Traditional objectives for pinyon-juniper rehabilitation were to provide stability to soils, and forage and cover for livestock and big game anima:ls (Plummer and ...
This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.
Development of Native Seed Supplies to Support Restoration of Pinyon-Juniper Sites E. Durant McArthur Stanford A. Young Abstract-Use of native plants for restoration and rehabilitation of disturbed or manipulated pinyon-juniper communities is increasing in response to desires ofland managers and society in general. Seeds of native plants are becoming more available, but estimates and surveys show there is still more demand than available supply. Field grown seeds and warehousing do anticipate demand but are only partial solutions to the native plant seed shortage. Exotic, developed plant materials, especially Triticeae grasses and legumes, remain important resources for rehabilitation plantings. Private industry seed collectors, growers, and developers will be responsive to plant materials needs ofland managers. Seed genetic identity and quality can be better assured through the seed certification process whether the seed is wildland collected or field grown.
After pinyon -j uni per si tes have been disturbed or depleted by natural or managed events such as prescribed or wildfire, chaining, or chopping, the rehabilitation and restoration of those sites often requires seeding. Seed for this purpose has traditionally been obtained by harvesting seed from native stands and from cultivated fields of mostly non-native plants (McArthur 1988; Meyer and Kitchen 1995; Monsen 1987; Plummer and others 1968; Roundy 1996). Seed suppliers, whether they be wildland seed collectors or those who grow various classes of non-selected common or developed plant germplasms, seek to respond to market needs (Plummer 1984; Young and others 1995). Traditional objectives for pinyon-juniper rehabilitation were to provide stability to soils, and forage and cover for livestock and big game anima:ls (Plummer and others 1968; Roundy 1996). The most important criteria for use of particular plant materials was their site adaptability and the resource values that they provided (Monsen and McArthur 1995). The early success in pinyon-juniper rehabilitation and conversion projects as well as other rangeland rehabilitation efforts were highlighted by the performance of exotic grasses, especially members of the Triticeae (wheatgrasses and their relatives), and legumes (rangeland alfalfas and clovers) (Asay and Knowles 1985a,b; Barnes and Sheaffer 1985; McArthur 1988; Plummer and others 1968; Roundy 1996; Rumbaugh and Townsend 1985;). Triticeae grasses and legumes remain the plants of greatest availability and primary choice for most pinyon-juniper rehabilitation
In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Stevens, Richard, comps. 1999. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities within the Interior West; 1997 September 15-18; Provo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. E. Durant McArthur is Project Leaderwith the Shrub Sciences Laboratory, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Provo, UT 84606-1856. Stanford A. Young is Secretary-Manager of the Utah Crop Improvement Association, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4855.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
plantings. However, more and more native plant materials (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) are becoming available (Carlson and McArthur 1985; McArthur 1988; Meyer and Kitchen 1995; Monsen 1987; Monsen and Stevens in press; Young and others 1995;). In recent years there has been increasing interest in reconstructing natural plant communities and using siteindigenous and other regionally native plant materials (Allen and others 1997; Jordan and others 1987; Richards and others 1998; Roundy and others 1995). Governmental land management agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Land Management; Utah Department of Natural Resources, Divison of Wildlife Resources) have instituted policies to require, or at least encourage, the use of native plant materials in rehabilitation plantings (Richards and others 1998; Richard Stevens personal communication). The practice of restructuring or recreating natural, preexisting plant communities has been termed "restoration" (Allen 1995; Jordan and others 1987). Rehabilitation implies a renewal of land productivity but a change in the ecosystem structure (Allen 1995). This paper reviews the status ofthe native plant seed industry in wildland rehabilitation and restoration. While we emphasize pinyon-juniper lands, our somewhat broader discussion incl udes other wildland plant community types.
