild; both 

wild-harvested and greenhouse-grown seedlings can be transplanted (Vance et al. 

2001, Wick et al. 2008). In contrast, offshoots and mature plants collected from the 

wild can fail to establish in containers or be successfully transplanted (Vance et al. 

2001, Wick et al. 2008). Wild seeds are generally collected in late August and early 

September when capsules turn tan and open (Wick et al. 2008). Both wild-collected 

seeds and greenhouse-grown plants are commercially available.
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Beargrass seed requires cold stratification for germination (Crane 1990), and a 

14-week cold stratification period has been successfully used (Shebitz et al. 2009b). 

Based on a greenhouse study of seed germination, the same study recommended 

soaking beargrass seeds for 24 hours in smoke-infused water prior to sowing 

(Shebitz et al. 2009b). Because beargrass is mycorrhizal, it may require soil with 

appropriate fungi for growth (Vance et al. 2001), and a significant increase has been 

observed in first-year seedlings that were given a mycorrhizal inoculant (Wick et al. 

2008). A detailed propagation protocol is provided by Wick et al. (2008).

Range 

Beargrass is restricted to western North America and has two disjunct distributions: one maritime extends north from west-central California through Oregon to 

the Olympic Peninsula and Cascade Mountains in northwestern Washington; the 

other extends north from Wyoming to Canada along the Rocky Mountains (Crane 

1990, Maule 1959, Vance et al. 2001) (fig. 3). In the maritime distribution, beargass 

occurs sparingly near sea level in the coastal region, from Monterey County in 

west-central California to northwestern Washington, and again just below the 

summits of the Coast Range mountains over almost the same latitudinal range. In 

the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range, it is found from Placer County, California, 

northward about 700 miles to Stampede Pass, Washington, and ranges in elevation 

from approximately 610 to 2134 m (2,000 to 7,000 ft) (Higgins et al. 2004, Maule 

1959). In the continental distribution, beargrass it grows at elevations between 610 

to 2134 m (Maule 1959).

Habitat

Beargrass is an early to late-successional pioneer species that inhabits a wide 

variety of habitat types, including woodlands, clearings, meadows, bogs, slopes, 

ridges, coniferous forests, and nonforested, steep talus slopes (Vance et al. 2001). It 

can be a significant component of subalpine meadows (Shebitz et al. 2008), and also 

can dominate the understory of dry, mixed-coniferous forest types (Higgins et al. 

2004). It is found at highest density under canopy openings in various forest types. 

Lists of plants associated with beargrass are provided in tables 1 and 2 (Crane 

1990). Beargrass is adapted to harsh environmental conditions, such as low nutrient 

levels, low moisture levels, and cold weather conditions (Rentz 2003). Crane (1990) 

described beargrass communities and site characteristics, in the two distributions, 

as follows: 
7

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Figure 3—Documented beargrass locations (Maule 1959). 

WA S H I N G T O N

O R E G O N

CALIFORNIA

N E VA D A

U TA H

I D A H O

M O N TA N A

BRITISH COLUMBIA A L B E R TA
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Table 1—Tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species reported to grow in association with 

Xerophyllum tenax (note: list is not exhaustive)

Species Common name Reference

Trees:

Abies amabilis Pacific silver fir Crane 1990

Abies grandis Grand fir Crane 1990

Abies lasiocarpa Subalpine fir Crane 1990

Abies shastensis Shasta red fir Crane 1990

Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone Peter and Shebitz 2006

Pinus contorta Lodgepole pine Peter and Shebitz 2006

Pinus monticola Western white pine Crane 1990

Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas-fir Peter and Shebitz 2006

Salix scouleriana Scoulers willow Peter and Shebitz 2006

Thuja plicata Western redcedar Schlosser and Blatner 1997

Tsuga heterophylla Mountain hemlock Vance et al. 2001

Tsuga mertensiana Western hemlock Schlosser and Blatner 1997

Abies lasiocarpa Subalpine fir Vance et al. 2001

Abies procera Noble fir Vance et al. 2001

Shrubs:

Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick Peter and Shebitz 2006

Arctostaphylos x media Manzanita Peter and Shebitz 2006

Mahonia aquifolium Hollyleaved barberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

Eriophyllum lanatum var. lanatum Wooly sunflower Peter and Shebitz 2006

Gaultheria shallon Salal Peter and Shebitz 2006

Goodyera oblongifolia Western rattlesnake plantain Peter and Shebitz 2006

Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray Peter and Shebitz 2006

Kalmia microphylla Western swamp laurel Shebitz 2005

Ledum groenlandicum oeder Labrador tea Shebitz 2005

Lonicera ciliosa Orange honeysuckle Peter and Shebitz 2006

Menziesia ferruginea Fool’s huckleberry Schlosser and Blatner 1997

Paxistima myrsinites Oregon boxleaf Peter and Shebitz 2006

Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododendron Peter and Shebitz 2006

Rosa gymnocarpa Dwarf rose Peter and Shebitz 2006

Symphoricarpos hesperius Trailing snowberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf bilberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

Vaccinium ovatum California huckleberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

Vaccinum sp. Whortleberry Vance et al. 2001

Herbs:

Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis Western yarrow Peter and Shebitz 2006

Agrostis pallens Seashore bentgrass Peter and Shebitz 2006

Allotropa virgata Sugarstick Peter and Shebitz 2006

Anemone lyallii Little mountain thimbleweed Peter and Shebitz 2006

Antennaria howellii spp. neodioica Howell’s pussytoes Peter and Shebitz 2006

Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Peter and Shebitz 2006
9

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Table 1—Tree, shrub, and herbaceous plant species reported to grow in association with 

Xerophyllum tenax (note: list is not exhaustive) (continued)

Species Common name Reference

Boschniakia hookeri Vancouver ground cone Peter and Shebitz 2006

Cyperaceae family Sedges Vance et al. 2001

Camassia quamash var. azurea Prairie camas; blue camas Shebitz 2005

Campanula scouleri Pale bellflower Peter and Shebitz 2006

Castilleja hispida Harsh Indian paintbrush Peter and Shebitz 2006

Danthonia spicata var. pinetorum Poverty oatgrass Peter and Shebitz 2006

Erythronium oregonum Giant white fawnlily Peter and Shebitz 2006

Festuca roemeri Roemer’s fescue Peter and Shebitz 2006

Fragaria virginiana ssp. Virginia strawberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

	 Fritillaria affinis Checker lily Peter and Shebitz 2006

Iris tenax Toughleaf iris Peter and Shebitz 2006

Lilium columbianum Columbian lily Peter and Shebitz 2006

Linnaea borealis Twinflower Schlosser and Blatner 1997

Lupinus albicaulis Sicklekeel lupine Peter and Shebitz 2006

Lupinus latifolius Broadleaf lupine Peter and Shebitz 2006

	 Luzula multiflora Common woodrush Peter and Shebitz 2006

Packera macounii Siskiyou mountain ragwort Peter and Shebitz 2006

Polystichum munitum Western swordfern Peter and Shebitz 2006

Pteridium aquilinum Western brackenfern Peter and Shebitz 2006

Ruppertia physodes Forest scurfpea Peter and Shebitz 2006

Ranunculus occidentalis var. 

 occidentalis Western buttercup Peter and Shebitz 2006

Rubus ursinus California blackberry Peter and Shebitz 2006

Solidago simplex ssp. simplex 

 var. simplex Mount Albert goldenrod Peter and Shebitz 2006

Trillium ovatum Pacific trillium Peter and Shebitz 2006

Viola adunca var. adunca Hookedspur violet Peter and Shebitz 2006

Table 2—Plants associated with beargrass (Kuchler classification)

Kuchler

Plant association classification

California mixed-evergreen forest K029

Cedar-hemlock-pine forest K013 

Douglas-fir forest K012

Fir-hemlock forest K004

Grand fir–Douglas-fir forest K014

Lodgepole pine–subalpine fir forest K008

Mixed-conifer forest K005

Silver fir–Douglas-fir forest K003

Western spruce–fir forest K015

Source: Crane 1990.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

West Coast sites— 

In the Coast Range of Oregon, beargrass is found on steep sites on well-drained, 

frequently shallow soils on rugged, rocky topography near ridgetops. In the 

Cascade Range, it may be dominant on cold dry ridges and mountain tops ranging in elevation from 1433 to 1768 m (4,700 to 5,800 ft) with soils that are poorly 

drained in spring and excessively well drained in summer. In the silver fir zone it 

does best toward the xeric end of the moisture gradient. Understories on relatively 

dry silver fir and mountain hemlock sites may have little vegetation growing other 

than beargrass and huckleberry (Vaccinium sp.) In Oregon’s subalpine fir zone, it 

does best on upper south slopes and ridges. Beargrass is common in the mixedevergreen and mixed-conifer zones on relatively cool, dry sites under Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) (Mirb.) Franco), grand fir (Abies grandis Douglas ex.

D. Don Lindl. (Hook. Arn.), incense-cedar (Libocedrus decurrens Torr.), sugar 

pine (Pinus lambertiana) (Douglas), tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus (Hook Arn.) 

Rehder), golden chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla Douglas ex Hook.), and 

California black oak (Quercus kelloggii Newberry) in southern Oregon, northern 

California, and the Siskiyou Mountains.

Rocky Mountain continental sites— 

At the northeastern limit of its range, beargrass is found on moderate to steep southfacing slopes on colluvial and morainal landforms with Engelmann spruce (Picea 

engelmannii Perry ex Engelm.), subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook) Nutt.), and 

whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis Engelm.) Beargrass is dominant with menziesia 

(Menziesia ferruginea Sm.) in subalpine forests near the border between the United 

States and Canada. Although they grow together, beargrass favors more xeric conditions than does menziesia. In northern Idaho, beargrass grows predominantly 

on ridges and the upper portions of slopes. Pure stands of beargrass are found in 

treeless open parks with summer-dry soils on high ridges and southerly slopes in 

northern Idaho and eastern Washington. In northern Idaho western redcedar (Thuja 

plicata Donn ex D. Don.) stands, beargrass is most common at higher elevations. 

In Montana, beargrass may extend slightly from the forest into adjacent grasslands 

(Crane 1990). See table 3 for forest types with which beargrass is associated. 

Soils—

A variety of shallow soil types, including sand, loam, sand-loam, gravel, rock, and 

clay-loam soils are suitable for beargrass (Crane 1990, Vance et al. 2001). Acidic 

soils support good beargrass growth, but growth is poor on organic, saline, or sodic 

soil types (Crane 1990). Soil pH within the range of beargrass ranges from 5.5. to 

7.2 (USDA 2011). Crane (1990) identified granite, quartzite, serpentine, volcanic 
11

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

ash, olivine gabbro, and basaltic lava as suitable for beargrass growth and limestone 

and pumice as not suitable. In the Northwest, beargrass is associated with soils of 

low fertility and productivity (e.g., serpentine soils, high in heavy metals and low in 

nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium) (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Vance et al. 2001). 

Beargrass tolerates a range of moisture conditions and appears to grow well 

on soils that are moderately to excessively well-drained. For example, it has been 

reported to thrive in shallow, rocky soils near ridgetops, but also inhabit forested 

areas with seasonally saturated soils (Higgins et al. 2004). According to Maule 

(1959), beargrass thrives equally well on dry sunny hillsides and on moisturesaturated soil immediately below melting snow or in bogs near sea level. It is often 

found on steep sites in which the soils are saturated in the spring and well drained 

later in the season (Crane 1990, Higgins et al. 2004, Maule 1959). 

Slope— 

The aspect of slope (or exposure) may be a key factor influencing the distribution 

and growth of beargrass. Aspect influences light availability, soil temperature, and 

length of the snow-free growing season. In Mount Rainier National Park, beargrass 

occurred most often on south-facing slopes (Maule 1959). In contrast, Brockway et 

al. (1983) reported that beargrass sites in the Pacific silver fir/big huckleberry and 

mountain hemlock/big huckleberry plant associations were the northerly aspects of 

upper slopes in the southern Washington Cascades.

Table 3—Forest cover types with which beargrass is associated 

Forest cover types Classification 

Coastal true fir–hemlock 226

Douglas-fir–tanoak–Pacific madrone 234

Douglas-fir–western hemlock 230

Engelmann spruce–subalpine fir 206

Grand fir 213

Interior Douglas-fir 210

Lodgepole pine 218

Mountain hemlock 205

Pacific Douglas-fir 229

Port Orford-cedar 231

Red fir 207

Western larch 212

Western redcedar 228

Western redcedar–western hemlock 227

Western white pine 215

White fir 211

Source: Crane 1990.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Climatic conditions— 

The annual precipitation within the range of beargrass is listed by the USDA as 

being from 48 to 175 cm (USDA 2011). However, Henderson et al. (1989) reported 

that, in high-elevation beargrass sites, mean annual precipitation has been recorded 

as 250 cm. Beargrass is considered very frost tolerant (Crane 1990) and is thus indicative of frost-prone environments. In particular, severe frosts can be anticipated 

where beargrass dominates the herbaceous layer on ridgetops, benches, and slopes 

less than 15 percent (Brockway et al. 1983). Beargrass has been reported to remain 

buried in snow until April at some California sites (Rentz 2003). It requires an average minimum of 120 frost-free days (USDA 2011). 

Light environment— 

The light requirements for reproduction (vegetative or sexual) and growth of beargrass are not well understood; the plant has been observed in a variety of light conditions. Beargrass can grow in dense, dark forests with little or no direct sunlight 

(Higgins et al. 2004) and on open slopes exposed to direct sun (Maule 1959). While 

the amount of light does not appear to limit beargrass survival, it may affect the 

reproductive strategy of this plant (see “Morphology and Reproduction” on p. 3). 

According to Vance et al. (2004), this species is limited by a “fairly substantial light 

requirement” to produce flowering stalks. The light environment affects the quantity and quality of vegetative growth (Higgins et al. 2004, Schlosser and Blatner 

1997). Diffuse sunlight through an elevated forest canopy is one of the primary 

characteristics associated with the production of high-quality leaves for commercial 

harvest (Schlosser and Blatner 1997). Further information on the effects of canopy 

density on leaf characteristics is in the commercial harvest section, below. Overall, 

beargrass is reported to achieve the highest densities and reproductive success under canopy openings (i.e., dappled light environment) where it grows vigorously and 

blooms profusely (Crane 1990). 

Ecosystem Roles

Beargrass provides food for animals large and small. Bees consume its pollen and, 

in spring, bears eat the fleshy part of the leaf base (Pojar and MacKinnon 1994). 

Likewise, mice and pocket gophers feed on the fleshy leaf bases and rhizomes 

(Vance et al. 2001). The flowering stalks of beargrass are eaten by a variety of 

mammal and insect herbivores, including elk and deer in summer, and the more 

tender leaves are eaten by these animals year-round (Crane 1990, Vance et al. 2001). 

Because the leaves remain over the winter, they also provide food for mountain 
13

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

goats when resources are otherwise limited (Vance et al. 2001). Beargrass pollen provides food for a diversity of insects, including at least 36 species of flies, 

beetles, and bees from at least 14 different families (Vance et al. 2004). Beargrass 

leaves and flowers also provide habitat, nesting material, and foraging territory for 

animals, from mice to grizzly bears (Crane 1990, Vance et al. 2004). Our focus in 

this review is on pollinator insects because they have an important role in nutrient 

cycling within terrestrial ecosystems and provide essential services that sustain 

plant communities and form the basis of an energy-rich food web (Black et al. 2007, 

Kearns et al. 1998).

Beargrass Pollination Biology 

Major groups of pollinators that visit beargrass include bees (order Hymenoptera), 

beetles (order Coleoptera), and flies (order Diptera). Differences exist in resource 

needs, morphology, and evolutionary histories among these insect orders; summaries are listed in table 4.

Pollination in every flowering plant species is restricted by several factors, 

including phenology of bloom; type, quality, and quantity of rewards; floral morphology (which affects access to the rewards); and floral stimuli, such as colors, 

shapes, and scents. Flower color and scent are important attractants to potential 

pollinators, while nectar and pollen are important rewards (Faegri and van der Pijl 

1979). Because beargrass flowers do not contain nectar, this plant is restricted to 

pollinators that consume pollen as a primary reward (Vance et al. 2004) and those 

that are attracted to whitish flowers with an acrid or musty scent. Despite these 

limitations, beargrass attracts numerous and diverse insect pollinators (Vance et al. 

2004).

Beargrass Pollination

The published, peer-reviewed literature on beargrass pollination is limited to 

one study in the Oregon Cascade Range. In this study, 138 insect foragers were 

observed and collected from beargrass flowers, representing members of the 

Diptera (flies) Coleoptera (beetles), and Hymenoptera (bees) orders (table 5, fig. 4). 

Among them, flies (91 percent of which were in the Syrphidae family) were the 

most numerous and diverse group of foragers. Flower-visiting beetles (Coleoptera) 

were represented by four families, of which Cermbycidae was the most common. 

Four families of bees (Hymenoptera) were also collected from beargrass, although 

no more than two individuals were observed from any one species (Vance et al. 

2004) (table 5). 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Table 4—Major beargrass pollinators groups

 Relative

Pollinating Pollen uses importance of 

group Pollinator preferences and transfer group/guild Range Sources

Melittophily Attracted to flowers of Pollen is 20,000 to 30,000 Widespread. Fenster et al. 2004,

(bee pollination) various sizes, shapes, primarily species worldwide Bees become Kearns and Inouye 

and colors. Pollen and gathered by of bee pollinators; less active 1997, 

nectar are important adult females most important under cooler, O’Toole and 

floral rewards. for larval food; taxon of pollinating wetter Raw 1991

 nectar is insects. Although regimes,

 consumed few bees were hence plants 

 by male and observed on distributed at 

female adults beargrass flowers, higher

for flight fuel. those captured elevations

 carried a large load show shifts 

of pollen grain. towards fly-

 pollination.

Cantharophily Attracted to fragrant Adults feed on More than 184 Bernhardt 

(beetle flowers, large flowers, pollen, floral angiosperms are 2000,

pollination) bowl-shaped flowers tissue, and pollinated almost Faegri and

with exposed sexual nectar. Multiple exclusively by van der 

organs, small florets beetles forage beetles. Not all Pijl 1979,

united on compact on same flower families of beetles Gullan and

branch, open and together and are pollinators. Cranston 

actinomorphic are coated with Beetles have been 2010, 

flowers, white flowers. pollen while seen flying between Hawkeswood

(The white-colored mating and multiple beargrass and Turner 

mass-flowering feeding, flowers and are 2007,

presentations of resulting in therefore expected Kevin and 

beargrass serve as passive to be fairly efficient Baker

favorable foraging transfer. cross-pollinators. 1983,

spots for beetles.) O’Neill et al. 

 2008,

 Young 1988

Myophily Generalists, attracted Adults feed on Generally Often Campbell et 

(fly to a variety of floral pollen and considered principal al. 2007,

pollination) scents, shapes, nectar. second most pollinators Dobson, 

colors, and rewards. Females invest important group at high 2006, Eberling 

Hoverflies are lipids and of pollinators. elevations and Olesen

attracted to bowl- amino acids With regard to and latitudes. 1999, 

shaped flowers with from pollen beargrass, flies Faegri and

plentiful pollen and into eggs. are considered van der Pijl 

exposed sexual Diverse most effective 1979, 

organs. Bee flies feeding, pollinator group. Gullan and

prefer tube-shaped mating, and Cranston 2010, 

flowers. Fly-pollinated oviposition Kearns 1992,

flowers tend to have behaviors Larson et al. 

strong malodorous facilitate 2001

scents. (The white- transfer of 

colored, pollen-rich, pollen. 

nectarless, generally 

foul-smelling, massflowering

presentations of 

beargrass are 

especially attractive 

to flies.)
15

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Table 5—Beargrass pollinators pollen load analyses 

 Pollen load

Xerophyllum X. tenax and 

Insect taxon tenax only other species No pollen

Coleopetra 

Cermbycidae

Anastrangalia laetifica 2 1 0

Cosmosalia chrysacoma 18 7 0

Leptaura proponqua 1 0 0

Cleridae

Trichodes orantus 2 3 0

Meloidae 

 Epicauta sp. 12 0 1

Scarabaeidae

Dichelonyx backi 2 0 0

Diploytaxis sp. 1 0 0

 Subtotals 38 11 1

Diptera

Acroceridae

Eulonchus sp. 1 0 0

Asilidae

Laphria sp. 0 0 1

Bombyllidae

Conphorus sp. 1 0 0

Calliphoridae

Calliphora vomitoria 1 0 0

Tachinidae

Tachina sp. 0 1 0

Syrphidae 

Cheilosia hoodiana 20 0 1

Chrysotoxum fasciantum 4 0 1

Eriozona laxa 3 0 0

Eupeodes abberrantis 1 0 0

Hardromyia crawfordi 1 0 0

Hardromyia pulcher 1 0 0

Melangya triangulifera 1 0 0

Parasyrphus relictus 18 1 0

Sericomyia chalopyga 1 0 0

Syritta pipiens 1 0 0

Syrphus opinator 5 1 0

Syphus ribesii 3 2 0

 Subtotals 61 5 3

Hymenoptera 

Andrenidae

Andrenidie nivalis 0 1 0

Andrenidie vicina 1 1 0
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Table 5—Beargrass pollinators pollen load analyses (continued)

 Pollen load

Xerophyllum X. tenax and 

Insect taxon tenax only other species No pollen

Apidae

Apis mellifera 1 0 0

Bombus fernaldi 0 1 0

Halitidae

Halictus rubicundus sp. 0 1 0

Lasioglossum athabascence 1 1 0

Lasigolossum sp. 1 (Dialictus) 1 0 0

Lasigolossum sp. 2 (Dialictus) 2 0 0

Lasigolossum sp. (Evylaceus) 1 1 0

Megacgulidae

Coelioxys sp. 1 0 0

Megachile vidua 0 1 0

 Subtotals 8 6 0

Grand totals 110 23 5

Source: Vance et al. 2004.