Materials and Methods We present survey information from the reclamation seed industry in two different formats. One of us (SAY) compiled a summary of market information for selected reclamation species emphasizing native plants and other conservation plant materials for presentation at the 1997 Utah Native Plant Forum. Data included current use, potential use, amount available as wildland collected seed, and price information for the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest Regions (Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington). In this report we have included and updated much of that information. The second source is a survey conducted by our colleague Richard Stevens of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, also for the 1997 Utah Native Plant Forum. This survey reported the volume of native seed sold in 1996 by five Utah seed companies. The volume of seed is given to indicate a trend and not meant to be definitive, although Stevens (personal communication) estimates these companies account for at least halfofthe native seed volume by Utah seed companies. The seed sold by these Utah seed companies was collected and sold both in and out of Utah.
Results and Discussion Market information estimates for 47 species from the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest regions show that potential use of these species-nearly 2.5 million lb pure live seed (pls)-far outstrips the current use (approximately 750,000 lb pIs) and the volume available from harvest of wildland stands (approximately 370,000 pounds pIs) (table 1). This information demonstrates that there is not enough seed collected nor available to be collected from wildlands to meet current demand, let alone potential usage, and that currently much of the demand is met from field-grown seed. The supply of native wildland-collected seed varies widely from year to year depending upon growing and collecting conditions, mainly weather. There is apparently a market for increasing field-grown seed for many species (table 2). The seed price estimates in table 1 emphasize this. Seed available from wildlands has higher val ue than current use val ue even though the volume of seed on wildlands is less than current use volume. This is because some high value wildland seed remains uncollected (table 2). The five Utah seed companies that were surveyed sold a total of more than 500,000 lb of native seed in 1996 including more than 300,000 lb of shrub seed, nearly 200,000 lb of grass seed, and 35,000 lb of forb seed (table 3). Many of the species sold were the same as those in the Intermountain and Pacific Northwest area survey (table 2), but many additional species are also listed. The Utah seed companies sold seed of29 native grasses, 39 native forbs, and 42 native shrubs (table 3). We believe the increasing demand for native species for restoration and rehabilitation plantings can be best met w hen the principal users stockpile seed so seed will be available when needed, whether that need is generated by a planned site rehabilitation or restoration or an emergency situation such as wildfire rehabilitation. Two successful examples of seed stockpiling are the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Seed Warehouse in Ephraim and the Bureau of Land Management Seed Warehouse in Boise, ID. These warehouses maintain large s~ed inventories (more than 200,000 lb) and a rich array of species. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has stockpiled native seed in its warehouse operation for more than 40 years. These seed resources have been used not only on Divison and other State lands, but on Federal and private lands as well. The Boise Bureau of Land Management seed warehouse has been servicing public land needs in Idaho and other Western
Table 1-Market information estimates for 47 selected reclamation species a .
Factor Pure live seed (Ib/yr) Dollar value
Available for wildland collection
aSummary of data from table 2. Financial values determined as mid-point values for use, availability, and price to grower (table 2).
States since 1991. The National Forests in Utah are considering establishing a native seed warehouse. We believe these public sector warehouses are needed for timely response to rehabilitation and restoration needs on public lands. Furthermore, we suggest that orderly stockpiling would greatly encourage consistent production from private sector seed collectors and growers who will continue to supply most of the seeds for publicly owned warehouses. We antici pate that private warehousing of seed will con tin ue to serve as an adjunct to public warehousing. As natural resource managers' objectives turn increasingly toward the maintenance and restoration ofthe genetic and ecological integrity of native ecosystems, native plant use will also increase. In response to this trend, more native plant materials are becoming available (tables 1-3). However, ecosystem function and service are also important. In some places, such as drastically disturbed sites, the genetic and ecological robustness of developed, available, and sometimes exotic plants may be needed. Plant germplasm collectors and developers and the seed industry will respond to land managers' needs in both restoration and general rehabilitation arenas if those needs are viewed as consistent market commitments. Seed genetic identity and quality can best be assured if the seed is inspected and certified following the requirements and standards of the Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), whether the seed is wildland collected or field grown (Young 1995; Young and others 1995). Ifthe seed is tagged by an official seed certifying agency, the buyer can have confidence about the seed quality (mechanical purity, germination, foreign material), source or site of origin (genetic purity and identity), and ecotypic or developed status of the seed lot.