Figure 4—Insects from several orders have been documented as pollinators of beargrass.

Steve Levy
17

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Beargrass pollinators exhibited notable differences in sex ratios between insect 

groups, which potentially reflect differences in resource needs and sexual function between insect groups (Vance et al. 2004). More than 62 percent of the hover 

flies were female, perhaps because they were attracted to the abundance of pollen 

produced by beargrass to use lipids and amino acids to invest in eggs. In contrast, 

male hover flies, not in need of pollen for egg production, may be less attracted to 

the nectarless flowers of beargrass (Vance et al. 2004). The majority of collected 

bees were female, like flies. As male bees are generally short lived, lower in overall 

abundance, and not tasked with collecting pollen for any offspring (and therefore 

not, theoretically, attracted to the nectarless flowers of beargrass), this result is 

not surprising. Unlike flies and bees, the male-to-female sex ratio of beetles was 

relatively high—64 percent of the 50 beetle specimens examined were male, including 92 percent of the common Cosmosalia chrysocoma (23 of 25 specimens). The 

high ratio of male beetles on beargrass inflorescences is likely owing to a previously documented beetle courtship behavior in which a male waits for the arrival of 

unfertilized beetles on preferred flowers (Bernhardt 2000, Vance et al. 2004). 

Direct observation of insect behavior and analyses of the pollen load carried 

by insects found on beargrass flowers suggest that flies, beetles, and bees do not 

contribute equally to the cross-pollination of beargrass (Vance et al. 2004). Based 

on visitation frequency and pollen load, Vance et al. (2004) identified hover flies as 

the most “faithful” vectors of beargrass pollen, likely to be affecting the majority 

of cross-pollination. Beetles appeared to be less efficient but still effective pollinators. Bees, in general, were the least frequently observed of all insect visitors. Their 

low abundance does not necessarily translate to insignificance, however. The bees 

that were observed and analyzed were found to carry the highest number of pollen 

grains, which may counterbalance their lower observed frequency. Bees are generally recognized for their ability to work flowers at a much greater speed than other 

visitors and therefore are likely to contribute more to pollination than is indicated 

by their frequency alone (Fenster et al. 2004). 

Life History Patterns of Main Pollinating Species/Guilds

A basic understanding of life history patterns of the major beargrass pollinator 

groups and species can help in making decisions about management activities that 

support ecosystem diversity and species conservation. Ranges of key pollinators 

may also be informative in determining potential regional effects of management 

strategies on pollinators, as well as in assessing the potential for discovering new 

pollinators in unstudied regions. Life history patterns (including feeding behavior, 

mating, and life cycle) and ranges (including preferred habitats) of key beargrass 
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

pollinators are presented in table 6. The responses of these species and groups to 

disturbances are discussed further in the disturbance section of this review. 

Importance of Pollinators to Beargrass

Mutualistic relationships between plants and pollinators date to the Cretaceous 

period, when insects began to acquire food from flowers and flowers achieved 

higher reproductive success through the movement of pollen by insects (Kearns and 

Inouye 1997). At present, the majority of flowering plants utilize insects for pollination (Kremen et al. 2007, Tepedino 1979) although dependence on insect pollination 

differs by plant species (Kearns and Inouye 1997). Beargrass may rely on insects 

to spread its pollen because the plant is self-incompatible (Vance et al. 2004). This 

means the stigmatic ridge recognizes and rejects pollen produced by the same plant 

(Sage et al. 2000). Although it is mechanically possible for beargrass to self-pollinate, Vance et al. (2004) reported that resulting fruits had a lower rate of filled seed. 

Self-incompatibility has also been noted for trillium, which—like beargrass—is a 

member of the Melanthiaceae. 

Vance et al. (2004) found that the effectiveness of an insect’s cross-pollination 

service is compromised by the tendency of some insect pollinators to visit more 

than one flower on the same inflorescence. This results in the transfer of incompatible pollen grains. Beargrass is, therefore, considered to be “compatible-pollen 

limited,” as even in open-pollinated flowers, seed set remains relatively low, despite 

the fact that this species produces large quantities of pollen and attracts many insect 

pollinators (Vance et al. 2004). Still, cross-pollination by insects enables transport 

of beargrass pollen between compatible genets and results in significantly higher 

fitness than self-pollination. 

Potential effects of changes in pollinator communities on beargrass— 

A growing body of evidence suggests that both managed honey bee colonies and 

wild pollinators are experiencing significant declines (Black et al. 2007). The 

causes of decline are difficult to pinpoint, but loss of floral diversity and habitat 

from urbanization and land use change, expansion of intensive agriculture, invasive plants, pesticide use, climate change, disease, and parasites are all believed 

to have negative effects on pollinator populations (National Research Council 

2006). Pollinator decline can affect plants in several ways, including reduction of 

viable seeds, which limits sexual reproductive success (Kearns and Inouye 1997) 

and production of less vigorous offspring, because in the absence of pollinators, a 

higher percentage of seeds may be set through self-pollination. In beargrass, selfpollination is known to be an inferior mating system (Vance et al. 2004). Within an 
19

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Table 6—Life history of main species/guilds of beargrass pollinatorsClassification Diet/feeding behavior Mating/life-cycle Range/habitat SourcesOrder: Diptera Larval diet varies widely in the syrphid The life-cycle of Cheilosia hoodiana, a Cheilosia hoodiana occurs along the Barrett and 

family. The larvae of Cheilosia hoodiana major beargrass pollinator, is probably Pacific coast, including California and Helenurm 1987,

Major family: feed on living fir trees in the Northwest. similar to that of the related hemlock bark Oregon, and eastward to New Mexico. Burke 1905, 

Syrphidae (hover flies) maggot (Cheilosia burkei) which has been The distribution of Parasypha relictus Campbell et al. 

Very little material has been published studied in greater detail. Adults lay eggs is not readily available. In addition to 2007, Cole 1969,

Representative species on the life history of Parasyphus relictus. in springtime in resin-filled tree wounds. beargrass, this species has been recorded Drabble and 

Cheilosia hoodiana The larvae are likely predaceous. The hatched maggots enter the bark through on flowers of Cornus canadensis Drabble 1917, 

Parasyrphus relictus the wound and feed on sap and soft tissues, (Cornaceae), Clintonia borealis (Liliaceae), F.S. doc n.d., Syrphus opinator Adult syrphid flies feed chiefly on pollen, utilizing a long, telescopic, protractile tail and Maianthemum canadense (Liliaceae). Gullan and 

Syrphus ribesii which they require for ovary development that extends through the resin for breathing. Cranston 2010, 

and possibly sperm production. Most Larval feeding continues for up to five years, Larson et al. 2001, 

syrphids have short proboscises, which followed by springtime pupation (7 days) McGehey 1967, 

they use to probe the stamens and style in resin at the entrance of the wound. Wasp Owen and Gilbert 

arms of flowers while foraging. These parasitism is not uncommon in syrphids— 1989, Rank and 

flies move rapidly between flowers, the larval stage of C. hoodiana is parasitized Smiley 1994, 

facilitating a quick spread of pollen. by the ichneumonid wasp, Syrphoctonus Robertson 1929, 

Although syrphids frequent multiple maculifron. Vance et al. 2004, 

plants for foraging, they have been Weems 1954, observed to exhibit preferences for Wheeler 1908. certain flowering plant species when multiple species are in flower. With regard to beargrass, a pollination study suggests some syrphid species may exhibit a strong preference (possible seasonal dependence) for beargrass pollen.

Order: Coleoptera Larvae of C. chrysocoma feed on decaying Larval feeding results in extensive, frass- C. chrysocoma distribution covers much of Craighead 1923,

wood and have been successfully reared filled galleries or tunnels under the bark or the United States and Canada, from the Goldsmith 1987, 

Major family: on the coniferous Pinus ponderosa and within the sapwood of the host tree. Most West to the Northeast and south to Northern Hagle et al. 2003,

Cerambycidae P. flexilis, as well as some hardwoods. western species feed first in the cambium Mexico, including Oregon, Washington, MacRae and Rice 

(long-horn beetles) region of their hosts, then extend their Montana, Idaho, and California. Adults fly 2007, Monne and

Cerambycidae adults are relatively strong tunnels into the sapwood. Tunnels terminate from June to at least August in the Rocky Bezark 2010, 

Representative species: fliers that actively seek out flowers and in a pupal chambernear the bark, where Mountains and Pacific Coast Range. In Makino et al. 2007

Anastrangalia lactifica feed primarily on pollen. Beetles move metamorphosis from last-instar larva to addition to the role of adults as pollinators, O’Neill et al. 2008,Cosmosalia chrysocoma among neighboring inflorescences, pupa to adult takes place. Life spans of cerambycid larvae provide a vital “first step” Sutherland 2006,

coating themselves in pollen dust. C. temperate Cerambycidae species range from in the decomposition and bio-recycling of Vance et al. 2004, chrysocoma adults are known to congre- one to three years, most of which is spent wood in forest ecosystems. Cerambycid Yanega 1996.

gate on flowering plants in subalpine in the larval stage. Adults emerge disperse,, beetles may also be valuable bio-indicatorslodgepole pine habitat, and have been reproduce, and die within a few days to a few of forest health and diversity.

observed on the same beargrass months. Courtship and mating frequently

inflorescence for over an hour. takes place on flowers and foliage of adult 

food plants. Eggs are laid singly in natural cracks in the host bark or in shallow pits chewed by the female.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864 Table 6—Life history of main species/guilds of beargrass pollinators (continued) Classification Diet/feeding behavior Mating/life-cycle Range/habitat Sources Order: Coleoptera Adults are herbivorous on an array of Most blister beetles have one generation per Epicauta is the largest genus of blister Arnett et al. 2002, angiosperms and are strongly attracted to year. Adults lay egg clusters in the soil; beetles in North America, with 173 species Bernhardt and Thien Major family: blooming food plants. In addition to upon hatching the long-legged, first-instar north of Mexico and a wide distribution 1986, Capinera 2008, Meloidae (blister feeding, courtship and mating activities larvae actively seek out and prey upon the across the contintent and globe. Cardel and Kopter 2010, beetles) generally occur on flowering plants. egg pods of subterranean grasshoppers Drees and Jackman Although some species may be significant (Acridoidea), including many crop-damaging 1999, Haddock and Representative species: “mess and soil” pollinators, their potential species. The larvae pass through numerous Chaplin 1982, Kerr and Epicauta sp. to impede pollination via other pollinators grub-like, phases—the first four larval stages Packer 1999, Kinney et must also be considered. The consequences develop within about month, but the second to al. 2010, McLain 1982. of floral herbivory, therefore, may outweigh the last (pseudopupa) can remain for about the benefits of Epicauta pollination. 230 days before molting into the final (sixth)

larval stage. Overwintering takes place in the psuedopupal stage, with the final stage 

occurring in the spring. Pupation, which 

generally lasts for about 2 weeks, occurs in 

late spring, and adults emerge from the soil 

in early summer. Adult activity period occurs 

May through September, although peaks vary

by species.

Order: Apoidea (bees) All bee species are dependent on flowers Bees are a diverse group with a variety Bees nest in a variety of habitats, including Matheson et al. 1996, 

for meeting larval and adult nutritional of habitat specializations and life living and dead wood, sandstone, and soil. Moretti et al. 2009, 

Major families: needs. Foraging bees may be categorized history strategies. Bees range from They may utilize existing hollows (such Pendleton et al. 2008, 

Andrenidae as specialists or generalists—highly- solitary to eusocial. Mating behavior as rodent burrows), or construct their own Ramel 1995, 

Apidae specialist patterns are rare, but occasion- frequently involves specific pheromones nests of soil or plant material. Although Roulston et al. 2000, 

Halactidae ally exhibited by species of solitary b that ring the two sexes together. In many, solitary bees build their nests individually, Vance et al. 2008. 

Magachilidae Andrenidae and Megachilidae bees. The species males emerge before females and numerous nests of the same ground-nesting

majority of bees (including Andrenidae, wait for the females. The male lifespan is species are often found together in a smallMegachilidae, and Halictidae) perform relatively short; males can often only be area of suitable habitat.“mass-provisioning” in which egg cells found at the beginning of a species’ season.

are provisioned with food (pollen) for larvae to eat upon hatching. Apidae perform “progressive provisioning,” in which larvae are fed pollen repeatedly as they develop.One theory suggests the light colors, disagreeable odors, and nectarless condi-tionof beargrass flowers are unattractiveto the majority of bees. The few beesobserved were generally seen scraping or vibrating t he anthers of beargrass flowers for pollen while the ventral portions of their b bodies ounced against the style arms.
21

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

ecosystem, reduced seed and fruit production owing to declines in plant-pollinator 

mutualism can have cascading effects, particularly for organisms that consume or 

otherwise rely on the seeds, fruits, or vegetation of insect-pollinated plants (Kearns 

and Inouye 1997). 

Beargrass appears to have multiple compensation mechanisms to ensure 

survival and reproduction in reduced-pollinator environments and may be classified as intermediate in its overall potential for fitness-loss resulting from pollinator 

declines. The effect of pollinator decline on any particular plant species requires 

understanding several factors including lifespan, potential for vegetative reproduction, characteristics of the existing seed bank, and whether the pollination relationship is generalist or specialist and facultative or obligate (Kearns and Inouye 1997). 

Plant species most at risk from loss of a pollinator are those that propagate only 

by seeds, have a single pollinator (specialist pollination), and are self-incompatible 

(obligate pollination). Beargrass only partially fits this risk profile. Rather, it is a 

long-lived plant capable of vegetative reproduction via offshoots of the rhizome and 

is visited by several species of insect pollinators. Although the relationship between 

beargrass and its pollinators is generalistic (multiple species perform pollination 

services in the flowers), it is also obligate (insect pollination is critical owing to 

fitness reductions in self-pollinated flowers).

If a population of beargrass remains intact, plants within it can likely maintain 

their genetic structure through rhizomatous regeneration and growth, even when 

environmental conditions do not favor flowering or pollination (Vance et al. 2004). 

However, if a population is reduced in number by disturbances that displace entire 

plants, outcrossing by sexual reproduction may be necessary to achieve sufficient 

gene flow and remixing of alleles for demographic recovery of the population (Collins and Fore 2009, Vance et al. 2004). The seed bank characteristics of beargrass 

are not well understood, but the potential seed production for a given plant ranges 

from approximately 350 to 2,800 seeds, based on reports of 40 to 500 flowers 

per plant (Munger 2003, Vance et al. 2001) and an average of 7 seeds per capsule 

(Vance et al. 2004). Soil seed banks can buffer plants from local extinction when 

an important pollinator declines (Kearns and Inouye 1997), but the persistence and 

viability of beargrass seed is unknown. 

Importance of Beargrass to Pollinators 

Beargrass is an important food resource to a diverse assemblage of insects (Vance 

et al. (2004); however, the comparative importance of beargrass relative to other 

plants frequented by the same insect is unknown. Pollen provides most of the 

dietary nitrogen for most bee species and many species of beetles and other insects 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

(Roulston et al. 2000). Increased consumption of pollen protein and other nutrients 

may increase the size, survival, longevity, and fecundity of bees, flies, and other 

pollinating insects (Roulston et al. 2000, Vance et al. 2004). In one analysis of the 

pollen load from insect foragers collected on beargrass flowers, 80 percent of the 

insects carried beargrass pollen exclusively, which suggests that they had a seasonal 

dependence or preference for beargrass pollen (Vance et al. 2004) (table 5). Insects 

carrying mixed pollen loads had a maximum of two extra pollen types in addition 

to beargrass. All of the additional pollen grains came from common coflowering 

associates of beargrass in the Western Cascades (Vance et al. 2004) and may compete with beargrass for the limited pollinator guild. However, beargrass is nectarless (Vance et al. 2004) and most pollen consumers seek nectar as well as pollen 

(Roulston et al. 2000). On one occasion, a blister beetle (Epicauta sp.) was observed 

flying from beargrass to flowers of another plant (Ceanothus velutinus Douglas ex 

Hook.) to drink nectar (Vance et al. 2004).

The specific nutritional information of beargrass pollen has not been examined. 

Angiosperm pollen is generally a nutrient-rich resource, containing protein, sugar, 

starch, fat, and trace amounts of vitamins and organic salts (Gullan and Cranston 

2010). However, the nutritional value of pollen differs among plant species. This 

variability means that, although another member of the Liliales order have been 

reported to have pollen composed of 17.1 percent protein, this may not be true for 

beargrass (Roulston et al. 2000). The abundance and nutritional value of beargrass 

pollen may change under different environmental conditions, as has been shown 

in greenhouse studies of zucchini (Cucurbito pepo L.) (Lau and Stephenson 1993, 

1994). Soil phosphorus and nitrogen levels in those studies were both found to have 

had significant effects on pollen production per flower and size of pollen grains 

produced (Lau and Stephenson 1993, 1994). 

Tribal and Contemporary Uses and Values 

for Beargrass

In addition to its ecological role, and its importance to pollinators, beargrass is 

valued and used by people. The role of beargrass in human cultures encompasses 

secular and sacred needs, personal and commercial uses, and community and 

environmental purposes. 

Native American Uses and Values

Beargrass is valued by Native Americans for use in basketry and regalia (fig. 5.); 

as an edible delicacy; for medicinal, cosmetic, and decorative purposes; and for 
23

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Figure 5—Large berry harvesting basket made by Nettie Jackson in the traditional 

Klickitat style. Photo courtesy of Maryhill Museum of Art, Goldendale, Washington. 

Doug Hill

spiritual, ceremonial, and aesthetic reasons (fig. 6). Beargrass leaves are durable, 

yet flexible, and can be worked into tight weaves that are ideal for the creation 

of baskets (Turner 1998) (fig. 7). Additionally, Klamath Mountain tribes (Karok, 

Hupa, and Yurok) wrap and interweave leaf blades to make “braids,” which serve as 

long slender “beads” on women’s dress fringe and necklaces, and on men’s quivers 

and dance aprons (fig. 8). Older, thicker leaves are used as stuffing or filler in men’s 

regalia in headrolls, and wrapped in buckskin leather (Heffner 1984). This report 

focuses primarily on the uses and value of beargrass within traditional basketry, 

which constitutes the majority of native uses for the plant.

Cultural Value of Basketry

The value of basketry is not restricted to the utilitarian function of a particular 

object. In Native American culture, basketry is also “a sacred practice that is 

important to maintaining the role of certain entities in our lives and recording our 

history” (CHiXapkaid, quoted in Shebitz 2005). Baskets are “symbols of identity” 
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Figure 7—Basket weaving demonstration by Deanna Marshall using beargrass.

Figure 6—Basket cap created 

by an unknown Yurok weaver 

using beargrass as the white 

overlay material. Frank Lake

Frank LakeFrank Lake
25

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

for the families and tribes that weave them (Brotherton 2008). The symbology of a 

particular basket showcases the skill of an individual weaver (Lobb 1990), and also 

is a portrait of a tribe’s history and mythology (Shebitz 2005). The art of basketry is 

therefore “a community resource” (Jones 1983) as the basket is a medium through 

which identity and knowledge can be passed from generation to generation (Marr 

2008, Shebitz and Kimmerer 2005). Basketry is often “a family tradition—one that 

crosses borders, reaching into many communities. Designs and techniques travel 

with people as they move between communities.” Baskets are therefore “more than 

just containers for food, tools, and other types of belongings; they contain and carry 

forward memories and identities about who we are as people... [Baskets] carry 

everyday reminders of our grandparents and ancestors, their spiritual gifts and 

individual creativity” (Fortney 2008). 