Acknowledgments We thank Richard Stevens and Steve Monsen for encouragement in preparation ofthis manuscript, Richard Stevens for sharing his survey data with us, and Ron Stevenson (Stevenson Intermountain Seed Company) for assistance in compiling market data. We also thank Jeanne Chambers, Stan Kitchen, and Richard Stevens for reviews and comment on an earlier version of this manuscript.
References --------------------------------Allen, E. B. 1995. Restoration ecology: limits and possibilities in arid and semiarid land. In: Roundy, B. A.; McArthur, E. D.; Haley, J. S.; Mann, D. K, comps. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 7-15. Allen, E. B.; Covington, W. W.; Falk, D. A. 1997. Developing the conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5: 275-276. Asay, K H.; Knowles, B. P. 1985a. Current status and future of introduced wheatgrasses and wildrye for rangeland improvement. In: Carlson, J. R; McArthur, E. D., eds. Symposium: range plant improvement. 1985 February 11-15; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Proceedings, selected papers presented at the 38 th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management: 109-116. Asay, K H.; Knowles, R. P. 1985b. The wheatgrasses. In: Heath, M. E.; Barnes, R. F.; Metcalf, D. S., eds. Forages, the science of grassland agriculture, 4th edition. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 166-176. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Table 2-Market information estimates for Intermountain and Pacific Northwest regions for 47 selected reclamation species, in pounds of pure live seed (pis).
Avaliable wildland collected
pIs Iblyr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Price to grower or collector b $Ip/s lIb
Small burnet C,9 Blue flax d ,9 Western yarrow d Antelope bitterbrush Forage kochia c,9 Wyoming big sagebrush e,f,9 Fourwing saltbush 9 Bottlebrush squirreltail Western wheatgrass 9 Bluebunch wheatgrass 9 Thickspike wheatgrass 9 Basin wildrye 9 Indian ricegrass 9 Stream bank wheatgrass 9 Mountain brome 9 Meadow brome 9 Slender wheatgrass 9
50,000-200,000 20,000-40,000 10,000-30,000 5,000-20,000 25,000-40,000 4,000-20,000 40,000-BO,000 10,000-15,000 BO,000-100,000 -20,000-50,000 20,000-30,000 25,000-50,000 20,000-40,000 20,000-30,000 30,000-100,000 20,000-50,000 50,000-100,000
300,000 100,000 35,000-45,000 35,000-45,000 100,000 25,000 100,000 50,000-200,000 200,000 75,000-300,000 50,000 75,000-100,000 50,000 100,000 50,000 300,000 100,000-200,000 250,000-300,000
0 0 1,000-2,000 5,000-30,000 40,000-60,000 35,000 100,000 15,000 20,000-50,000 5,000 5,000 10,000-15,000 5,000-20,000 0 5,000 0 1,000
0.40 2.25-5.00 5.00-7.50 5.00-8.00 7.00-12.00 15.00-35.00 2.50-6.00 B.00-12.00 2.50-6.00 2.00-5.00 2.00-4.00 3.00-7.00 2.00-5.00 1.60-5.00 1.00-2.00 1.50-2.50 1.50-2.50
500-1,500 500-2,500 2,500-5,000 3,000-B,000 2,000-5,000 500-2,500 1,500-2,500 1,500-3,000 2,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 200-2,000 500-10,000
2,500-3,500 3,000-5,000 5,000-10,000 B,000-10,000 10,000 2,500-5,000 2,500 3,000 6,000 20,000 25,000-100,000 50,000-70,000
500-2,000 3,000-5,000 1,500-2,500 1,000-1,500 10,000 2,500-5,000 2,500 10,000 10,000 5,000-15,000 3,000 1,000-15,000
B.00-9.00 B.OO- 9.00 9.00-12.00 12.00-15.00 3.00 5.00-7.00 15.00 10.00-20.00 15.00-30.00 6.00-12.00 B.00-12.00 16.00-20.00
200-500 50-200 100-200 100-200 500-1,000 200-400 300-1,000 500-1,000 100-500 200-1,000 100-400 100-250 500-1,000
500-2,500 500-2,500 500-2,500 500-5,000 2,000-4,000 1,000-1,500 1,000-2,000 1,000-2,000 1,500-2,000 1,500-2,000 500-2,500 500-1,500 5,000-B,000
200-500 50-200 300-500 400-500 200-1,000 50-1,000 200-1,000 200-500 100-200 100-500 200-400 500-1,500 500-1,000
35.00-50.00 35,00-50.00 25.00 20.00 25.00 25.00-35.00 25.00 20.00 30.00-40.00 15.00 20.00-22.00 25.00 20.00-25.00
20-50 25-75 10-50 25-100 25-100
200-1,000 500-2,500 200-2,000 500-2,500 10,000-50,000
100-500 25-300 10-100 50-200 3,000
25.00 25.00 25.00 14.00 10.00-20.00
Species 1,000-9,999 Ib pls/yr Arrowleaf balsamroot Rocky Mountain Beeplant Palmer penstemon 9 Rocky Mountain penstemon 9 Common sunflower Sweet anise White-stemmed rubber rabbitbrushe,f Basin big sagebrushe,f Mountain big sagebrush e,f,9 Winterfat9 Sandberg bluegrass Needle-and-thread grass Species 100-999 Ib pls/yr Blueleaf astere Pacific astere Sulfur flower buckwheat Wyeth buckwheat Gooseberry-leaf globemallow Scarlet globemallow 9 Munroe globemallow 9 Showy goldeneye Firecracker penstemon Wasatch penstemon Louisana sagewort Oyster-plant salsifyc Utah sweetvetch 9 Species < 100 Ib/yr Gland cinquefoil Canada goldenrod Butterweed groundsel Nuttallomatium Thurber needlegrass
aSpecies are divided into classes based on current use. bVendor price is some percentage above these figures, reflecting condition, warehousing, and other overhead costs and market conditions. CExotic or naturalized species. dCircumboreal species. eSeed is typically marketed at about 10 to 15 percent purity. 'Subspecies. 9Species or subspecies has released varieties and/or germplasm.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Table 3-Pounds of native seed sold in 1996 by five Utah seed companies. Pounds of seed
Pounds of seed
Thickspike wheatgrass Western wheatgrass Basin wildrye Mountain brome Snake River wheatgrass Slender wheatgrass
27,305 23,616 22,522 19,202 15,000 14,400
Western yarrow Common sunflower Blue flax Rocky Mountain bee plant Lupine (several species) Palmer penstemon
8,443 5,900 3,965 3,200 2,686 2,010
Streambank wheatgrass Indian ricegrass Sheep fescue Bluebunch wheatgrass Bottlebrush squirretail Green needlegrass Sherman big bluegrass Sideoats grama Alkali sacaton 14 others a (10-1,202)
11,850 11,555 9,950 9,552 7,865 2,865 2,500 2,000 2,000 6,324
California poppy Desert globe mallow Arrowleaf balsamroot Utah sweetvetch Showy goldeneye Munro globemallow Rocky Mountain Penstemon Sweet anise 25 others b (2 - 410)
2,000 900 625 597 530 500 500 490 3,081
Shrub species Wyoming big sagebrush c Fourwing saltbush Mountain big sagebrush c Basin big sagebrush c Shad scale saltbush White-stemmed rubber rabbitbrush c Antelope bitterbrush Winterfat Mountain rubber rabbitbrush c Gardner saltbush Douglas rabbitbrush Woods rose Skunkbush sumac Green ephedra Low rabbitbrush Nevada ephedra 26 othersd (10- 955)
Pounds of seed (bulk) 120,000 76,350 22,522 20,230 14,250 11,765 6,047 5,445 5,350 4,200 2,200 2,200 1,820 1,605 1,600 1,255 10,229 307,068 531,001
aSandberg bluegrass, sand dropseed, Idaho fescue, meadow foxtail, galleta, blue grama, tufted hairgrass, prairie June grass, needle-and thread grass, Letterman needlegrass, redtop, purple three-awn, alpine timothy, beardless wildrye. bSlueleaf aster, Engleman aster, pacific aster, cutleaf balsam root, columbine, cow parsnip, erigeron species, eriogonum species, farewell-to-spring, gaillardia, sticky geranium, gilia, gooseberryleaf globe mallow, one-flower helianthella, Porter ligusticum, Louisiana sagewort, desert marigold, mules ear wyethia, Indian paintbrush, firecracker penstemon, Rydberg penstemon, thickleaf penstemon, Wasatch penstemon, Iseland poppy. cSubspecies. dO esert bitterbrush, roundleaf buffaloberry silver buffaloberry, chokecherry, Stansbury cliffrose, golden current, wax current, redosier dogwood, blue elderberry, red elderberry, Wyeth eriogonum, black greasewood, spiny hopsage, curlleaf mountain mahogany, true mountain mahogany, black sagebrush, silver sagebrush, fringed sage, sand sage, quail saltbush, mat saltbush, Saskatoon serviceberry, Utah serviceberry, mountain snowberry, Rocky Mountain sumac.