Native Americans in California and the Pacific Northwest have experienced 

significant changes in their cultures and lifestyles over the past century; nonetheless, basketry continues to be an integral part of their culture and traditions (Rentz 

Figure 8—Braids of beargrass made by Frank Lake. Other materials 

include grey pine nuts with abalone beads strung on leather.

Frank Lake
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

2003, Shebitz 2005). “The act of creating a basket unites the maker with his or her 

culture, continuing a tradition that has been passed on from countless generations” 

(Marr 2008). Harvesting and treating beargrass for use in basketry strengthens and 

maintains cultures by preserving knowledge and traditions (Shebitz and Kimmerer 

2005). The tending and harvesting of beargrass also intimately connects tribal 

people to the forested ecosystems in which beargrass grows. “Today, each tribe’s 

use of particular plant materials marks its distinctive culture and plays a major role 

in shaping, defining, and maintaining its cultural identity...The continuation of 

gathering and hunting traditions is an important component of tribal identity and 

preservation of culture” (Anderson 2005). Although today the number of basket 

makers has declined and the practices of those that remain have changed, weavers 

still “represent an art form with ancient roots, one that has survived decades of 

social change... [Contemporary basket makers] may change some of the new materials, they may create new designs or change the shapes of their baskets, but they 

nevertheless remain closely connected to the masters” (Marr 2008).

Basketry also has sociocultural value to non-Native society. Old baskets give 

contemporary researchers and anthropologists information on changing cultural 

practices and values, and on changing ecological conditions (Brotherton 2008, 

Shebitz 2005). Baskets are products of specific places and distinct times, and 

social scientists are able to better understand those places and periods in history 

by observing changes over time in a basket’s function, form, and construction. The 

materials used to create a particular basket can help inform ecologists about species 

availability, growth, and condition when the basket was created; changes in the 

materials used might indicate changing ecological conditions, or suggest trade with 

another tribe (Shebitz 2005). 

Native American Harvesters

Beargrass was harvested by many tribes in northern California, up the Pacific 

Coast, onto the Olympic Peninsula, and into southeastern British Columbia (Anderson 2005, O’Neale 1932, Turner 1998). Tribes as diverse as the Modoc, the Yurok, 

the Maidu, and the Shasta gathered young, fresh beargrass “tillers” (Anderson 

2005). The Nuu-chah-nulth and Coast Salish of Vancouver Island used this grass, 

as did the Squamish, Sechelt, Nlaka’pamux, Okanagan, and Ktunaxa (Brotherton 

2008, Turner 1998). Some groups had direct access to the plant; others obtained it 

through trade. A study of Yurok-Karuk basketry in northern California conducted 

by O’Neale (1932) found that, in 1928, basket makers would pay as much as 50 

cents a bushel for beargrass leaves. In the mid 20th century, a small bundle of 

prepared beargrass leaves cost about 50 cents (Turner 1998). In the same region 
27

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

(Heffner 1984), materials at the Northern California Indian Development Council’s 

Art Center in Eureka, California, were sold listed as “Plant, Bear Grass; Amount, 3; 

diameter/bunch; Cost, $5.00.” 

Seasonality and Location of Native American Harvest

Beargrass is harvested primarily during spring and summer, after snowmelt, with 

special focus given to areas that have burned sometime over the last 1 to 3 years 

(Crane 1990, Hunter 1988, O’Neale 1930, Rentz 2003, Schlick 1994, Shebitz 2005, 

Shebitz et al. 2009a, Vance et al. 2001). High-elevation plants produce longer 

and stronger (less brittle) leaves (Hunter 1988, Rentz 2003), and beargrass plants 

beneath a partial canopy, or in partial shade, produce leaves that are less bleached 

and that remain pliable for a longer period of time (Anderson 2005, Hunter 1988, 

Shebitz 2005, Thomas and Schumann 1993). Leaves on an open slope are believed 

to curl, yellow, and become more brittle in the sunlight (Anderson 2005, O’Neale 

1930, Rentz 2003, Schlick 1994). 

Native Americans used fire to prepare beargrass habitat, probably because 

exposure to low-intensity fire increased leaf quality (Hunter 1988, LaLande and 

Pullen 1999, O’Neale 1930, Shebitz 2005). Researchers have documented that 

leaves harvested from recently burned sites are less pigmented, thinner, and stronger (Hunter 1988, Rentz 2003). Rentz (2003) found that beargrass collected from 

burned areas exhibited reductions in support fibers along the adaxial and abaxial 

surfaces, making the leaves more pliable. Crane (1990) found that leaves can be harvested from a burned site within a year after a fire, but Anderson (2005), Shebitz et 

al. (2009a), LaLande and Pullen (1999) and Rentz (2003) all noted that the best harvest is 3 to 7 years following a burn, with the timing likely related to fire severity. 

Today, anthropogenic burning by Native Americans for the management of cultural 

resources is limited (see Senos et al. 2006: 394, fig. 17.1—Hoopa Forestry), and, 

therefore, most beargrass is harvested following a wildfire (Heffner 1984). In one 

unreplicated field study, Shebitz et al. (2009a) found that high-intensity rather than 

the mid-to-low-intensity fire better prepared the site for beargrass establishment. 

Many Native American beargrass harvesters are now elderly; therefore, site 

accessibility is also an important consideration, and sites adjacent to maintained 

roads are often preferred (Hunter 1988). Harvest occurs on public and private lands, 

as well as on reservation lands. Reservations were often created great distances 

from traditional gathering sites, so foraging on public lands remains common 

despite the greater distances that must be traveled to reach a suitable harvesting 

area (Heffner 1984, Lobb 1990, Lynch and McLain 2003). Most landowners, public 

and private, allow cultural harvesters to harvest for a nominal fee, or for free, based 

on a case-by-case evaluation (Hansis 1998, Lynch and McLain 2003). 
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Traditional Harvest Practices

Weavers favor longer, thinner, more pliable leaves with less pigmentation, and 

a snowy white color at the base (fig. 9). Brittle leaves or leaves with a yellowish 

tint are not suitable for weaving (Crane 1990, Hunter 1988, LaLande and Pullen 

1999, Rentz 2003, Schlick 1994, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 2009a, Thomas and 

Schumann 1993). Additionally, older larger, thicker leaves with the red-tinged leaf 

edges near base are avoided. Leaves must be flexible enough to work with, and lay 

flat in the design, but be strong enough to withstand the stress of weaving (Rentz 

2003). Harvesters select only the longest blades from the center of the plant (Anderson 2005), which are gently pulled or cut at the base. Leaves are cut when the plant 

has reached full maturity, so the root systems are not damaged in harvesting, and 

the plant can grow the following year (Anderson 2005, Turner and Peacock 2005). 

One good plant will provide enough leaves to cover a gallon-size basket (Schlick 

1994). A weaver might use as many as 2,000 leaves to complete a large basket 

(Rentz 2003). This harvesting practice may also prevent subsequent flowering by 

leaving tillers, but empirical evidence is lacking.

To make beargrass leaves (or “blades”) more flexible for weaving, a weaver 

first removes the spine on the underside of the blade with a fingernail or a sharp 

knife (Anderson 2005, Schlick 1994). A weaver will then twist the blades lengthwise (taking care not to cut their hands as the edges of the leaf are razor sharp) to 

keep them soft and pliable and lay them out to cure in the sunlight for 1 to 3 days 

(Anderson 2005, O’Neale 1930, Schlick 1994). When exposed to sunlight, blades 

fade to a lighter whitish color, Too much sun exposure can result in a yellow, brittle 

blade, which is undesirable. Once the leaves are cured and sun-bleached, weavers 

split them to the desired width and sort them into 4 to 5 sizes before braiding them 

together for storage (Anderson 2005, O’Neale 1930, Storm 1985). Blades can also 

be dyed—either with natural materials like wolf lichen (Letharia sp.) or Oregon 

grape (Berberis aquifolium Pursh.) (Anderson 2005, O’Neale 1930), or with synthetic materials like Kool-Aid® (Turner 1998).

Commercial Value of Basketry

Over time, tribes developed specialized basketry styles and techniques that were 

not widely shared (Brotherton 2008, Lobb 1990). The Klickitat, a tribe in the 

Columbia River basin, developed a style of coiled cedar root basketry, embellished 

with beargrass, that was particularly valued (Hunn 1990). Such specialization 

created an informal industry between tribes. Strategic marriages helped facilitate 

the trade of more nuanced basketry techniques (Brotherton 2008). Seasonal work 

opportunities brought families from distant communities together, and further 
29

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Figure 9—Beargrass leaves harvested (top), sorted, and bundled by size (bottom) after being 

sun-dried.

Frank Lake Frank Lake
30

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

facilitated intertribal trade in basketry (Gunther 1927). Thrush (2007) related that 

basket vendors in Seattle during this time were not necessarily from Puget Sound 

but came from as far away as Vancouver Island, suggesting that trade in basketry 

was an important source of income for native people. In California, O’Neale 

reported a similar demand. Baskets produced by the Yurok and Karuk tribes sold 

for as much as $35 in 1928 (O’Neale 1930).

Basketry can still be an important source of income to a contemporary weaver 

(Shebitz and Kimmerer 2005). Depending on size, intricacy, and overall quality, 

an individual basket can fetch between $65 and $3,500 (Thomas and Schumann 

1993). However, one tribe member reported that his wife only made $5,000 within a 

12-month period (Thomas and Schumann 1993) owing to the time and difficulty it 

took to gather supplies and weave the actual baskets.

The Commercial Floral Greens Industry

Floral greens, as a group, are the stems, branches and leaves of plants that are used 

in floral arrangements. Floral greens contribute as much as $8 billion to the global 

economy (Draffan 2006). Greens commonly harvested from the Pacific Northwest 

and British Columbia include salal (Gaultheria L. sp.), evergreen huckleberry 

(Gaylussacia K. sp.), beargrass, assorted mosses and ferns, and boughs of Douglasfir, noble fir (Abies procera Donn ex D. Don (Douglas ex D. Don) Lindl), white 

pine (Pinus monticola Douglas ex D. Don), western red cedar (Thuja plicata), and 

Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana (A. Murray bis.) Parl) (McLain 

and Lynch 2010). Beargrass did not enter the floral green industry in commercial 

quantities until the late 1980s (Lynch and McLain 2003, Weigand 2002). The leaves 

are used as floral arrangements (Blatner and Alexander 1998, Schlosser and Blatner 

1998, Thomas and Schuman 1993). Beargrass leaves are popular in part because, 

when fresh, their vibrant green color is attractive (Schlosser et al. 1992, Thomas 

and Schuman 1997) and when dried they are easily dyed (Thomas and Schuman 

1993, Turner 1998). 

Commercial harvest occurs in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia, and 

extends into Idaho and northern California. Most processing is done in the southeastern portion of the Olympic Peninsula in the state of Washington (McLain and 

Lynch 2010). In 1987, reports suggested that beargrass was the most harvested 

species in the floral greens industry of the Pacific Northwest (Schlosser et al. 1992). 

Sheds might purchase materials harvested from as far away as 1609 km (Schlosser 

et al. 1991). Elsewhere in the range of the plant, between 1999 and 2001, 200 488 kg 

(442,000 pounds) of beargrass were harvested from the Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests (Kramer 2001). In 1997, beargrass was established as the most widely harvested floral green species in the Pacific Northwest (Schlosser and Blatner 1997). 
31

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Research suggests that as agricultural jobs disappear, the harvest of forest products 

like beargrass becomes increasingly important to local economies, especially workers who depend on natural resources for a livelihood (Brown 2001, 1998, Hansis 

1996). Little information exists detailing the history and evolution of beargrass 

harvesting (as an isolated species) within the floral greens industry. This section 

therefore discusses the floral greens industry as a whole. 

Market Stakeholders

Stakeholders in the floral greens industry include harvesters, buyers who purchase 

harvested materials, owners of land from which beargrass is harvested, wholesalers 

that distribute materials to retailers, and consumers (table 7). 

Until 1970, the floral greens industry of the Pacific Northwest included a 

handful of large wholesale companies and numerous independent buying sheds. 

The workforce was made up of rural, seasonally self-employed U.S. citizens, or 

recent Euro-American immigrants (McLain and Lynch 2010). Ethnic composition 

of the workforce changed in the 1980s when two of the larger wholesalers of floral 

greens in the region, facing a shortage of locally available labor, brought in crews of 

Latino agricultural migrant workers (table 8). Rather than returning to agricultural 

work, many Latino workers chose to stay in the Pacific Northwest harvesting floral 

greens (Hansis 1996, 1998; McLain and Lynch 2010; Schlosser and Blatner 1997). 

A federal law also discouraged employers in related industries from using 

undocumented workers (McLain and Lynch 2010), thereby increasing the reliance 

of these workers on informal economies like floral greens. By 1990, 80 to 80 

percent of floral greens harvested from the Pacific Northwest were being shipped 

to Europe (McLain and Lynch 2010, Schlosser and Blatner 1997, Schlosser et al. 

1991, Thomas and Schumann 1993, Vance et al. 2001). At the same time, Southeast 

Asian refugees arriving in the Pacific Northwest from Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam began harvesting floral greens (including beargrass), as it was one of the only 

viable and available ways to earn a living (Hansis 1996). 

European consumption still fuels beargrass harvesting in the Pacific Northwest. 

Thomas and Schumann (1993) found that a U.S. company that sold one or two 9.1 

kg (20 pound) boxes of beargrass per week to U.S. buyers could sell up to a thousand boxes a week to Europe. 

Harvesting Practices

Beargrass of commercial harvest quality is deep green and has long, wide, and firm 

leaves. Leaves that are too short or have yellowing tips are unacceptable (Schlosser 

et al. 1992, Schlosser and Blatner 1997, Thomas and Schumann 1993). Research 

suggests that the highest quality (darker and longer) leaves are located in the center 
32

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Table 8—Demographics and characteristics of commercial beargrass harvesters

All harvesters Source 

Self employed.

Use multipronged income strategy, harvesting to supplement wages or fill gaps in employment. Brown 2001; 

 Split between part-time and full-time, although part-time is on the rise. Lynch and 

 McLain 2003; 

Constitute an invisible workforce, as they are often undocumented, have few legal rights, and Hansis 1996, 1998; 

 may not speak English. Usually resist making contact with land managers or researchers, and Schlosser and 

 are hesitant to provide personal information for fear of restricted access or deportation. Blatner1997; 

 Schlosser

May be fleeing harsh conditions elsewhere that lead them to work cheaply and under poor et al. 1991

 labor conditions.

Latino East Asian harvesters Source

Younger, more mobile, more often males, Harvest in family groups and are more stable, Brown 2001, 

typically harvest as individuals, willing to tend to be more integrated into society. Hansis 1996, 1998; 

take risks. Individuals often obtain permits, and act McLain 2003 

as crew leaders to Latino or non-Englishspeaking harvesters unable to navigate the 

system, often charging for the service.

Individuals often own vans and charge 

exorbitant fees to other harvesters for 

transportation to the forest, or transportation 

of harvested material to buying sheds.

Table 7—Characteristics of the labor force in the commercial market for beargrass

Size of labor force Ethnic composition Source 

Harvesters In 1989, there were an estimated In the late 1980s/early 1990s, Hansis 1996, 1998; 

2,670 full time, and 2,750 part the workforce was primarily Lynch and McLain, 2003;

time, harvesters in the floral greens made up of people of Southeast Schlosser et al.1991; 

industry within the Pacific Asian heritage. Latino workers Thomas and Schumann 1993

Northwest. [The literature does not began entering the market in the 

have more recent estimates.] early to mid 1990s, dominating 

 the workforce by 2003. Common 

 ethnicities include Mexican, 

 Honduran, Cambodian, Hmong, 

 Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai, Korean, 

 and Guatemalan very few White 

 harvesters have been reported.

Buyers In 1993 there were a dozen buyers Small companies in the Brown 2001 

(either small companies or buyers industry are usually Lynch and McLain 2003,

individuals) located in Washington owned by White Americans. Schlosser et al. 1991, 

state and purchasing beargrass on Owners increasingly hire Schlosser and Blatner 1997, 

a regular basis. It is estimated the Latina women to staff the Thomas and Schumann 1993 

buyer’s industry in the Pacific establishment and sort, clean,

Northwest to be 60 small businesses, preserve, and box incoming 

concentrated in Washington, material.

supporting a total of 700 full 

time and 4,180 seasonal workers.
33

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

of a plant (Thomas and Schumann 1993). Leaf quality is maximized during later 

stages of mid-successional development (Schlosser and Blatner 1997). Generally, 

only older, larger plants bear leaves that are long enough to harvest (Thomas and 

Schumann 1993). 

Commercial harvesters are able to collect beargrass leaves year-round for the 

floral greens industry (Crane 1990, Schlosser et al. 1992, Thomas and Schumann 

1993), but generally prefer spring and summer (Hansis 1996, 1998; Lynch and 

McLain 2003; Schlosser and Blatner 1997). Commercial harvest can occur legally 

on public lands (managed by the USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, or the states) and on private forest lands (Lynch and McLain 2003). 

In 1991, 8 percent of harvested material on the Olympic Peninsula came from 

producer-owned lands (Schlosser et al. 1991). Harvest is illegal in national parks. 

Several factors influence demand for beargrass. Demand tends to increase 

around holidays (McLain and Lynch 2010), but there can be rapid unanticipated 

changes in tastes and preferences, which can affect demand (Blatner and Alexander 

1998). The availability and relative value of new harvestable material (Blatner and 

Alexander 1998) and decline of other forms of employment may also affect the 

demand for beargrass expressed by buying sheds (Hansis 2002, Lynch and McClain 

2003).

Permitting and Regulation

Prior to the 1950s, landowners often allowed harvesters to collect floral greens 

from their land (McLain and Lynch 2010). Throughout the 1980s, as the number 

of harvesters increased, landowners began to formalize access to floral greens. 

Multiple forms of permitting resulted, many of which are still used. The Fiscal Year 

2000 Appropriations Act required the Forest Service to charge a fair market value 

for nontimber forest product permits, and to monitor harvesting levels to ensure 

that the harvest of nontimber forest products on Forest Service lands was sustainable and affordable (Lynch and McLain 2003). Many harvesters may be able to 

afford inexpensive short-term permits but not the more expensive exclusive access 

permits. As McLain and Lynch (2010) stated, “Medium- and large-scale brush and 

shed operators acquire [the longer term] leases, and then sublet their harvesting 

rights to harvesters. The expectation was that harvesters would sell the products 

they took off the land to the shed holding the lease. In other cases, the shed operators sublet their harvesting rights to brush bosses, who organized crews of harvesters to do the work on the ground. Again, the leaseholder expected the brush boss 

and his crew members to sell their harvested materials to his shed.” This arrangement has led to some concerns regarding employer-employee relationships (table 8). 
34

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Charging for permits has allowed landowners to earn income that covers some 

of the administrative costs of nontimber forest product harvesting on their lands 

(Lynch and McLain 2003). Such costs might include installing gates to regulate 

harvest, maintaining roads, and dealing with illegal dumping and vandalism.

Fines up to $1,000 can be issued by law enforcement if a harvester does not 

have a valid harvesting permit (McLain and Lynch 2010). Even so, many harvesters 

and buyers resist regulation because enforcement is expensive and difficult (Lynch 

and McLain 2003). Thomas and Schumann (1993) suggested that beargrass was 

among the most frequently poached items from national forests in the Pacific 

Northwest. In 1 year alone, more than 90 718 kg (100 tons) of beargrass leaves 

were illegally harvested on Oregons’s Willamette National Forest (Mosley 2000 in

Vance et al. 2004).

Economic Value of Commercial Beargrass Harvesting

The value of the floral greens industry in the Pacific Northwest (Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia) was estimated to be around $128 to $130 million in 

1989 (Schlosser and Blatner 1997, Schlosser et al. 1991). By 2002, estimates had 

risen to $236 million (Daffan 2006). Estimates for beargrass alone differ widely. 

For example, Schlosser and Blatner estimated the 1997 value of beargrass to be over 

$1 million. By 2002, the combined value of beargrass and salal was estimated to be 

$54 million (Daffan 2006). Lack of long-term data from a consistent and reliable 

source makes it difficult to assess financial growth of the market over time, or to 

isolate the value of beargrass from the more generic floral greens industry.

The economic benefit to harvesters is equally difficult to estimate because the 

price offered for harvested beargrass differs significantly between seasons and 

buyers, depending on the quality of the beargrass, market demand, and product 

availability (Thomas and Schumann 1993). The highest prices are generally offered 

when beargrass availability is low (Hansis 1998). In 1991, bunches of beargrass sold 

from 20 cents to $1.60 per .45 kg (1 pound), depending on the month (Hansis 1998, 

Thomas and Schumann 1993). One buyer indicated that he might pay anywhere 

from $5,000 to $10,000 to a group of harvesters for material gathered over the 

course of a week (Thomas and Schumann 1993). In 1993, 4536 kg (10,000 pounds) 

of confiscated beargrass sold at auction for $4,750 (Thomas and Schumann 1993). 

Throughout the 1990s, individual harvesters reported making anywhere from $20 

to $175 per day (Brown 2001, Hansis 1998, McLain and Lynch 2003). 

Beargrass harvesting is by no means guaranteed to be a profitable enterprise. 

When producers offer low prices, it is a struggle for the harvester to offset the cost 

of a permit (Hansis 1998). If too many permits are sold, it is difficult for a harvester 
35

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

to gather enough material to offset the price of the permit (Lynch and McLain 

2003). In addition, beargrass harvesters might have to purchase permits for transporting commercial quantities of beargrass on state highways and roads (Lynch 

and McLain 2003). Harvesters with access to transportation can charge harvesters 

without transportation fees from $5 to $10 to share transportation (Lynch and 

McLain 2003).

Additional Benefits and Costs of Commercial

Beargrass Harvesting

Beargrass harvesting generally does not require an advanced skill set. Harvesters 

are not required to speak English, can avoid revealing the status of their citizenship, 

and are paid in cash (Brown 2001; Hansis 1996, 1998). These factors can make 

beargrass harvesting attractive for immigrant or undocumented workers (Brown 

2001; Hansis 1996, 1998). Harvest work is generally available and harvesters may 

be able to bring their families (Brown 2001; Hansis 1996, 1998). However, many 

harvesters remarked to Brown (2001) that harvesting was physically hard and as a 

result it was uncommon for anybody to intensively harvest for more than 5 years 

(Brown 2001). Both Hansis (1996) and Brown (2001) have reported some instances 

of violence between nontimber forest harvesters or different forest user groups over 

access and ownership of resources.

Beargrass Disturbances

Disturbances are key drivers of ecosystem dynamics (Hutchinson 1953, Rixen et 

al. 2007). Knowledge about natural and human disturbance regimes contributes 

to adopting practices that maintain or restore ecosystem processes and functions, 

community structures, and cultural traditions (Brooks 2008, Peter and Shebitz 

2006, Shebitz et al. 2008). The interactive effects of natural and human disturbances in beargrass habitat are not well understood. There is, however, literature 

on the effects of individual disturbances that we synthesize in this section. 

Historical and contemporary land use practices in beargrass habitat, coupled 

with the rise of the commercial floral greens industry, are creating shifts in the 

disturbance regime of beargrass habitat. More specifically, beargrass is experiencing decreased disturbance from natural and anthropogenic fire (Peter and Shebitz 

2006), and increased disturbance from leaf harvest by the floral industry (Thomas 

and Schumann 1993). The differences between these disturbance types and their 

potential effects on beargrass, its pollinators, and human gatherers are discussed 

below. Additional natural and anthropogenic disturbances that may also be contributing to patterns in beargrass distribution, abundance, reproduction, and leaf 

quality are also mentioned. 
36

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Fire 

Fire as a natural disturbance— 

Wildfire is an ecological process that influences plant community structure and 

function and is a major natural disturbance in western beargrass ecosystems (Agee 

1993). Lightning is the primary source of ignition in forested landscapes of the 

Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, and Sierra Nevada (Agee 1993, Barrett and 

Arno 1999, Keeley and Stephenson 2000), whereas volcanic activity, such as the 

eruption of Mount St. Helens, serves as a secondary ignition source (Barrett and 

Arno 1999). In general, storms are more frequent and influential causes of ignition 

in upland forest habitats than in coastal or valley areas (Boyd 1999). 

In Oregon and the northern Rocky Mountains, natural fires occur more 

frequently in high-elevation forests and are less frequent in low-elevation forests 

and grasslands (Boyd 1999, Barrett and Arno 1999). Natural fires in the western 

mountains generally occur during the summer months (May to September), owing 

to their association with summer lightning storms (Bartuszvige and Kennedy 

2009, Boyd 1999). Late-season fires (summer to fall) have also been reported in 

some areas, such as the eastern slopes of the Cascades (Wright and Agee 2004). 

In northern California, particularly inland portions of the region, the potential for 

lightning fires is highest during the period of especially hot, dry conditions occurring between August and October (Agee 1993). 

Wildfire extent within the range of beargrass differs widely. In the Oregon 

Cascades, reports indicate areas burned from less than 10 ha (Morrison and Swanson 1990) to greater than 4000 ha (Wright and Agee 2004). In the Sierra Nevada, 

fire reports range in size from 1 to 800 ha (Bartuszvige and Kennedy 2009). Fire 

extent in high-elevation, subalpine habitat depends largely on the distribution and 

abundance of forest vegetation (fuel), because rock or snow fields may prevent the 

spread of fire across patchy forests (Agee 1993). At lower elevations, wet forests 

composed of less-flammable tree species can limit the spread of fire (Agee 1993). 

Fire extent is also strongly linked to weather patterns, with the tendency for large 

fires to coincide with periods of annual and seasonal drought (Wright and Agee 

2004). Because natural fire regimes are closely tied to climate, elevation, forest 

community structure, and other environmental factors (Agee 1993), the frequency 

and severity of naturally occurring fire in beargrass habitat (by tree-ring records 

dating back 800 years) (Morrison and Swanson 1990) differ across the range of 

beargrass habitats, as detailed in table 9.

Fire as an anthropogenic disturbance— 

Across the range of beargrass, Native Americans managed land with the aid of fire 

for centuries. The practice is more commonly documented at lower elevations and 
37

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Table 9—Natural fire patterns across rangesSpecies composition Range Climate Favorable fire conditions Fire severity and frequency Sources

Pacific silver fir (Abies amabilis), Western Cascades, Temperate rain forest. Wet Drought conditions Agee 1993, Morrison

Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga low elevation cool winter, dry summers and Swanson 1990menziesii), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)

Mountain hemlock (Tsuga Western Cascades, Montane/alpine Drought conditions with Severe, stand-replacing, but Agee 1993, Morrison

mertensiana), subalpine fir high elevation east winds infrequent. 300- to 600- and Swanson 1990

(Abies lasiocarpa) year natural intervals

Ponderosa pine (Pinus Eastern Cascades Hot, dry summers and cool, Fires triggered by high fuel Frequent fires every 1 to 43 Agee 1993, Bartuszvige

ponderosa) wet winters. Prevailing winds build-ups owing to large insect years with occasional 25- and Kennedy 2009

and moisture come mainly outbreaks or longer than to 100-year intervals. The

from the West. The leeward, normal fire return intervals less frequent, the more

eastern slope lies in the rain mixed the intensity 

shadow of the mountain range, and is significantly drier than the western side of the range

Mixed-conifer forests of Eastern Cascades Hot, dry summers and cool, Fires triggered by high fuel Variable frequency and Agee 1993, Bartuszvige

grand fir (Abies grandis), wet winters. Prevailing winds build-ups owing to large insect severity and Kennedy 2009

white fir (A. concolor), and moisture come mainly outbreaks or longer than

and Douglas-fir from the West. The leeward, normal fire return intervals

eastern slope lies in the rainshadow of the mountain range,and is significantly drier thanthe western side of the range

Douglas-fir, western hemlock, Coastal region The coastal forests of the Pacific Moist, maritime climate limits Natural fire regimes vary Agee 1993, Halpern and

and/or western redcedar (west of Northwest are characterized the natural frequency and widely, fire intervals range Spies 1995, Henderson

(Thuja plicata) Cascades) by a moist, maritime climate intensity of fires. Rare weather from <50 years along the et al. 1989, Peter and 

conditions (e.g., drought and crest of the Coast Range Shebitz 2006

high wind) foster the spread in southern Oregon to as

of fire in this environment many as 750 years in moist, 

coastal forests of the northern 

Oregon Coast Range and 

the Olympic Mountains. 

Tend to be severe, standreplacing crown fires

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, Rocky Mountains Dry low-elevation to mesic Lightning ignition Dry/low elevation = high Barrett and Arno 1999,

western larch (Larix higher elevations frequency, low severity, Bartuszvige and 

occidentalis), and with return intervals from Kennedy 2009,

lodgepole pine 15 to 20 years Peet 2000

Mesic/higher elevation = 

low-frequency, standreplacing severity, 35- to 

200-year return intervals

Mixed-conifer composition, Sierra Nevada Characterized by hot, dry Lightning ignition Mid elevation = high- Barbour and Minnich

including white fir, incense summers and cool, wet frequency, low-intensity 2000, Bartuszvige and

cedar (Calocedrus sp.), winters, largely influenced burns, interval of roughly Kennedy 2009, Keeley

ponderosa pine, and by the Mediterranean 4 to 25 years and Stephenson 2000

Douglas-fir co-dominants climate of California
38

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

near areas inhabited prior to European settlement (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Shebitz 

et al. 2009). Unlike the relatively infrequent “natural” fires, indigenous burning in 

many areas was “regular, constant, and long term” (Boyd 1999, Peter and Shebitz 

2006), altering natural fire regimes, decreasing fire return intervals, and causing 

cumulative effects in plant community structures and species distributions (Barrett 

and Arno 1999, Peter and Shebitz 2006, Wray and Anderson 2003). The Pacific 

Northwest has likely been inhabited by people for at least 10,000 years, and there is 

evidence that repeated anthropogenic burning for habitat management at some sites 

began at least 3,500 years ago (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Wray and Anderson 2003). 

In the Sierra Nevada, burning by humans began at least 9,000 years ago (Klinger et 

al. 2008), and in northern California, evidence points toward 8,000 years of anthropogenic burning, assuming that ancient inhabitants had a similar cultural lifestyle 

as more recent tribes (Rentz 2003).

Fire was one of the most important tools of Native Americans and was essential for a wide range of activities (Boyd 1999). Fire was used across landscapes 

to prevent outbreaks of potentially destructive natural fire, to facilitate travel and 

communication, for hunting, to promote and manage edible, medicinal, and textile 

plants and seed resources, including beargrass (see table 10 for a more detailed 

account of the varied purposes and functions of indigenous burning.)

Periodic burning of places where beargrass grows was used both to enhance 

its growth and to ensure its availability and quality for use in basketry (Hunter 

1988; Rentz 2003; Shebitz et al. 2008, 2009a). Numerous western tribes including 

the Yurok, Karuk, Hupa, Chilula, Upland Takelma, and Olympic Peninsula tribes 

used periodic burning to maintain beargrass populations (Pullen 1996; Rentz 2003; 

Shebitz et al. 2008, 2009a). In the Pacific Northwest, the burning of beargrass sites 

also helped sustain habitat for bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn), camas 

(Camassia quamash (Pursh) Greene var. azurea (Heller) C.L. Hitchc.), and huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), as well as other valuable plants, resulting in sites bountiful 

in many resources (Boyd 1999, Shebitz 2005). While indigenous burning was a 

common and widespread practice in the West, specific burn techniques, including 

timing, frequency, severity, and extent, differed depending on cultural needs and 

habitat characteristics of the region. During summer (July–August), fires allowed 

for beargrass rhizomes to form young new tillers in the fall immediately following 

the burn, and earlier and more growth by the following summer (table 10), which 

fostered longer, more useable leaf lengths (fig. 10).

Effects of fire on beargrass— 

Beargrass is well adapted to recurrent burning, and can exhibit rapid and successful 

regrowth after fire (Boyd 1999, Maule 1959, Thomas and Schumann 1993). Indeed, 
39

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

burning may benefit beargrass via reduced competition with shrubs and trees (Boyd 

1999, Crane 1990) and via increased light and soil temperatures (Maule 1959). 

Fire is important for freeing mineral nutrients for plant uptake, and the increased 

availability of nutrients, like nitrogen, provides additional benefits to beargrass 

(Campbell et al. 2007, Ferrenberg et al. 2006, Rentz 2003).

Vegetative Reproduction, Percentage of Cover,

and Leaf Characteristics

The primary fire adaptation of beargrass is its ability to sprout from underground 

rhizomes (Crane 1990). Shebitz et al. (2009a) found that beargrass leaves resprouted 

from rhizomes within 5 months of a high-severity fire, and Rentz (2003) reported 

that plants burned to the ground were once again covered with leaves the following 

summer. The short-term effects of prescribed burning (both low and high severity) 

Table 10—Cultural burning for beargrass

Region Timing Frequency Severity Extent Sources

Northern Late summer/early Inhabited areas Slow moving 1-to 5-acre Hunter 1988, 

California/ fall, following show a record of surface fires. patches, rotating Keeley and

Sierra Nevada harvest of beargrass, 5- to 20-year burn Low to between adjacent Stephenson 

after the first fall intervals. moderate areas of similar 2000, 

rains during rainy intensity, fuel and forest Klinger 

season. controlled by composition. See et al. 2008 

 removal of Six Rivers, Rentz 2003 

 excess fuels Klamath, and

 prior to burning. Plumas National 

 Forests in California. 

Olympic Conducted in the Annual rotating Slow-moving Varies from a few Peter and 

Peninsula fall, after the first burn schedule, surface fires. square meters to Shebitz 2006,

—Skokomish frost. specific sites hectares. Shebitz 2005, 

 burned every Shebitz et al. 

 2 to 3 years. 2009a 

 Open areas 

 burned more 

 frequently than 

 peripheral areas.

Rocky Mountains Fall/early spring, Tree ring analysis Low severity, Barrett and 

when ignition suggests that settled crown fires not Arno 1999

would not cause sites had uniform ignited by 

destructive forest 9-year fire intervals, Native Americans.

fires. Few accounts as opposed to the

of summer burning. varying but 

 approximate 18-year 

 intervals at unsettled 

 sites.

Willamette Valley, Late summer, Early settlers Boyd 1999 

Oregon early fall. No described the region 

record of burning as “baptized in fire”

at any other time. and journeyed 20 

 miles across ash.
40

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

and manual clearing on beargrass growth and reproduction (flowering, vegetative 

reproduction, and seedling establishment) were at least 2-year reductions in beargrass cover in the same study. High-severity burned sites had a significantly higher 

number of beargrass leaves than unburned control plots (Shebitz et al. 2009a). This 

finding is consistent with previous reports that beargrass initially decreases after 

a fire, especially hot broadcast burns (Crane 1990). The observed fire-induced 

increase in beargrass shoot density 2 years after burning (Shebitz et al. 2009a) is 

also consistent with previous observations and research. Maule (1959) reported 

that beargrass increased greatly in numbers as early as 2 years after a forest fire 

in the Washington Cascades, and grew densely in older burn sites. Likewise, in 

northern Idaho, after a light fire, beargrass increased to 11-percent cover after 10 

years (Crane 1990). Following a Montana wildfire, beargrass resumed growth and 

reached 2-to 3-percent cover in 10 years (Crane 1990). 

Fire history can affect the structural characteristics of beargrass leaves, as demonstrated by significant differences between leaves on plants previously exposed 

to fire versus leaves from unburned plants (Rentz 2003). Leaves collected from 

burned sites were narrower and thinner than those from unburned areas, and also 

more pliable, resulting from fewer hypodermal fiber rows below the adaxial surface 

and an overall reduction in sclerified tissue when compared to leaves from plants 

in unburned sites (Rentz 2003). The origin of structural leaf differences between 

unburned and burned plants has not been investigated, but the observed changes in 

leaf structure are likely either an internal physiological response to the removal of 

vegetative material or a response to postfire changes in environmental conditions, 

such as differences in soil moisture, nutrients (particularly nitrogen), or light availability at the leaf base (Rentz 2003). 

Sexual Reproduction

Observational increases in beargrass flowering within 2 years following fire have 

been reported (Kruckeberg 2003, Maule 1959, Rentz 2003, Sullivan 2009). In 

contrast, Shebitz et al. (2009a) found no significant effect of high-severity burn on 

flowering over the 2-year monitoring period, and a decline in flowering after lowseverity fire. This variability in results may be due to differences in site conditions 

and short-term allocation of photosynthate (Shebitz et al. 2009a). 

Establishment and Survival

One greenhouse experiment found increased germination when seeds from lowelevation Washington sites were exposed to smoke-infused water (Shebitz et al. 

2009b). In the field, broadcast beargrass seeds were found to germinate more 

readily after high-severity, duff-burning fires, and produced greater seedling 
41

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

establishment (Shebitz et al. 2009a). Because neither manually cleared nor lowseverity burning affected beargrass seedling establishment, this study result is 

probably due to the exposure of mineral soil rather than to reduced competition. 

The mean germination rate of broadcast beargrass seed in high-severity burn plots 

was 9.2 percent after 1 year, compared to 0.7 percent in reference plots (Shebitz 

et al. 2009a). This result is consistent with Crane (1990) that in situations where 

hot surface fires kill beargrass rhizomes, beargrass seedlings can germinate and 

establish in areas with exposed soil. Surface fires do not consume the rhizomes of 

beargrass, but hot fires can damage its meristematic region, which is often positioned at or above the interface between organic material and mineral soil (Crane 

1990, Shebitz 2010). This region is important for survival of the plant because it is 

the only portion of the rhizome able to produce new growth (Crane 1990). Under 

wet or moist conditions, the moisture held in the basal leaves will limit the transfer 

of heat to the meristem, but under dry conditions, leaves may increase the heat 

delivered to the base of the rosette. Additionally, if beargrass tussocks have accumulated leaf litter, they may continue to burn after a fire passes, further increasing 

the likelihood of meristematic damage and plant mortality (Shebitz et al. 2009a). 

Low-severity fires have historically been used for beargrass habitat management (Hunter 1988, Peter and Shebitz 2006) because very high temperatures 

and long fire residence times associated with heavy fuel concentrations are most 

likely to cause beargrass mortality. In Rocky Mountain habitat types, beargrass 

is reported to increase after light broadcast fires, but to decrease after hot fires or 

scarification. In some habitat types, beargrass may not recover to prefire levels 

for more than 9 years after a severe fire (Crane 1990). In contrast, recent experiments by Shebitz et al. (2009a) found that high-severity fire resulted in the greatest 

increase in beargrass abundance after 1 and 2 years. Only high-severity fire was 

effective at preparing safe sites for beargrass seedling establishment, probably 

because beargrass seeds benefit from contact with mineral soil for germination 

and the litter layer remained intact after the low-severity burns. Likewise, only 

high-severity fire resulted in an increase in beargrass vegetative reproduction (shoot 

number), despite the fact that there was some beargrass mortality owing to rhizome 

meristem damage (Shebitz 2010). Beargrass populations may persist most successfully under mixed-severity fire regimes in the Pacific Northwest. 

Effects of Fire Suppression on Beargrass 

Not just fire, but also the suppression of fire can affect beargrass. Early EuroAmerican settlers had a strong antifire bias; it was viewed as undesirable and 

destructive. Concern grew over the hazards of fire for both inhabited areas and for 
42

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

the lumber industry (Rentz 2003). After several catastrophic western fires beginning in 1910, burning was prohibited within the national forests nationwide and 

the policy of fire suppression was established (Rentz 2003). Also contributing to 

the decline in anthropogenic burning of beargrass habitat was the forced relocation 

of Native Americans to reservations (Boyd 1999, Peter and Shebitz 2006, Shebitz 

2005). The mentality that fire was a destructive force to be contained or eliminated 

persisted into the 1960s, when the beneficial effects of fire on plants, animals, and 

ecological interactions began to be recognized by scientists and the field of fire 

ecology developed (Barrett and Arno 1999). 

The decline of anthropogenic burning and the suppression of natural fire have 

led to the decline of many beargrass prairies and savannas in the Rocky Mountains 

and Pacific Northwest (Shebitz et al. 2008, Wray and Anderson 2003). On the 

Olympic Peninsula, traditional burning practices stopped around 1877. Meanwhile, 

the moist maritime climate of the peninsula does not support the frequency of 

natural fire required to maintain beargrass savannas (Peter and Shebitz 2006). The 

restriction of anthropogenic fire across beargrass habitat has, therefore, resulted 

in forest succession over former beargrass prairies and savannas (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 2008) with corresponding changes in plant 

communities that can reduce availability of usable basket materials (Rentz 2003). 

Although prescribed burns that mimic presettlement conditions are now increasingly included in forestry management plans in the Northwest (Anderson 2005, 

Boyd 1999, Hunter 1988), and indigenous and culturally prescribed burning for 

beargrass is done in some areas (Anderson 2005, Rentz 2003, Senos et al. 2006), 

fire suppression and prevention policies continue to restrict the ability of Native 

Americans to burn vegetation in conjunction with harvesting beargrass and other 

cultural resources.