Barnes, D. K; Sheaffer, C. C.1985. Alfalfa. In: Heath, M. E.; Barnes, R F.; Metcalf, D. S., eds. Forages, the science of grassland agriculture, 4th edition. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press: 89-97. Carlson, J. R; McArthur, E. D., eds. 1985. Symposium: range plant improvement. In: Proceedings, selected papers presented at the 38 th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management 1985 February 11-15; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 107-220. Jordan, W. R, III.; Gilpin, M. E.; Aber, J. D., eds. 1987. Restoration ecology, a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 342 p. McArthur, E. D. 1988. New plant development for range management. In: Tueller, P. T., ed. Vegetation science applications for rangeland analysis and management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 81-112. Meyer, S. E.; Kitchen, S. G. 1995. First the seed: a restorationist's perspective. Hortus Northwest 6 (2): 4-8, 42-43. Monsen, S. B. 1987. Shrub selections for pinyon-juniper plantings. In: Everett, R L., compo Proceedings-pinyon-juniper conference; 1986 January 13-16; Reno, NV. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-215, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 326-329. Monsen, S. B.; McArthur, E. D. 1995. Implications of early Intermountain range and watershed restoration practices. In: Roundy, B. A; McArthur, E. D.; Haley, J. S.; Mann, D. K, comps. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium; 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INTGTR-315. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 16-25. Monsen, S. B.; Stevens, R, eds. In press. Restoring western range and wildlands. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-xxx. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Plummer, A P.; Christensen, D. R; Monsen, S. B. 1968. Restoring big game range in Utah. Publication 68-3. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Division of Fish and Game. 183 p. Plummer, M.1984. Considerations in selecting chenopod species for range seedings. In: Tiedemann, A R.; McArthur, E. D.; Stutz, H. C.; Stevens, R: Johnson, K L., comps. 1983 May 2-6; Provo, UT. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-l72. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 183-186. Richards, R T.; Chambers, J. C.; Ross, C. 1998. Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. Journal of Range Management. 51: 625-632. Roundy, B. A 1996. Revegetation of rangelands for wildlife. In: Krausman, ed. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management: 355-368. Roundy, B. A; McArthur, E. D.; Haley, J. S.; Mann, D. K comps. 1995. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium. 1993 October 19-21; Las Vegas, NV. Ogden, UT: Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-315. U.S. Department of Agriculture , Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 384 p. Rumbaugh, M. D.; Townsend, C. E. 1985. Range legume selection and breeding in North America. In: Carlson, J. R; McArthur, E. D., eds. Symposium: range plant improvement. 1985 February 11-15; Salt Lake City, UT. Denver, CO: Proceedings, selected papers presented at the 38 th Annual Meeting of the Society for Range Management: 137-147. Young, S. 1995. Alternative germplasm release procedures for producing certified seed. Seed World 133 (8): 14-15. Young, S.; Kitchen, S.; Armstrong, J. 1995. AOSCA approves certification guidelines for wild land collected seed. Seed World 133 (1): 20-21.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999