Beargrass is one resource typically collected from burned areas that is declining over at least some of its range (Hunter 1988, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 

2008). Change in plant community composition is a readily documented ecological consequence of fire-suppression practices. Anthropogenic systems, such as 

indigenous, fire-maintained beargrass habitat, tend to follow certain successional 

trajectories once active fire management has ceased (Peter and Shebitz 2006). In 

the Pacific Northwest maritime region, many previously open beargrass meadows 

are now covered with Douglas-fir (Boyd 1999, Peter and Shebitz 2006, Shebitz et al. 

2009a), or western hemlock/salal/beargrass (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carrière/

Gaultheria sp./X. tenax) or similar plant associations (Henderson et al. 1989 in Peter 

and Shebitz 2006). At higher elevations, former beargrass savanna sites are now 

dominated by a mix of lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir (Peter and Shebitz 2006).
43

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Effects of Fire Disturbance on Pollinator Community

Fire shapes many environments, including beargrass ecosystems (Peter and Shebitz 

2006). The potential effects of fire management on arthropod communities are 

variable and can have both beneficial and detrimental effects (Swengel 2001). 

The creation of suitable habitat via the large sunlit openings in the forest 

canopy is perhaps the most important benefit of fire to insect pollinators (Hartley et 

al. 2007). Pollinating insects generally rely on sunlight to raise their body temperature enough to make flight permissible, thus increased sunlight in burned habitat 

may attract these insects (Campbell et al. 2007). Fire-created canopy openings also 

provide environments where herbaceous vegetation (pollinator food plants) can 

flourish owing to increased light levels and reduced competition from trees and 

shrubs (Huntzinger 2003, Kerstyn and Stiling 1999). 

As a result of fire-induced changes in vegetation architecture, changes in nectar 

and pollen energy rewards also occur following fire, reflecting a general shift from 

annuals (mostly low-reward open access flowers) to perennials (mostly high-reward 

restricted access flowers) as post-fire regeneration ensues (Potts et al. 2003). Pollen 

production (measured as the number of pollen grains per unit area) has been found 

to be highest in freshly burnt sites and decreases with time (measured up to 50 

years) (Potts et al. 2003). Although such measurements have not been made on 

beargrass or its ecosystems, the highly variable effects of fire on beargrass flowering patterns suggest that beargrass pollen energy, per area, would likely decrease 

or remain unchanged during the first few years after burning, following which it 

would be expected to increase relative to unburned sites (Maule 1959, Shebitz et al. 

2009a) (fig. 10). 

Many studies have found a negative or mixed response of invertebrates to fire 

(Black et al. 2007, Harper et al. 2000, Swengel 2001). Fire has the potential to negatively influence pollinators and other arthropods in two major ways: directly, by 

fire-related mortality, and indirectly, by reducing, eliminating, or otherwise altering 

floral resources, vegetation, arthropod prey, litter, duff, woody debris, and other 

habitat elements pertaining to shelter or food (Campbell et al. 2007, Ferrenberg et 

al. 2006). Not surprisingly, there is loss of pollinators and other insects immediately 

following a substantial burn (Potts et al. 2003, Swengal 2001). Such reductions, for 

some taxonomic groups, may last only for a short period however (Potts et al. 2003). 

According to Vance et al. (2004), syrphid flies and flower-visiting beetles are 

the most abundant pollinators of beargrass, while members of various bee families 

appear to play a less prominent role. Although a substantial number of studies have 

examined the effects of fire on arthropods (e.g., Harper et al. 2000, Hartley et al. 

2007, Johnson et al. 2008), the majority of these studies used collection methods 
44

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

(e.g., pitfall traps, sweep-netting of vegetation) that are not suitable for capturing 

pollinator species (more readily collected in colored pan traps, colored malaise 

traps, or directly from flowers) (Campbell et al. 2007, Vance et al. 2004). Hence, 

although the effect of fire on floral communities and associated rewards has clear 

implications for pollinator community structure (Potts et al. 2003), the effects of 

fire on pollinators, specifically, are relatively understudied (Campbell et al. 2007) 

(fig. 11). In general, fire studies pertaining to beargrass pollinator guilds highlight 

the benefit of periodic fire on the diversity and abundance of these groups (table 11). Steve Levy

Figure 10—Beargrass leaves form a clump at the base of the inflorescence and are 

readily visible in late-season and postfire landscapes.

Figure 11—The effects of disturbances in beargrass 

ecosystems on pollinators such as beetles are not well 

understood. Steve Levy
45

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Harvest by Native Americans 

Traditional use of beargrass by Native Americans in basketry seems to have mostly 

benefited the plant because historical management practices (anthropogenic burning) were intended to encourage the plant’s establishment (see “Seasonality and 

Location of Native American Harvest”). Leaves for use in basketry are typically 

harvested 1 to 3 years following a burn (Hunter 1988, Shebitz et al. 2009a, Vance et 

al. 2001), as their quality for use in basketry improves after burning (Rentz 2003). 

Specific harvest season seems to differ across the range: on the Olympic Peninsula 

Table 11—Response of beargrass pollinators to fire

Classification Response to fire Sources

Order: Diptera Syrphid flies exhibit significantly greater abundance in plots that have been Campbell et al. 2007,

Major family: treated with high heat fire. Syrphid abundance has been negatively correlated Reemer 2005

Syrphidae with change in tree density (measured as basal area) and positively correlated 

(hover flies) with percentage of herbaceous plant cover, with the latter explaining 70

percent of the variation in the abundance data. Syrphids may benefit from fireinduced increases in herbaceous plant cover, probably owing to increases in

available food sources for both adults (pollen and nectar) and larvae (e.g., 

aphids, dead wood).

Order: Coleoptera Fire creates logs and many standing dead and dying trees which serve as Agee 1993, 

Major family: hospitable feeding habitat for insect pollinators with tree-boring larval stages, Campbell et al. 2007, 

Cerambycidae such as cerambycids. Many beetle species are highly adapted to fire conditions Ferrenberg et al. 2006,

(long-horn beetles) (through sense organs sensitive to infrared wavelengths of fire and through wax Swengel 2001,

glands protecting against desiccation). Scorched ponderosa pine trees are Werner 2002 

particularly susceptible to beetles and often suffer post-fire insect attack. Beetle

pollinators as a whole have exhibited significantly greater abundance and

richness in plots that have been treated with hot fire. Increases in dead wood,

herbaceous plant abundance and richness, or exposure of the mineral soil may 

have contributed to the greater beetle numbers in burned areas. 

Order: Coleoptera Fire may have indirect impacts on beetle pollinators with predatory stages, such Capinera 2008, 

Major family: as meloid beetles, by increasing or decreasing the abundance of specific prey. Kerstyn and

Meloidae Stiling 1999

(blister beetles)

Order: Apoidea (bees) Owing to the high mobility of adults and their rapid ability to recolonize burned Black et al. 2007, 

Major families: habitats, fire may have relatively less negative impact on bee populations. Campbell et al. 2007,

Andrenidae In temperate hardwood forests and pine forests with Mediterranean climates, Michener 1979, 

Apidae abundance and species diversity of some bees was highest at recently (within Moretti et al. 2009, 

Halictidae 1 to 3 years) burned sites and declined with elapsed time post fire. Freshly Potts et al. 2003

Megachilidae burnt areas supported 20 to 25 bee species per site, while intermediate and 

mature areas supported only 7 to 12 species. (Patterns in abundance and 

species richness closely mirror the abundance and richness of the flowering

plant community.) Bees have been found to be most abundant after hightemperature fires (which also result in species-rich understory vegetation).

Hotter fires may also provide more bare-ground habitat for ground-nesting

bees. Freshly burned sites are characterized by bee species that start and 

finish flying late in the season and bear multiple generations per year, and

by short-tongued, solitary, low-dispersal species.
46

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

in the late fall and winter (Vance et al. 2001), and in California during late June 

to August, depending on site factors that affect soil moisture and leaf growth. 

Harvest time is likely subject to the seasonality of fire. In northwestern California, 

harvesting is done by pinching and pulling a tight core of packed leaves (tuffs) 

and then slapping them on a sturdy surface (e.g., thigh or other hand) to separate 

the compacted leaf bases (yellowish-white tissue). From this clump of now mostly 

separated individual leaves, the center-most threadlike ones are removed, as well as 

any unsuitable “Frog woman” thicker and wider red-edged ones (see box on page 

47). The mid-size and larger supple leaves are then sorted and laid to dry on mats 

or tarps in the sun (fig. 9). Some weavers sort leaves by similar sizes after drying. 

For example, by leaf width (size classes) as an overlay to match the width/diameter 

of the conifer (ponderosa pine or sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis Bong.) root used in 

twine weaving style. Leaves not suitable for use in basketry (brittle blades or blades 

with yellow tips or paling color) are typically avoided (LaLande and Pullen 1999, 

Rentz 2003, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 2009a, Vance et al. 2001) and there is a 

general taboo against harvesting more material than can be used (Bennett and Shaw 

1987), which reduces the likelihood of overharvest.

Environmental effect of harvest disturbance— 

As discussed previously, Native Americans periodically burned beargrass habitat to 

enhance the growth of beargrass and improve its viability for use in basketry, and 

to ensure long-term availability. Over time, this burning has resulted in the establishment and persistence of vegetative communities in locations where they might 

not otherwise exist (Boyd 1999 in Shebitz et al. 2009a). Owing to the long history 

of anthropogenic burning, it is likely that beargrass now belongs to a fire-dependent 

ecosystem, inherently unstable now that management practices have changed (Peter 

and Shebitz 2006).

Effects of disturbances on traditional harvesters— 

Any disturbance that results in a decline of beargrass will have a corresponding 

negative effect on traditional harvesters who gather blades for use in basketry. On 

the Olympic Peninsula, traditional harvesters have reported a decline in the availability of beargrass suitable for basketry (Peter and Shebitz 2006, Shebitz 2005, 

Shebitz et al. 2008). Contemporary weavers from northern California also express difficulty obtaining beargrass, noticing both a decline in quantity and quality (Anderson 2005). This decline in suitable material is primarily attributed to the 

plants no longer being burned (Anderson 2005); however, a variety of other factors 

are also mentioned by contemporary weavers including increased harvest by commercial harvesters and disruption to beargrass habitat from commercial logging. 
47

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Concerns over the harvest of beargrass for the floral greens industry are often 

linked to the industry’s dependence on seasonal immigrant labor. Seasonal harvesters operate with little to no training and may damage the plant through indiscriminant harvest practices (Hansis 1998, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 2008). There is also 

a growing concern over the volume of the commercial harvest (Schlick 1994) and 

the possibility that future harvest pressure created by the floral greens industry will 

lead to illegal harvesting on public and tribal lands, especially as demand grows 

and access to public lands becomes more difficult (Brown 2000). Some tribal members reported an increased level of illegal harvesting (Brown and Marin-Hernández 

2000, Shebitz 2005, Shebitz et al. 2008). For example, on the Olympic National Forest, tribe members reported seeing truckloads of beargrass despite the fact that the 

forest was not issuing harvesting permits to nontribal members (Shebitz 2008). U.S 

Code Title 25 (2011) declared “there is a serious threat to Indian forest lands arising 

from trespass and unauthorized harvesting of Indian forest land resources (National 

Indian Forest Resources Management Act 2006). 

Karuk story (adapted by Frank K. Lake)

Frog (Western Toad) woman went with the women and girls along the river 

and creeks to collect materials when she was learning to weave baskets. But 

frog did not want to go with them to harvest beargrass up in the mountains 

during the hot summer days. Instead, she stayed by the river and used mostly 

sand bar willow shoots and roots in her weaving. When it came time for frog 

to overlay design materials on the willow base, she had black (maiden hair 

fern stems) and red (woodwardia-chainfern dyed with alder bark), but no white 

(beargrass lily leaves). By now it was fall, with the days growing shorter and 

cooler. Frog woman finally went up the trail following the ridge to the upper 

Douglas-fir and pine forests. It was too late, however. Frog woman did not 

know how to collect fresh younger tillers—or “tuffs”—of formerly burned 

plants. When she finally found beargrass clumps and pulled on leaves to 

harvest then, she cut her hand and her blood ran down in to the center of the 

clump. Now to this day, you better learn how to collect at the right time of the 

year and the correct plant parts (younger leaf bundles-tillers) that were properly burned the year before. People who don’t know better use “Frog woman’s” 

type of leaves in their baskets and they are inferior and tough as well as sharp 

and reddish along the edges.
48

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Native American harvesters also worry that logging is affecting what once 

served as beargrass habitat (Shebitz et al. 2008). Lynch and McLain (2003) and 

Schilich (1994) found that some tribe members expressed concern that the use 

of pesticides and aerial sprays in forestry practices could diminish the quality of 

beargrass otherwise suitable for basketry. 

The Floral Greens Industry

Harvest method— 

Commercial harvesters in theory remove only a handful of the longest blades from 

the center of the plant (Crane 1990, Lynch and McLain 2003, Schlosser et al. 1992, 

Thomas and Schumann 1993). Harvest occurs by hand-pulling the leaf blade from 

its sheath, or by using a knife to cut the leaves. Harvesters attempt to remove as 

much of the leaf blade as possible to meet the length requirement set by purchasing sheds. The harvested leaves are bound together in .22 kg to .45 kg (half-pound 

to one pound) bunches, bagged in quantities of about 45.3 kg (100 pounds), and removed from the woods for cleaning and sorting (Thomas and Schumann 1993). 

Commercial harvesters typically concentrate in a particular area, harvest all 

available beargrass, then return home to clean and sell the harvested material 

(Thomas and Schumann 1993). Harvest occurs primarily in wilderness or other 

public land owing to the difficulty of cultivating beargrass. 

Environmental effect of harvest— 

Beargrass commercial harvest is currently monitored through a permit system. 

This means it monitors the number of harvesters rather than the volume of material 

harvested (see “Permitting and Regulation”). Such a system can allow individuals 

to overharvest a particular area. Geographically stable, long-term harvesters tend to 

be concerned about regeneration, but more numerous short-term or migrant harvesters are not (Brown 2001, Hansis 1998). Furthermore, the confusion and expense 

that surround the beargrass harvest permit system has led to illegal harvesting in 

many areas (Lynch and McLain 2003). Poor harvesting practices can lead to extensive damage if the core of the plant is cut and flowering shoots are destroyed (Vance 

et al. 2004). The plant regenerates slowly once the core has been cut (Kramer 2001, 

Thomas and Schuman 1993).

Effects of disturbances on commercial harvesters— 

Much of the disturbance that commercial harvesters face is created internally. 

Long-term, geographically stationary harvesters tend to worry about-long term 

effects of overharvesting, the growing numbers of illegal harvesters, and the effect of poor harvesting techniques often practiced by untrained harvesters (Brown 
49

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

2001). Self-proclaimed “good pickers” worry that they will be penalized along 

with damaging pickers by increased monitoring and higher permit prices (Lynch 

and McLain 2003). Unpermitted harvesters create tension with permitted harvesters (Brown 2001, Lynch and McLain 2003), and the practice of issuing unlimited 

permits for a single area heightens competition and promotes adversarial relationships among commercial harvesters who fear they will be unable to harvest enough 

material to pay for the permit (Lynch and McLain 2003). There has also been growing animosity between cultural groups as well as groups of commercial harvesters 

over access to particularly favorable plots (Hansis 1996, Lynch and McLain 2003). 

Tension between commercial harvesters, as well as between harvesters and other 

forest user groups such as hunters, has prompted some harvesters to begin carrying weapons (Hansis 1996, 1998). Beargrass pickers often feel that they are blamed 

for the negative behaviors of other user groups, and punished by restricted access, 

which fuels this tension (Kramer 2001, Lynch and McLain 2003). 

An emerging, less-documented worry related to commercial access is that the 

labor market is trending toward the issuing of exclusive access permits (Hansis 

1998, Lynch and McLain 2003, Thomas and Schuman 1993). While this might 

resolve access disputes, it is also likely that permits will become more expensive, 

and access for the small scale harvester could be restricted as a result (Lynch and 

McLain 2003).

Effects of harvest disturbance on pollinator community—Similar to herbivory 

(e.g., by grazing animals and insects), leaf harvest by humans directly decreases the 

amount of photosynthetic tissue of a plant has, thereby reducing the plant’s available 

and potential resources for growth, reproduction, and survival (Cardel and Koptur 

2010). Potential plastic responses of plants to herbivory (and presumably leaf harvest) include changes in resource allocation by the plant and changes in the quality 

and number of pollen grains produced owing to nutrient stress (Cardel and Koptur 

2010). Harvest-driven plant mortality or suppression of flowering could result in 

patchier resources for pollinators, which, depending on the availability and proximity of other acceptable resources, may need to expend more foraging energy or reduce their intake of pollen food. Increased energy demands and decreased food supply both could negatively affect the reproductive success of pollinators. Considering 

that the availability of beargrass pollen to insects is already limited by the light 

and temperature requirements for the production of flowering stalks (Maule 1959), 

and by grazing ungulates who consume whole flowering stalks (Vance et al. 2004), 

harvest-driven losses in pollen resources may be significant. The overall effect of 

beargrass harvest on pollinators is unknown. 
50

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Additionally, beargrass harvest activity has the potential to degrade pollinator habitat, alter the vegetation community, and even kill individual pollinators as 

a result of trampling by humans or vehicle use on open sites (Black et al. 2011). 

Although beargrass itself is tolerant of trampling owing to its tough, wiry leaves 

and tufted growth habit (Crane 1990), some pollinators, particularly groundnesting species, may not be so tolerant. Of course, owing to the mutual relationship 

between pollinators and beargrass, any negative effects on pollinators may, in turn, 

affect beargrass via a reduction in pollen grain deposition on stigmas in an already 

compatible-pollen limited system (Vance et al. 2004). 

Timber Harvest

Timber harvest is a widespread anthropogenic disturbance in the Pacific Northwest 

and Rocky Mountains, and has resulted in extensive loss, fragmentation, and 

alteration of forested ecosystems throughout the range of beargrass (Halpern and 

Spies 1995). Although forest management practices in these regions differ depending on land ownership, site conditions, vegetation characteristics, and the period 

during which stands were harvested, logging has been extensive in many low- tomid-elevation sites (Halpern and Spies 1995). Old-growth forests in Washington, 

Oregon, and California have declined in area by more than 50 percent since the 

1950s (Halpern and Spies 1995). 

Logging activites in beargrass habitat can alter succession and influence the 

diversity, abundance, and composition of understory vegetation over both the short 

and long term (Battles et al. 2001, Halpern and Spies 1995). Although canopy openings, increased light levels, and higher soil temperatures resulting from logging 

could potentially benefit beargrass growth and reproduction (Brockway et al. 1983, 

Maule 1959, Vance et al. 2001) most studies have found that logging-related activities result in both short- and long-term reductions in beargrass densities (Shebitz et 

al. 2009a). In a short-term Oregon Cascade Range study examining plant cover and 

composition (1) prior to clearcut logging, (2) after logging but before broadcast slash 

burning, and (3) during each of five growing seasons following burning, beargrass 

disappeared immediately after clearcut logging, remained absent after burning, 

and reappeared only in trace amounts 4 years later (Dyrness 1965). Clearcutting 

followed by broadcast burning strongly decreased the abundance of beargrass in 

a study conducted in high-elevation old-growth Douglas-fir forests of the Oregon 

and Washington Cascade Ranges. The study found that beargrass did not recover 

its prior abundance for more than 20 years (Halpern and Spies 1995). Similarly, 

beargrass recovery was found to take up to 23 years after clearcutting and broadcast burning in the grand fir/Oregon boxleaf association in northern Idaho (Crane 
51

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

1990). Arno et al. (1985) reported that beargrass abundance decreased sharply after 

scarification following logging, and could take at least 25 years to recover or not 

recover at all (Arno et al. 1985). 

Soil compaction, damage to rhizomes, and competition with understory plants 

have all been attributed to beargrass decline following logging-related disturbance 

(Arno et al. 1985, Crane 1990, Laursen 1984, Shebitz et al. 2008). Dryness (1965) 

reported that invasive species increased in frequency and percentage of cover after 

logging and burning, while many residual, previously widely-distributed plant species such as beargrass declined or disappeared altogether.

Logging-related changes in soil composition may also affect beargrass in sites 

harvested for timber. Unlike fire, tree harvest is a disturbance that removes rather 

than consumes vegetation, particularly if the slash is not left onsite. As a result, 

nutrients stored in the vegetation are not recycled in the system, and the influx of 

nutrients available to understory plants such as beargrass may be lower and different in composition than in burned or undisturbed forests (Bartuszvige and Kennedy 

2009). 

Logging could further affect beargrass by increasing erosion and landslide 

potential at beargrass sites. In Oregon, disturbances from the creation of logging 

roads and timber harvest activities have been documented that increase the 

frequency of landslides and erosion to a degree that is several times greater in 

clearcut areas than in forested areas (Swanson and Dyrness 1975). 

Impacts of logging on commercial and traditional beargrass harvest— 

Canopy density is correlated with the length, color, and thickness of beargrass 

leaves; canopy densities of less than 60 percent have been reported not to produce 

beargrass of commercially harvestable quality (Higgins et al. 2004). As a result, 

beargrass commercial harvest may be limited by overstory forest conditions and 

forest management practices (Schlosser and Blatner 1997). According to Laursen 

(1984), shelterwood or selection cuts are better than clearcuts for promoting beargrass growth. Beargrass is not typically commercially harvested from stands after 

a clearcut or a seed tree harvest until a closed forest canopy reoccurs and persists 

(Schlosser and Blatner 1997). If a shelterwood regeneration system occurs with the 

entries, observations suggest that beargrass harvest can occur after the first harvest 

entry, but not the others. 

Timber harvest is also influencing traditional harvest potential in some areas. 

For example, in the Olympic Peninsula of Washington, a decline in beargrass owing 

to timber clearcuts is limiting the ability of Native Americans to access and harvest 

beargrass (Shebitz 2005). Charlotte Kalama, a Quinault elder and renowned basket-
52

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

maker who has experienced difficulty getting basket-quality beargrass for a number 

of years, stated: “My husband used to get it for me, but it’s hard to find now. Where 

he used to go, they have cut the trees. Now, beargrass grows short there, it stays 

[too] small” (Shebitz 2005). 

Impact of logging on beargrass pollinators— 

Similar to fire, certain logging-related disturbances may increase the abundance of 

insect pollinators by increasing the availability of distressed, dying, or dead trees. 

A study by O’Neill et al. (2008) in Montana lodgepole pine forests investigated the 

effects of shelterwood logging on wood-boring beetle pollinators and found that 

logged sites had increased abundance of adult cerambycids (including Cosmosalia 

chrysocoma, the most abundant of beargrass beetle pollinators) relative to unlogged 

plots and meadows. One year after logging, the abundance of cerambycids was 

similar among treatments (meadows, unlogged, and shelterwood logged plots), but 

2 years after logging, cerambycid counts were highest in the shelterwood areas, and 

remained so throughout the 4-year duration of the study (although after 3 years the 

abundance values of the different treatements started to converge). The loggingrelated increases in cerambycid abundance may be attributed to the greater abundance of decaying wood (larval food) and flowers (adult food) in the recently logged 

areas (O’Neill et al. 2008). Likewise, saproxylic syrphid flies may also increase 

postlogging (Reemer 2005), as a result of both larval dependence on dead/dying 

trees and adult dependence on floral food resources. 

Invasive Species

Nonnative invasive species are responsible for a wide array of economic and 

ecological damage to natural and managed ecosystems. About 42 percent of the 

plant and animal species on the threatened or endangered species lists in the United 

States are at risk primarily because of invasive species (Morse et al. 1995, Pimentel 

et al. 2005). Nonnative invasive plants are characteristically adaptable and aggressive, and have a high reproductive capacity, threatening native species by competing for light, nutrients, space, water, and pollinators, and by altering soil chemistry, 

natural fire regimes, and community structure (Pimentel et al. 2005). 

The exposure of beargrass populations to invasive species is largely influenced by site elevation, canopy cover, and disturbance. High-elevation sites are 

relatively protected from invasive species owing to (1) minimal human activity 

and limited potential for propagule spread by humans, and (2) harsh climates and 

environmental conditions correlated with elevation, such as reduced moisture, low 

temperatures, and short growing seasons (Klinger et al. 2006, 2008; Randall et al. 

1998). According to a recent evaluation by Anzinger and Radosevich (2008), coastal 
53

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Douglas-fir forests in the Pacific Northwest are more threatened by invasive species 

(particularly Scotch broom (Cytisis scoparius (L.) Link)) than are montane forests 

and meadows in this region. Hairy catsear (Hypochaeris radicata L.) is the only 

species listed as having realized or potential threat at higher elevation sites, and is 

considered of low threat (Anzinger and Radosevich 2008). 

Root Diseases

Fungal root diseases in forested habitat result in patches of dead and dying trees, 

which, upon falling or dying back, create openings in the forest canopy (Hagle 

et al. 2003). Root diseases may therefore be important to beargrass because they 

create conditions with increased light levels and soil temperatures relative to closed 

canopy conditions.

Laminated root rot (Phellinus weirii), Armillaria root disease (Armillaria 

ostoyae), and Annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) are three of the most 

common fungal root pathogens in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky Mountains 

(Dekker-Robertson et al., n.d.; Hagle et al. 2003). Trees of all sizes and ages may 

be killed by these diseases, although pathogen-specific susceptibility varies greatly 

among tree species (Hagle et al. 2003). With regard to forested beargrass habitat, 

grand fir forests are affected by all three of these diseases; Douglas-fir habitats are 

most likely to be affected by laminated root rot and Armillaria root disease; western 

hemlock forests are highly susceptible to Annosus root disease and moderately 

susceptible to laminated root rot; subalpine fir habitats are highly susceptible to 

Armillaria and moderately susceptible to both laminated root rot and Annosus; 

white and red fir forests are highly susceptible to Armillaria; mountain hemlock 

forests are highly susceptible to Annosus; and both lodgepole pine and western 

white pine habitats are moderately susceptible to Annosus (Dekker-Robertson et al., 

n.d.; Hagle et al. 2003). 

Root diseases may also have significant impacts on beargrass pollinators. 

Similar to fire and logging, fungal diseases increase the availability of distressed, 

dying, and dead trees, thus creating habitat for wood-loving pollinator guilds such 

as wood-boring beetles, saproxylic hover flies, and wood-nesting bees. The canopy 

openings caused by root disease may further attract pollinators by providing 

warmer foraging conditions, and by promoting the flowering of beargrass and other 

species. 

Avalanches and Landslides

Avalanche disturbance is an important driver in many subalpine forest ecosystems 

(Rixon et al. 2007). Snow avalanches are common and widespread geomorphic 

processes in the western mountains (Gao and Butler 1992) and may thus be a 
54

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

significant natural disturbance at high-elevation beargrass sites, although no known 

research is available as to the extent of this disturbance or its effects on beargrass. 

Depending on frequency and severity, avalanches probably differ in their 

effects on this plant. Severe avalanches (i.e., those entraining ice, rocks, trees, and 

other material downslope) would damage or destroy any beargrass populations 

in their path, at least over the short term, while avalanches of less severity (i.e., 

small masses of flowing snow) may have less negative, or even beneficial, effects. 

Because beargrass is a relatively disturbance-tolerant plant capable of growth and 

survival in both forested and open habitats (Crane 1990, Maule 1959) and can 

regenerate from rhizomes following disturbance (Adams et al. 1987, Shebitz 2009a), 

it may suffer less from avalanches than other members of its community.

Landslides are also a common occurrence in both undisturbed and logged areas 

of the western mountains, and may be a significant disturbance in some beargrass 

habitat (Swanson and Dyrness 1975). In a study investigating plant community 

recovery following the 1980 volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens, beargrass was 

among over 20 species found to regenerate from fragments and plant parts transported on root wads, stumps, and soil down a mud flow or debris slide. Beargrass 

regeneration, in this case, was by rhizomes, and no seedling establishment was 

recorded (Adams et al. 1987). Overall, beargrass appears to have evolved adequate 

responses to survive avalanches and landslides (Adams et al. 1987), although the 

effects of these disturbances on beargrass growth and reproduction are unknown.

Management and Research Considerations for 

Beargrass Ecosystems

Beargrass has multiple ecological and sociocultural roles (table 12). Although it is 

not listed as federally threatened or endangered and is still found across much of the 

range mapped for it in the 1950s, the plant is declining in some areas. Some associated ecosystem services and values are being affected as natural and anthropogenic 

disturbance regimes change. The main services at risk are traditional Native American uses and their associated cultural roles. Furthermore, there are probable effects 

to commercial harvesters in some locations and ecosystem processes associated 

with pollination may also be of concern. 

Land management practices to conserve ecosystem diversity, services, and values require knowledge about how natural and anthropogenic disturbances interact 

to affect them in places where they are a concern. These interactions will differ 

across the range of a species; it follows that the best conservation management 
55

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

practices will also differ. What does this mean for management practices to 

conserve beargrass ecosystems? One implication is that management needs and 

approaches will differ according to local conditions and tribal customs because 

the services and values at risk in one location may be less of a concern elsewhere. 

For example, documented concerns about insufficient beargrass leaves for Indian 

basketry are associated with the Pacific Northwest, but not with the Rocky Mountain portion of its range. 

This section summarizes the main social, cultural, environmental, ecological, 

and economic issues relating to the management of beargrass and the forested 

ecosystems in which it grows. It identifies circumstances in which management 

practices may differ or be in conflict for different resource objectives as well as 

topics for research that could aid management decisions. 

Social and Cultural Considerations

Social and cultural considerations include the following:

• Beargrass grows together with other culturally, economically, or biologically important plant species on lands managed by different owners who 

may have different management objectives. 

• Beargrass has traditionally been used by Native Americans for basketry 

material and ceremonial regalia and is an important element of maintaining 

their culture and identity. 

• Management practices that incorporate local or traditional ecological 

knowledge and tribal management practices (e.g, anthropogenic burning) may help conserve biocultural diversity associated with beargrass 

ecosystems.

• Commercial harvesters differ in several social and cultural ways from one 

another and from traditional harvesters, including site transience vs. permanence. Enforcement and commercial permit compliance pertaining to 

laborer safety and rights are insufficient.

Environmental Considerations 

Environmental considerations include the following:

• The overstory light environment in which beargrass grows affects how the 

plant reproduces and the number and properties of its leaves. It is unclear 

how different drivers of the plant light environment (fire, tree death via 

pathogens, insects, harvest or other disturbances) affect its reproduction 

and leaf properties. Deep and persistent shade alters leaf properties and 

plant morphology and likely results in decreased plant fitness. 
56

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Table 12—Beargrass management considerationsa

 Associated

Value plant part/ Conditions that favor Disturbances that negatively 

Ecosystem role at risk? properties desirable plant properties affect value

Social: 

Native American Yes Leaves: long, • Partial canopy/ Anthropogenic:

basketry thin, pliable, partial shade • Suppression of Indian burning

strong, less • Higher elevations and naturally-occurring fire

pigment • Recently burned areas • Commercial beargrass harvesting

 Natural:

• Succession to late-seral forest

Commercial floral In some Leaves: deep • 60 to 90 percent Anthropogenic: 

 greens industry parts of green, long, canopy cover • Overharvesting beargrass

 range wide, firm, >71 • Higher elevation • Silvicultural practices that create

 cm in length conifer forest in later large canopy openings, reducing

 stages of succession shade 

• Prescribed fire

 Natural:

• Wildland fire

Aesthetic/spiritual Yes Flowers • Best flowering Anthropogenic:

 Native American (Leaves: similar occurs in open • Trampling, commercial harvesting

 ceremonial regalia requirements as conditions 

 basketry, above) Natural:

 • Processes that favor vegetative

 state and suppress flowering state

Ecological: 

Food No Flowers, leaf • Partial canopy, open Anthropogenic:

 base and leaves, or diffuse light • Suppression of Indian burning and

 pollen naturally-occurring fire

• Overharvesting beargrass

 Natural:

• Processes that favor vegetative

state and suppress flowering state

 (e.g., closed forest canopy)

Habitat and No Basal leaves, • Diffuse light or shade Anthropogenic: 

soil structure leaves, and • Timber harvest practices that result

 rhizomes in soil compaction and plant death

Pollination, Yes Aggregated • Partial canopy, open or Anthropogenic:

decomposition flowers with diffuse light, dead or • Suppression of fire

 nutrient-rich dying trees that provide 

 pollen substrate for invertebrate Natural:

 pollinators and decomposers • Succession to late-seral forest

 like longhorn beetles

a It should be noted that although indigenous use of fire in maintaining habitats is inarguable, the details of traditional burning strategies are often 

not clear (Wray and Anderson 2003). In some tribal groups, understanding of burning techniques and ecosystem effects was specialized knowledge, 

possessed by only a few individuals, and thus may not have been passed down through time.
57

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

• The current distribution of beargrass is not well documented, and it is 

unknown how its range is changing. 

Ecosystem Considerations 

Ecosystem considerations include:

• The identity and status of pollinator species in beargrass habitat has been 

identified in some areas, but across the plant’s range the status of pollinators is unknown.

• The fitness of beargrass populations depends on periodic intervals in which 

the plant flowers and cross-pollination can occur. This implies phases 

in which overstory light conditions are suitable for flowering and there 

are sufficient masses of beargrass plants with adequate pollen to attract 

pollinators. 

• Some beetle pollinators of beargrass are decomposers of dead and decaying 

wood. 

• Beargrass provides food for animals large and small.

• The contribution of above- and belowground plant structure to soil and 

habitat properties is not well understood. 

Economic Considerations 

Economic considerations include:

• The changing dynamics, structure, and drivers of the floral greens industry are poorly understood or documented. A coordinated effort is lacking 

among landowners to monitor the amount of harvested beargrass being 

removed from specific locations.

• There is a lack of long-term price data for beargrass sold into the floral 

greens industry.

• Harvest of beargrass is tracked by permits issued rather than by volume 

collected. The workforce of harvesters in the floral greens industry is 

influenced by changing labor conditions in other sectors, and by changes in 

immigration policy.

• Price trends in the commercial beargrass industry appear to be consumerdriven rather than influenced by producers. As export of beargrass from 

the Pacific Northwest increases in importance, price trends are also influenced by international trade barriers and European market regulations and 

preferences.
58

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Beargrass Management Considerations 

Beargrass management considerations include:

• Different leaf properties (color, length, and pliability) are desired by different harvesters (see table 12). Dense forest overstory conditions appear 

to limit the abundance of beargrass plants and inhibit beargrass flowering, 

and thus management activities that promote canopy openings are expected 

to favor this species and its associated pollinators. 

• Beargrass grows with other culturally important plants; management activities that favor one species may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful to others. 

The intentional use of fire to manage beargrass might support traditional, 

commercial, and habitat objectives. Although low-severity burns were 

historically used for beargrass habitat management, a century of fire suppression has contributed to site conditions where such burns are no longer 

feasible and high-severity fire is more likely to occur.

• Empirical information on the frequency, intensity, and severity of fire in 

beargrass ecosystems is modest, but increasing in parts of the range of the 

plant. Traditional ecological knowledge associated with fire and fire effects 

is an additional source of information for beargrass management, but as it is 

specific to a time and a place, may be irrelevant for beargrass management 

today, and should be evaluated before implemented.

• Current management practices treat beargrass as a product rather than as 

part of an ecosystem. Local management decisions will depend greatly on 

beargrass population characteristics, local resource needs, pollinator needs, 

and site-specific factors such as topography, fuel build-up, fuel types and 

diversity, and fire history of both burn sites and adjacent areas. 

Research Needs and Opportunities

Effects of human disturbances in beargrass habitat—

Harvesting overstory trees—Relationships among different harvest and silvicultural systems and beargrass survival, growth, and reproduction are understudied. The 

harvest of overstory trees would create canopy openings to increase light levels and 

soil temperatures, which could stimulate beargrass growth and sexual reproduction. 

Harvesting beargrass leaves—Few studies have been conducted on the ecological effects of harvesting nontimber forest products such as beargrass. Empirical 

evidence is lacking, for example, on whether leaving tillers during leaf harvest prevents subsequent flowering of the plant. In general, loss of leaves directly decreases 
59

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

the amount of photosynthetic tissue in a plant and thereby reduces its resources 

available for growth, reproduction, and survival (Cardel and Koptur 2010). Potential responses of leaf loss could include changes in resource allocation (affecting 

flowering) and changes in the quality and number of pollen grains produced

(Cardel and Koptur 2010). Heavy leaf harvest might also result in higher rates of 

plant mortality, which (combined with reduced flowering) could affect pollinators. 

The effect of beargrass harvest on its main pollinators is unknown. 

Effects of natural disturbances in beargrass habitat—

Fire effects—The structural leaf differences between previously burned vs. unburned plants have not been investigated. The direct and indirect effects of fire on 

the pollinators of beargrass is not well understood. 

Effects of landslides—The effect of landslides on the reproductive strategy and 

persistence of beargrass is not understood. The relative importance of vegetative 

verses sexual reproduction in beargrass varies with habitat characteristics, and 

flowering potential appears to be related to increased light levels and soil temperatures (Maule 1959). 

Effects on plant reproduction—The persistence and viability of beargrass seed is 

unknown. Information is lacking on the relative effects of light conditions, underground competition, and changes in them on the reproductive strategy and fitness of 

beargrass. Furthermore, the nutritional value of beargrass pollen is poorly understood. As a rule, pollen resources high in protein are more valuable to pollinators by 

providing an essential nutrient in concentrated form, and by reducing the foraging 

strain on these insects. Pollen energy calculations at the habitat level could illuminate the role of beargrass in a plant community. Because pollen consumers occupy 

a low position in the food chain, and beargrass is often a dominant plant where it 

occurs, changes in the availability of beargrass pollen energy are not only important 

to pollinators, but may have cascading ecosystem effects.

Volume and value of beargrass leaves harvested— 

No coordinated effort currently exists among landowners to monitor the volume of 

harvested material being removed from specific locations, or from larger regions. 

Instead, most monitoring efforts simply track the number of permits issued in a given year and enforcement of harvest limits is difficult. There is a lack of long-term 

price data within the floral greens industry as a whole and for beargrass specifically. 

Information on harvest levels and prices would improve the ability of landowners to 

set permit prices. 
60

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Potential Management Activities

The potential activities to manage beargrass for which peer-reviewed or other 

published material can inform their design and implementation fall into the categories of prescribed fire, manual clearing, reestablishment, and silviculture. Better 

monitoring of leaf harvests and markets could provide useful information about 

plant populations associated with management activities. 

Prescribed fire— 

The severity, frequency, and timing of wildfire differ across the range of beargrass 

(table 9), and all need to be considered in designing and conducting prescribed 

burns. On the Six Rivers National Forest in California, for example, a prescribedburn target of .8094 ha (2 ac) per year was used to promote plants for traditional 

harvest, and the burns were conducted during the regular fire season on one-tenth 

to one-fourth-acre plots (Hunter 1988). According to Peter and Shebitz (2006), a 

fire-return interval of less than 20 years may be necessary to have long-lasting 

effects on beargrass reproduction and growth. This frequency would likely limit 

shrub and tree encroachment and ensure enough time for long leaves of basketmaking and commercial quality to develop (Shebitz et al. 2009a). Rentz (2003) documented increased pliability in beargrass leaves 2 years postfire. For prescribed fire 

related to basketry, Hunter (1998) recommended a fire that burns 75 to 95 percent 

of living beargrass foliage in addition to 90 to 100 percent of old, dry growth. 

According to Hunter (1988), a highly specific fire behavior is not essential to produce good results in beargrass, as long as the desired consumption is obtained and 

the fire is held within control lines. Flame lengths of .23 m to .91m (.75 to 3 ft) and 

a rate of spread between .30 m and 1.21 m (1 to 4 ft) per minute have produced acceptable results (Hunter 1988). In general, very high temperatures and long residence times associated with heavy fuel concentrations are most likely to cause 

beargrass mortality, and low-severity fires have been historically used for beargrass 

habitat management (Hunter 1988, Peter and Shebitz 2006). Damp weather conditions may also help limit fire severity. Under wet or moist conditions, the moisture 

held in the basal leaves will limit the transfer of heat to the meristem, but under dry 

conditions, leaves may increase the heat delivered to the base of the rosette. If beargrass tussocks have accumulated leaf litter, they may continue to burn after a fire 

passes, further increasing the likelihood of meristematic damage and plant mortality (Shebitz et al. 2009a). 

Manual clearing— 

The cutting of shrubs and trees may be a useful management approach for restoring 

and maintaining pollinator habitat, either alone or in combination with fire. Relative 
61

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

to burning, the mechanical removal of vegetation may be less risky for pollinators, 

in that pollinator habitat is promoted without the temporary destruction of herbaceous food and habitat resources (Mader et al. 2011). However, this management 

type has been rarely studied, and, according to a review by Swengel (2001), little 

research is available for comparing tree cutting and other management in a pollinator conservation context. 

Reestablishment— 

The three most promising techniques for reestablishing beargrass are direct seeding, transplanting greenhouse-grown seedlings, and transplanting wild-harvested 

seedlings. Both wild-collected seeds and greenhouse grown plants are commercially available. Shebitz et al. (2009a) had the greatest success direct seeding into 

severely burned habitat with mineral soil exposed (relative to unburned and lightly 

burned conditions). 

Silviculture— 

A silvicultural system is a planned series of treatments for a forest stand that implies a process for creating target conditions over time. The timing and intensity of 

treatments in any system that are designed to manage forest ecosystem diversity in 

the range of beargrass will depend on site-specific conditions as well as on the key 

management objectives. Clearcutting is an even-age system that removes almost 

all trees, creating a fully exposed microclimate for a new age class of trees to develop. In the Pacific Northwest, clearcutting predominated for a century (Curtis et 

al. 1998, Tesch 1994). The system might provide sufficient light to stimulate flowering in beargrass, but could adversely affect the structural properties of soil and 

the quantities of dead wood associated with adequate drainage and with pollinator 

habitat. As an alternative, a two-age, shelterwood system could create the dappled 

light environment that promotes flowering in beargrass, leaf properties suitable 

for traditional harvesters, and standing dead and down wood for decomposers. A 

shelterwood is one in which most trees are harvested, but some are left to shade the 

new trees establishing underneath. It involves the intentional use of shade, which 

can give desired species a growth advantage over competing vegetation during the 

establishment phase of regeneration. Trees retained in a shelterwood system are 

generally harvested after a new age class is established. In contrast to even-age or 

two-age systems, an uneven-age system regenerates a forest stand with three or 

more age classes. This is typically accomplished with some form of selection system. In these systems, mature and immature trees are felled to create or maintain 

uneven-age stands. Single tree selection fells individual trees and generally tends 

to increase the proportion of shade-tolerant species in mixed-species stands. Group 
62

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

selection cuts trees in units and therefore maintains a higher proportion of shadeintolerant species in mixed-species stands than individual tree selection. Unevenage systems would likely create a shadier environment that inhibited beargrass 

flowering but produced leaf properties desired by commercial harvesters. They 

would also tend to promote dead and down wood for decomposers. We did not find 

published studies on the effects of different silvicultural systems or intensities of 

harvest specifically on beargrass. Variable retention harvesting, which creates gaps 

and groups of multiaged forest, may favor beargrass populations by providing a 

gradient of light between tree and shrub seral stages. Such conditions could produce 

the “filtered” light that promotes leaf elongation suitable to tribal and commercially 

desired leaf morphology. 

In addition to bare ground, dead wood is a critical resource for many pollinators. The larvae of most pollinating beetles (e.g., Cosmosalia chrysocoma) and 

some syrphid flies (e.g., Cheilosia hoodiana) require dead wood for food and habitat, and the abundance of these pollinators in a given habitat is known to increase 

with abundance of dead wood (e.g., Ferrenberg et al. 2006, Reemer 2005). Thus, 

managed beargrass sites should include an abundance and diversity of dead wood, 

including stumps, standing snags, and fallen logs, and piles of logs or brush, all 

of which are important pollinator resources (Mader et al. 2011). It should be noted 

that the larval food requirements of pollinators with predaceous larval stages (e.g., 

Parasyrphus syrphid flies and Epicauta blister beetles) will be best met by promoting a diversity of flowering plants, because prey species are often herbivorous (or 

predatory on herbivores) (Mader et al. 2011).

Restricting or monitoring beargrass harvests— 

Plant death and damage can occur as a result of overharvest or careless harvest 

practices. Education of harvesters to encourage less-destructive gathering practices (particularly with regard to meristem damage) may help reduce damage to a 

beargrass population. Measures like restricting the number of leaves that can be 

harvested from an individual plant, or the frequency that a given population can 

be harvested, may be warranted in some locations. However, such restrictions are 

nearly impossible to enforce, and these goals might be best achieved through education or self-monitoring. According to Charnley et al. (2008), many experienced 

floral-greens harvesters in the Pacific Northwest already adhere to self-imposed 

harvest level restrictions, and practice resource rotation that allows areas to lie fallow and recover for future harvest. Harvesters may also be willing to participate in 

productivity experiments or techniques (such as monitoring flowering behavior or 

spreading beargrass seeds) particularly if these activities are aimed at sustaining the 

livelihoods of harvesters over the long term (Charnley et al. 2008). Any educational 
63

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

materials (as well as any signage or regulatory information) should be published in 

languages other than English, in which not all harvesters are fluent. 

Harvest might also be better managed by efforts to regulate and better meet 

consumer demand. Developing cold storage facilities or spreading out processing 

facilities would enable the floral greens industry to profitably sell purchased greens 

for longer periods of time, and presumably help regulate the prices paid to harvesters and distribute benefits across a wider range of communities. The creation of 

cooperatives might enable harvesters to develop relationships with individual 

buying sheds with better benefit sharing; better benefits might lessen the harvest 

pressure. The use of stewardship contracts over permits might also enable landowners to share the burden of habitat maintenance with harvesters. 

Conserving Beargrass Ecosystem Diversity

Best management practices to conserve ecosystem diversity will differ according to 

local disturbance regimes within a regional context. What does this mean for ecosystem management to achieve conservation? One implication is that management 

needs and approaches will differ throughout the range of beargrass because ecosystem values at risk in one location may be less of a concern elsewhere. For example, 

concerns about insufficient beargrass leaves for Indian basketry are documented in 

the Pacific Northwest, but not in the Rocky Mountains. This same principle likely 

applies to a number of other species as well.

Because management needs and approaches are likely to differ locally within 

the range of beargrass there is a role for traditional and local ecological knowledge, 

in addition to western scientific knowledge, in contributing to ecosystem conservation, especially when a threatened value is sociocultural in nature. We define 

traditional ecological knowledge as a cumulative body of knowledge about the relationships between people, other living things, and the environment that is handed 

down across generations through cultural transmission (Berkes 2000). In includes 

knowledge, practices, beliefs, and the range of skills and strategies that people 

use to respond to the environmental circumstances in which they find themselves 

(Berkes 1999). It is dynamic and changes over time as people adapt to changing 

environmental conditions, experiment, build on their experiences and observations, 

and interact with other knowledge systems. It is also place-based. Similarly, local 

ecological knowledge includes knowledge, practices, beliefs, skills, and strategies 

that people develop as a result of extensive interactions with, and personal observation of, local ecosystems (Charnley et al. 2007). This knowledge is more recent, 

and may eventually become traditional ecological knowledge. There are several 

examples of how traditional and local ecological knowledge can be integrated into 
64

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

biodiversity conservation efforts (see Charnley et al. 2007, 2008). A desirable way 

is to engage the knowledge holders directly, as active participants in conservation 

efforts, using participatory approaches. One important implication regarding the 

use of local ecological knowledge within conservation planning is the fact that local 

ecological knowledge is specific to a time and place (Gadgil et al. 1993, Gilchrist 

and Mallory 2007, Vance et al. 2001). It is, therefore, important to evaluate and 

supplement this knowledge with scientific experimentation.

References

Adams, A.B.; Dale, V.H.; Smith, E.P.; Kruckeberg, A.R. 1987. Plant survival, 

growth form and regeneration following the 18 May 1980 eruption of Mount St. 

Helens, Washington. Northwest Science. 61(3): 160–170.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 493 p.

University of Michigan-Dearborn. 2003. Native American Ethnobotany: A 

database of food, drugs, dyes and fibers of Native American peoples, derived 

from plants. (17 January 2011).

Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the 

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 555 p.

Anzinger, D.; Radosevich, S.R. 2008. Fire and nonnative invasive plants in the 

Northwest coastal bioregion. In: Zouhar, K.; Smith, J.K.; Sutherland, S.; Brooks, 

M.L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 354–355.

Arnett, R.H., Jr.; Thomas, M.C.; Skelley, P.E.; Frank, J.H., eds. 

2002. American Beetles, Volume II: Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea through 

Curculionoidea. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 881 p.

Arno, S.F.; Simmerman, D.G.; Keane, R.E. 1985. Forest succession on four 

habitat types in western Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-177. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 74 p. 

ATADA. 2004. The Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association, Inc. Media files: Some 

twists in the old-new basketmaker’s art. http://www.atada.org/2004_Media_

Files.html. (17 January 2011).
65

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Bakhle, A. 2009. The art of Native American basketry: A living tradition. Fabrik 

Magazine. http://www.fabrikmagazine.com/content/the-art-of-native-americanbasketry-a-living-tradition/. (1 December 2010). 

Barbour, M.G.; Minnich. R.A. 2000. California upland forests and woodlands. In:

Barbour, M.G.; Billings, W.D., eds., North American terrestrial vegetation, 2nd

ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 161–202. 

Barrett, S.W.; Arno, S.F. 1999. Indian fires in the Northern Rockies; ethnohistory 

and ecology. In: Boyd, R., ed., Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific 

Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 50–64.

Barrett, S.; Helenurm, K. 1987. The reproductive biology of forest herbs: 

1. Breeding systems and pollination. Canadian Journal of Botany. 65(10): 

2036–2046.

Bartuszvige, A.M.; Kennedy, P.L. 2009. Synthesis of knowledge on the effects 

of fire and thinning treatments on understory vegetation in U.S. dry forests. 

Special Report 1095. Extension and Experiment Station Communications. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://www.firescience.gov/projects/

07-S-11/project/07-S-11_07_s_11_fire_thinning_effects_understory_vegetation.

pdf. (22 Febuary 2011). 

Battles, J.J.; Shlisky, A.J.; Barrett, R.H.; Heald, R.C.; Allen-Diaz, B.H. 2001.

The effects of forest management on plant species diversity in a Sierran conifer 

forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 146(1–3): 211–222.

Bennett, R.S.; Shaw, C.R. 1987. Basketmaking among the Karuk. Arcata, CA: 

Humboldt State University Center for Community Development. 45 p.

Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred ecology: traditional ecological knowledge and resource 

management. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. 209 p.

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. 2000. Rediscovery of traditional ecological 

knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications. 10(5): 1251–1262.

Bernhardt, P. 2000. Convergent evolution and adaptive radiation of beetlepollinated angiosperms. Plant Systematics and Evolution. 222: 293–320.

Bernhardt, P. 2011. Personal communication. Pollinator biologist, Department of 

Biology, St. Louis University, 221 N. Grand Ave., St. Louis, MO 63103.

Bernhardt, P.; Thien, L.B. 1987. Self-isolation and insect pollination in the 

primitive angiosperms: new evaluations of older hypotheses. Plant Systematics 

and Evolution. 156: 159–176.
66

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Black, S.A.; Hodges, N.; Vaughan, M.; Shepherd, M. 2007. Pollinators in 

natural areas: a primer on habitat management. Portland, OR: Xerces Society for 

Invertebrate Conservation. 8 p. 

Black, S.A.; Vaughan, M.; Shepherd, M. 2011. Rangeland management for 

pollinators. Rangelands. 33(3): 9–13. http://www.bione.org/doi/full/10.2111/155-

501x-33.3.9. (11 January 2012).

Blatner, A.K.; Alexander, S. 1998. Recent price trends for non-timber forest 

products in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Products Journal. 48(10): 28–34.

Boyd, R. 1999. Indians, fire, and the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: 

Oregon State University Press. 313 p.

Brockway, D.G.; Topik, C.; Hemstrom, M.A.; Emmingham, W.H. 1983. Plant 

association and management guide for the Pacific silver fir zone—Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest. R6-Ecol-130a-1983. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 122 p. 

Brooks, M.L. 2008. Plant invasions and fire regimes. In: Zouhar, K.; Smith, J.K.; 

Sutherland, S.; Brooks M.L. eds., Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative 

invasive plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p. 

Brotherton, B., ed. 2008. S’abadeb, the gifts: Pacific Coast Salish art and artists. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 240 p. 

Brown, B.A. 2001. Challenges facing community forestry: the role of low income 

forest workers. Research Bulletin 2. Wolf Creek, OR: Jefferson Center for 

Education and Research. 7 p.

Brown, B.A.; Marin-Hernandez, A. eds. 2000. Voices from the woods: lives and 

experiences of non-timber forest workers. Wolf Creek, OR: Jefferson Center for 

Education and Research. 52 p.

Burke, H.E. 1905. Black check in western hemlock. Bureau of Entomology 

Circular No. 61. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 10 p.

Calflora, 2011. Information on California plants for education, research and 

conservation, based on data contributed by dozens of public and private 

institutions and individuals, including the Consortium of Calif. Herbaria. 

[web application]. Berkeley, CA: The Calflora Database. http://www.calflora.org/.

(4 February 2011).
67

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

California Baskets. 2011. CaliforniaBaskets.com: specializing in Northern 

California Indian baskets. http://www.californiabaskets.com/consignmentbaskets.

htm. (20 January 2011). 

Campbell, J.W.; Hanula, J.L.; Waldrop, T.A. 2007. Effects of prescribed fire 

and fire surrogates on floral visiting insects of the blue ridge province in North 

Carolina. Biological Conservation. 134: 393–404.

Capinera, J.L., ed. 2008. Encyclopedia of entomology, 2nd ed. Vols. 1–4. 

The Netherlands: Springer, Dordrecht. 4346 p. http://books.google.com/

books?id=i9ITMiiohVQC. (16 February 2011). 

Cardel, Y.; Koptur, S. 2010. Effects of florivory on the pollination of flowers: an 

experimental field study with a perennial plant. International Journal of Plant 

Science. 171(3): 283–292. 

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating traditional and local 

ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity conservation in the Pacific 

Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management. 246(1): 14–28.

Charnley, S.; Fischer, A.P.; Jones, E.T. 2008. Traditional and local ecological 

knowledge about forest biodiversity in the Pacific Northwest Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-751. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 52 p.

Coe, R.T. 1986. Lost and found traditions: Native American art, 1965–1985. Seattle, 

WA: University of Washington Press. 288 p. 

Cole, F.R. 1969. The flies of western North America. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press. 693 p. http://www.phorid.net/flower_fly/hover_species_pages/

cheilosia_hoodiana.htm. (2 January 2011). 

Collins, B.; Foré, S. 2009. Potential role of pollinators in microhabitat structure 

within a large population of Echinacea laevigata (Asteraceae). The Journal of the 

Torrey Botanical Society. 136(4): 445–456. 

Craighead, F.C. 1923. North American cerambycid larvae: a classification and 

the biology of North American cerambycid larvae. Canada Department of 

Agriculture Entomological Bulletin. 23: 1–239. http://www.archive.org/stream/no

rthamericancer00craiuoft#page/94/mode/2up. (17 February 2011).

Crane, M.F. 1990. Xerophyllum tenax. Fire Effects Information System. U.S 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forbs/xerten/all.html. 

(10 December 2010).
68

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Curtis, R.O.; DeBell, D.S.; Harrington, C.A.; Lavender, D.P.; St. Clair, J.B.; 

Tappeiner, J.C.; Walstad, J.D. 1998. Silviculture for multiple objectives in 

the Douglas-fir region. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-435. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

123 p.

Dekker-Robertson, D.; Griessmann, P.; Baumgartner, D.; Hanley, D. [N.d.].

Forest Health Notes: Annosus root disease. Pullman, WA: Washington State 

University Cooperative Extension. http://ext.nrs.wsu.edu/forestryext/foresthealth/

notes/annosusrootdisease.htm. (14 February 2011). 

Dobson, H.E.M. 2006. Relationship between floral fragrance composition and type 

of pollinator. In: Dudareva, N.; Pichersky, E., eds. Biology of floral scent. Boca 

Raton, FL: CRC Press: 147–198.

Drabble, E.; Drabble, H. 1917. The Syrphid visitors to certain flowers. New 

Phytologist. 16(5/6): 105–109.

Draffan G. 2006. Endgame research. http://www.endgame.org/index.html. 

(13 February 2012).

Drees, B.M.; Jackman, J. 1999. Field guide to Texas insects. Houston, TX: 

Gulf Publishing Company. http://insects.tamu.edu/fieldguide/bimg167.html. 

(1 March 2011). 

Dyrness, C.T. 1965. The effect of logging and slash burning on understory vegetation in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Res. Note PNW-31. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 13 p.

Eberling, H.; Olesen, J.M. 1999. The structure of a high latitude plant-flower 

visitor system: the dominance of flies. Ecography. 22: 314–323. 

Fall, H.C.; Cockerell, T.D.A. 1907. The Coleoptera of New Mexico. Transactions 

of the American Entomological Society. (1890-) 33(2/3): 145–272.

Faegri, K.; van der Pijl, L. 1979. The principles of pollination ecology. 3rd ed. 

Oxford, United Kingdom: Pergamon Press. 244 p.

Fenster, C.B.; Armbruster, W.S.; Wilson, P.; Dudash, M.R.; Thomson, J.D. 

2004. Pollination syndromes and floral specialization. Annual Review of 

Ecology and Systematics. 35: 375–403.
69

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Ferrenberg, S.M.; Schwilk, D.W.; Knapp, E.E.; Groth, E.; Keeley, J.E. 2006.

Fire decreases arthropod abundance but increases diversity: early and late season 

prescribed fire effects in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest. Fire Ecology. 2: 

79–102.

Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F.; Folke, C. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity 

conservation. Ambio. 22(2/3): 151–156. 

Gao, J.K.; Butler, D.R. 1992. Terrain influences on total length of snow avalanche 

paths in southern Glacier National Park, Montana. The Geographical Bulletin. 

34(2): 91–101.

Gilchrist, G.; Mallory, M.L. 2007. Comparing expert-based science with local 

ecological knowledge: what are we afraid of? Ecology and Society. 12(1): r1. 

[online]. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/resp1/. (23 April 2012).

Goldsmith, S.K. 1987. Resource distribution and its effect on the mating system of 

a longhorned beetle, Perarthrus linsleyi (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Oecologia. 

73(2): 317–320. 

Gullan, P.J.; Cranston, P. 2010. The insects: an outline of entomology. London: 

John Wiley and Sons. 565 p.

Gunther, E. 1927. Klallam Ethnography. Seattle, WA: University of Washington 

Publications in Anthropology. 1(5).

Gunther, E. 1973. Ethnobotany of western Washington: the knowledge and use of 

indigenous plants by Native Americans. Seattle, WA: University of Washington 

Press. 74 p.

Haddock, R.C.; Chaplin, S.D. 1982. Pollination and seed production in two 

phenologically divergent prairie legumes (Baptisia leucophaea and B. leucantha). 

American Midland Naturalist. 108(1): 175–186.

Hagle, S.K.; Gibson, K.E.; Tunnock, S. 2003. A field guide to diseases, insect 

pests of northern central Rocky Mountain conifers. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern and Intermountain Regions. http://www.

fs.fed.us/r1-r4/spf/fhp/field_guide/index.htm. (14 Febuary 2010). 

Halpern, C.B.; Spies, T.A. 1995. Plant species diversity in natural and managed 

forests of the Pacific Northwest. Ecological Applications. 5(4): 913–934.

Hansis, R. 1996. The harvesting of special forest products by Latinos and southeast 

Asians in the Pacific Northwest: preliminary observations. Society and Natural 

Resources. 9: 611–615.
70

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Hansis, R. 1998. A political ecology of picking: non-timber forest products in the 

Pacific Northwest. Human Ecology. 26(1): 67–86.

Harper, M.G.; Dietrich, C.H.; Larimore, R.L.; Tessene, P.E. 2000. Effects of 

prescribed fire on prairie arthropods: an enclosure study. Natural Areas Journal. 

20: 325–335. 

Hartley, M.K.; Rogers, W.E.; Siemann, E.; Grace, J. 2007. Responses of prairie 

arthropod communities to fire and fertilizer: balancing plant and arthropod 

conservation. American Midland Naturalist. 157: 92–105. 

Hawkeswood, T.J.; Turner, J.R. 2007. Record of pollination of Lomatia silaifolia 

(Sm.) R.Br. (Proteaceae) by the longicorn beetle Uracanthus triangularis (Hope, 

1833) (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Calodema Supplementary Paper. 53: 1–3.

Heffner, K. 1984. Following the smoke: contemporary plant procurement by 

the Indians of Northern California. Unpublished report. On file with : U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 

Bayshore Way, Eureka, CA 95501.

Higgins, S.; Blatner, K.; Kerns, B.K.; Worthington, A. 2004. Relationship 

between Xerophyllum tenax and canopy density in the southern Cascades of 

Washington. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 19: 82–87. 

Hitchcock, G.L.; Cronquist, A. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest: an illustrated 

manual. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 730 p.

Henderson, J.A.; Peter, D.H.; Lesher, R.D.; Shaw, D.C. 1989. Forested plant 

associations of the Olympic National Forest. R6-ECOL-TP-001-88. Portland, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 502 p. 

Hunn, E.S. 1990. Nchi’i-Wana, the big river: Mid-Columbia Indians and their land. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press: 378 p.

Hunter, J.E. 1988. Prescribed burning for cultural resources. Fire Management 

Notes. 49(2): 8–9.

Huntzinger, M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in 

the forested western United States. Biological Conservation. 113: 1–12.

Hutchinson, G.E. 1953. The concept of pattern in ecology. Proceedings of the 

Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 105: 1–12.
71

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Johnson, S.D.; Horn, K.C.; Savage, A.M.; Windhager, S.; Simmons, M.T.; 

Rudgers, J.A. 2008. Timing of prescribed burns affects abundance and 

composition of arthropods in the Texas Hill Country. The Southwestern 

Naturalist. 53(2): 137–145.

Jones, S., ed. 1983. Pacific basket makers: a living tradition. Honolulu, HI: 

Consortium for Pacific Arts and Cultures. 80 p.

Kearns, C.A.; Inouye, D.W. 1997. Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation 

biology. BioScience. 47: 297–307.

Kearns, C.A.; Inouye, D.W.; Waser, N. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the 

conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics. 29: 83–112.

Kearns, C.A. 1992. Anthophilous fly distribution across an elevation gradient. 

American Midland Naturalist. 127: 172–182. 

Keeley, J.E.; Stephenson, H.L. 2000. Restoring natural fire regimes to the Sierra 

Nevada in an era of global climate change. In: Cole, D.N.; McCool, S.F.; Borrie, 

W.T.; McLoughlin, J., eds. Proceedings of the wilderness science in a time of 

change conference. RMRS-P-15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station: 255–265.

Kerr, J.T.; Packer, L. 1999. The environmental basis of North American species 

richness patterns among Epicauta (Coleoptera: Meloidae). Biodiversity and 

Conservation. 8: 617–628.

Kerstyn, A.; Stiling, P. 1999. The effects of burn frequency on the density of 

some grasshoppers and leaf miners in a Florida sandhill community. Florida 

Entomologist. 82: 499–505. 

Kinney, K.; Peairs, F.B.; Swinker, A.M. 2010. Blister beetles in forage crops. 

Number 5.524. Colorado State University Extension. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture and Colorado Counties: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/

insect/05524.html. (16 February 2011).

Klinger, R.C.; Underwood, E.C.; Moore, P.E. 2006. The role of environmental 

gradients in non-native plant invasions into burnt areas of Yosemite National 

Park, California. Diversity and Distributions. 12: 139–156. 
72

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Klinger, R.; Wills, R.; Brooks, M.L. 2008. Fire and nonnative invasive plants 

in the southwest coastal bioregion. In: Zouhar, K.; Smith, J.K.; Sutherland, S.; 

Brooks, M.L., eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: fire and nonnative invasive 

plants. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.

Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Aizen, M.A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; LeBuhn, 

G.; Minckley, R.; Packer, L.; Potts, S.G.; Roulston, T.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.;

Vázquez, D.P.; Winfree, R.; Adams, L.; Crone, E.E.; Greenleaf, S.S.; Keitt, 

T.H.; Klein, A.-M.; Regetz, J.; Ricketts, T.H. 2007. Pollination and other 

ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for 

the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters. 10: 299–314.

Kramer, B. 2001. Dangerous harvests? Natural resources: Forest Service 

studying whether popularity of beargrass is harming ecosystem. The 

Spokesman-Review. June 5. http://www.spokesmanreview.com/newsstory.

asp?date=060501&ID=s973531. (3 December 2010). 

Kruckeberg, A. 2003. Gardening with native plants of the Pacific Northwest. 

Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 288 p.

Lake, F. 2011. Karuk story: Frog woman and beargrass, an adaptation. Personal 

communication. Research ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 

95521.

LaLande, J.; Pullen, R. 1999. Burning for a “fine and beautiful open country;” 

native uses of fire in southwestern Oregon. In: Boyd, R., ed. Indians, fire, and 

the land in the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 

185–218.

Larson, B.M.H.; Kevan, P.G.; Inouye, D.W. 2001. Flies and flowers: taxonomic 

diversity of anthophiles and pollinators. Canadian Entomologist. 133: 439–465. 

Lau, T.C.; Stephenson, A.G. 1993. Effects of soil nitrogen on pollen production, 

pollen grain size, and pollen performance in Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). 

American Journal of Botany. 80: 763–780.

Lau, T.C.; Stephenson, A.G. 1994. Effects of soil phosphorus on pollen production, pollen size, pollen phosphorus content, and the ability to sire seeds in 

Cucurbita pepo (Cucurbitaceae). Sexual Plant Reproduction. 7: 215–220.
73

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Laursen, S.B. 1984. Predicting shrub community composition and structure 

following management disturbance in forest ecosystems of the Intermountain 

West. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 261 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Lobb, A. 1990. Indian baskets of the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Portland, OR: 

Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co. 128 p.

Lynch, K.A.; McLain, R.J. 2003. Access, labor, and wild floral greens 

management in western Washington’s forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-585. 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 61 p.

MacRae, T.C.; Rice, M.E. 2007. Biological and distributional observations on 

North American Cerambycidae (Coleoptera). The Coleopterists Bulletin. 61(2): 

227–263. 

Mader, E.; Shepherd, M.; Vaughan, M.; Black, S.; LeBuhn, G. 2011. Attracting 

native pollinators: protecting North America’s bees and butterflies. North 

Adams, MA: Storey Publishing. 380 p.

Marr, J. 2008. Assimilation through education: Indian boarding schools of 

the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Libraries. http://content.lib.

washington.edu/aipnw/marr.html#boarding. (13 February 2012).

Matheson, A.; Buchmann, S.L.; O’Toole, C.; Westrich, P.; Williams, I.H. eds. 

1996. The conservation of bees. Linnean Society Symposium Series No. 18. 

New York: Academic Press. 254 p.

Maule, S.M. 1959. Xerophyllum tenax, squawgrass, its geographic distribution 

and its behaviour on Mount Rainier, Washington. Madrono. 15: 39–48. 

McGehey J.H. 1967. The biologies of two hemlock bark beetles in western Oregon. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 101 p.

McLain, D.K. 1982. Behavioral and morphological correlates of male dominance 

and courtship persistence in the blister beetle Epicauta pennsylvanica

(Coleoptera: Meloidae). American Midland Naturalist. 107(2): 396–403.

McLain, R.J.; Lynch, K.A. 2010. Managing floral greens in a globalized 

economy; resource tenure, labour relations and immigration policy in the Pacific 

Northwest, USA. In: Wild: product governance: finding policies that work for 

non-timber forest products. London: Earthscan. 265 p.
74

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Monné, M.A.; Bezark, L.G., Comps. 2010. Checklist of the Cerambycidae, or 

longhorned beetles (Coleoptera) of the Western Hemisphere, 2010 Version. http://

plant.cdfa.ca.gov/byciddb/checklists/WestHemiCerambycidae2010.pdf.

(16 February 2011).

Montana Outdoors 2010. Photograph of crab spider (Thomsidae) on beargrass 

inflorescence in Montana. http://montucky.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/tinyneighbors/#comments. (12 March 2011). 

Morrison, P.H.; Swanson, F.J. 1990. Fire history and pattern in a Cascade Range 

landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-254. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 77 p.

Moretti, M.; De Bello, F.; Roberts, S.P.M.; Potts, S.G. 2009. Taxonomical 

vs. functional responses of bee communities to fire in two contrasting climatic 

regions. Journal of Animal Ecology. 78(1): 98–108.

Morse, L.E.; Kartesz, J.T.; Kutner, L.S. 1995. Native vascular plants. In: 

LaRoe, E.T.; Farris, G.S.; Puckett, C.E.; Doran, P.D.; Mac, M.J; eds. Our living 

resources: a report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of 

U.S. plants, animals and ecosystems. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service: 205–209.

Munger, S.H. 2003. Common to this country: botanical discoveries of Lewis and 

Clark. New York: Artisan Publishers. 128 p.

Museum Informatics Project. 2011. Shapes and uses of California Indian 

basketry. University of California, Berkeley. http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/cilc/

basket.html. (17 January 2011).

Mussulman, J. 2004. Luxuriant beargrass. http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/

content-article.asp?ArticleID=1318. (2 January 2011). 

National Indian Forest Resources Management Act. 25 U.S.C. 31, Supplement 

3, 2006 edition. Section 3101. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-

title25/pdf/USCODE-2010-title25-chap33-sec3101.pdf. (28 September 2011).

National Research Council. 2006. Status of pollinators in North America. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 307 p.

O’Neale, L.M. 1928 [reprinted 1995]. Yurok-Karok basket weavers. Berkeley, CA: 

Phoebe Hearst Museum of Anthropology. 184 p.

O’Neale, L.M. 1930. North America: coiled basketry in British Columbia and 

surrounding region. American Anthropologist. 32(2): 306–308.
75

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

O’Neale, L.M. 1932. Yurok-Karok basket weavers, Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press: University of California Publications in Archaeology and 

Ethnology.

O’Neill, K.M.; Fultz, J.E.; Ivie, M.A. 2008. Distribution of adult Cerambycidae 

and Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in a subalpine forest under shelterwood 

management. The Coleopterists Bulletin. 62(1): 27–36.

O’Toole, C.; Raw, A. 1991. Bees of the world. London: Blandford Publishing. 

192 p.

Owen, J.; Gilbert, F.S. 1989. On the abundance of hoverflies (Syrphidae). Oikos. 

55(2): 183–193.

Peet, R.K. 2000. Forests and meadows of the Rocky Mountains. In: Barbour, 

M.G.; Billings, W.D, eds. North American Special Report 1095 37. Terrestrial 

vegetation. 2nd ed. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press: 

75–122. 

Pendleton, R.L.; Pendleton, B.K.; Wetherill, K.R.; Griswold, T. 2008. 

Reproductive biology of Larrea tridentata: a preliminary comparison between 

core shrubland and isolated grassland plants at the Sevilleta National Wildlife 

Refuge, New Mexico. In: Kitchen, S.L.; Pendleton, R.L.; Monaco, T.A.; Vernon, 

J., comps. Shrublands under fire: disturbance and recovery in a changing 

world. 2006 Proceedings RMRS-P-52. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 131–135.

Peter, D. 2011. The Skokomish savanna and woodlands vegetation survey: 

historical perspective and current status of an Olympic National Forest 

restoration project. Olympia, WA: Resilience and Ecosystem Disturbance Team. 

U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station: 44 p.

Peter, D.; Shebitz, D.J. 2006. Historic anthropogenically maintained bear grass 

savannas of the southeastern Olympic Peninsula. Restoration Ecology. 14(4):

605–615.

Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental 

and economic cost associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. 

Ecological Economics. 52: 273–288.

Pojar, J.; MacKinnon, A. 1994. Plants of the Pacific Northwest coast: Washington, 

Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska. Vancouver, BC: Lone Pine Publishing. 

528 p.
76

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Potts, S.G.; Vulliamy, B.; Dafni, A.; Ne’eman, G.; O’Toole, C.; Roberts, S.; 

Willmer, P. 2003. Response of plant-pollinator communities to fire: changes in 

diversity, abundance and floral reward structure. Oikos. 101: 103–112. 

Pullen. R.J. 1996. Overview of the environment of native inhabitants of 

southwestern Oregon, late prehistoric era. Medford, OR: U.S Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Medford District Office. http://soda.sou.

edu/awdata/021204a1.pdf. (25 April 2012).

Ramel, G. 1995. The social bees: Apidae. The Earth Life Web.net: http://www.

earthlife.net/insects/socbees.html. (12 February 2011). 

Randall, J.M.; Rejmánek, M.; Hunter, J.C. 1998. Characteristics of the exotic 

flora of California. Fremontia. 26(4): 3–12. 

Rank, N.E.; Smiley, J.T. 1994. Host-plant effects on Parasyrphus melanderi

Curran (Diptera: Syrphidae) feeding on a willow leaf beetle Chrysomela 

aeneicollis Schaeffer (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ecological Entomology. 

19: 31–38. 

Reemer, M. 2005. Saproxylic hoverflies benefit by modern forest management 

(Diptera: Syrphidae). Journal of Insect Conservation. 9: 49–59.

Rejmánek, M. 1989. Invasibility of plant communities. In: Drake, J.A.; Mooney, 

H.A.; DiCastri, F.; Groves, R.H.; Kruger, F.J.; Rejmánek, M.; Williamson, M., 

eds. Biological invasions: a global perspective. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 

369–388. 

Rentz, E. 2003. Effects of fire on plant anatomical structure in native Californian 

basketry materials. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University. 99 p. 

M.S thesis.

Rixen, C.; Haag, S.; Kulakowski, D.; Bebi, P. 2007. Natural avalanche 

disturbance shapes plant diversity and species composition in subalpine forest 

belt. Journal of Vegetation Science. 18: 735–742. 

Robertson, C. 1929. Flowers and insects. Lancaster, PA: Science Press Printing 

Company: 221 p. 

Roulston, T.H.; Cane, J.H.; Buchmann, S.L. 2000. What governs protein content 

of pollen: pollinator preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny? 

Ecological Monographs. 70(4): 617–643.
77

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Rudall, P.J.; Stobart, K.L.; Hong, W.P.; Conran, J.G.; Furness, C.A. 2000. 

Consider the lilies: Systematics of Liliales. In: Wilson, K.L; Morrison, D.A, 

eds. Monocots: systematics and evolution. Collingwood, Australia: Csiro 

Publishing: 347–357. 

Saab, V.; Block, W.; Russell, R.; Lehmkuhl, J.; Bate, L.; White, R. 2007.

Birds and burns of the interior West: descriptions, habitats, and management in 

western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23 p.

Sage, T.L.; Pontieri, V.; Christopher, R. 2000. Incompatibility and mate 

recognition in monocotyledons. In: Wilson, K.L; Morrison, D.A. eds. Monocots: 

systematics and evolution. Collingwood, Australia: Csiro Publishing: 270–276.

Sapir, E.; Spier, L. 1943. Notes on the Culture of the Yana. Anthropological 

Records. 3(3): 252–253. 

Schlick, M.D. 1994. Columbia River basketry: gift of the ancestors, gift of the 

Earth. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. 232 p. 

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A. 1997. Special forest products: an eastside 

perspective. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-380. Portland, OR: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 35 p. 

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Chapman, R.C. 1991. Economic and marketing 

implications of special forest products harvest in the coastal Pacific Northwest. 

Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 6(3): 67–72.

Schlosser, W.E.; Blatner, K.A.; Zamora, B. 1992. Pacific Northwest forest lands 

potential for forest greenery production. Northwest Science. 66(1): 44–55.

Senos, R.; Lake, F.L.; Turner, N.; Martinez, D. 2006. Traditional ecological 

knowledge and restoration practice. In: Apostol, D.; Sinclair, M. eds. Restoring 

the Pacific Northwest: The art and science of ecological restoration in Cascadia. 

Washington, DC: Island Press: 393–426.

Shebitz, D.J. 2005. Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into the restoration 

of basketry plants. Journal of Ecological Anthropology. 9: 51–68. 

Shebitz, D. 2010. Personal communication. Plant ecologist, Kean University, 

Department of Biological Sciences, 1000 Morris Avenue, Union, NJ 07083.

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Woubneh, K. 2008. Beargrass (Xerophyllum 

tenax) on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington: autecology and population 

status. Northwest Science. 82(2): 128–140. 
78

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Shebitz, D.J.; Reichard, S.H.; Dunwiddie, P.W. 2009a. Ecological and cultural 

significance of burning beargrass habitat on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. 

Ecological Restoration. 27(3): 306–319. 

Shebitz, D.J.; Ewing, K.; Gutierrez, J. 2009b. Preliminary observations of 

using smokewater to increase low-elevation beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax) 

germination. Native Plants 10(1): 13–19.

Shebitz, D. J.; Kimmerer, R.W. 2005. Re-establishing roots of a Mohawk 

community and a culturally significant plant: sweetgrass. Restoration Ecology. 

13: 257–264.

Storm, J. 1985. Quinault culture: Charlotte Kalama, basketmaker. Tahola, WA: 

Quinault Natural Resources. 

Sullivan, W. 2009. Eye of the storm: Canyon Creek is a green oasis in the midst 

of the B&B burn. Eugene, OR: The Register-Guard. August 4. http://special.

registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/sports/outdoors/18109967-41/story.csp.

(25 April 2012). 

Sutherland, C.A. 2006. Wood boring beetles. O&T Guide [O-#10]. New Mexico 

State University, Cooperative Extension Service. http://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/

plantclinic/documents/o-10-woodborers.pdf. (1 March 2011). 

Swanson, F.J.; Dyrness, C.T. 1975. Impact of clear-cutting and road construction 

on soil erosion by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology. 

3(7): 393–396. 

Swengel, A.B. 2001. A literature review of insect responses to fire, compared to 

other conservation managements of open habitat. Biodiversity and Conservation. 

10: 1141–1169.

Takahashi, M.; Kawano, S. 1989. Pollen morphology of the Melanthiaceae and 

its systematic implications. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden. 76(3): 

863–876.

Tepedino, V.J. 1979. The importance of bees and other insect pollinators in 

maintaining floral species composition. Great Basin Naturalist Memoirs.

3: 139–150.

Tesch, S.D. 1994. The Pacific Northwest region. In: Barrett, J.W., ed. Regional 

Silviculture of the United States, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons: 499–599.

Thrush, C. 2007. Native Seattle: Histories from the crossing-over place. Seattle, 

WA: University of Washington Press. 326 p.
79

Natural and Cultural History of Beargrass (Xerophyllum tenax)

Thomas, M.G.; Schumann, D.R. 1993. Income opportunities in special forest 

products: self-help suggestions for rural entrepreneurs. Agric. Info. Bull. AIB666. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, State and Private Forestry. 

http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/usda/agib666/aib666.pdf. (3 December 2010). 

Turner, N.J. 1998. Plant technology of first peoples in British Columbia. 

Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. 288 p. 

Turner, N.J.; Efrat, B.S. 1982. Ethnobotany of the Hesquiat Indians of Vancouver 

Island. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial Museum. 101 p. 

Turner, N.J.; Thomas, J.; Carlson, B.F.; Ogilvie, R.T. 1983. Ethnobotany of the 

Nitinaht Indians of Vancouver Island. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Provincial 

Museum. 87 p. 

Turner, N.J.; Peacock, S. 2005. Solving the perennial paradox: ethnobotanical 

evidence for plant resource management on the Northwest Coast: management of 

plant species and habitats on the Northwest Coast. In: Deur, D.; Turner, N.J., eds. 

Keeping it living: traditions of plant use cultivation on the Northwest Coast of 

North America. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press: 101–141.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA FS]. 2011. PLANTS 

profile. Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt., common beargrass. http://plants.U.S 

Department of Agriculutre, .gov/java/profile?symbol=XETE. (12 January 2011). 

Vance, N.; Bernhardt, P.; Edens, R.M. 2004. Pollination and seed production in 

Xerophyllum tenax (Melanthiaceae) in the Cascade Range of central Oregon. 

American Journal of Botany. 91: 2060–2068. 

Vance, N.C.; Borsting, M.; Pilz, D.; Freed, J. 2001. Special forest products: 

Species information guide for the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-513. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 169 p. 

Weigand, J. 2002. Overview of cultural traditions, economic trends, and key 

species in nontimber forest products of the Pacific Northwest. In: Jones, E.T.; 

McLain, R.J.; Weigand, J., eds. Nontimber forest products in the United States. 

Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press: 57–64.

Weems, H.V., Jr. 1954. Natural enemies and insecticides that are detrimental to 

beneficial Syrphidae. The Ohio Journal of Science. 54: 45–54.

Wheeler, W.M. 1908. Studies on myrmecophiles. Proceedings of the New York 

Entomological Society. Journal of the New York Entomological Society. 16(2): 

115–124. 
80

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-864

Werner, R.A. 2002. Effect of ecosystem disturbance on diversity of bark and 

wood-boring beetles (Coleoptera; Scolytidae, Burprestidae, Cerambycidae) in 

white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) ecosystems of Alaska. Res. Pap. 

PNW-RP-546. Portland, OR; U.S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 15 p.

Wick, D.; Evans, J.; Luna, T. 2008. Propagation protocol for production of 

container Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. plants (160 ml containers); U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National Park. http://

www.nativeplantnetwork.org/Network/View/Protocols.aspx?protocolID=125.

(29 December 2010).

Wray, J.; Anderson, M.K. 2003. Restoring Indian-set fires to prairie ecosystems 

on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Restoration. 21(4): 296–301.

Wright, C.S.; Agee, J.K. 2004. Fire and vegetation history in the eastern Cascade 

Mountains, Washington. Ecological Applications. 14(2): 443–459.

Yanega, D. 1996. Field guide to northeastern longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: 

Cerambycidae). Champaign, IL: Natural History Survey. 6: x + 1–174.

Young, H.J. 1988. Differential importance of beetle species pollinating 

Dieffenbachia longispatha (Araceae). Ecology. 69: 832–844.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution 

	 	 Pacific Northwest Research Station

 P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890 

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300