This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Restoration of Native Communities by
Chaining and Seeding
Richard Stevens
Abstract-With the use of proper equipment, techniques, seeding,
and management, native communities can be restored. Reduction in
competitive weedy tree density is essential in community restoration. Where sufficient understory exists, seeding may not be necessary. In most areas some degree of seeding is required. Species
should be seeded that are adapted to site conditions, are ecologically
adapted and are compatible with on .site endemic and seeded
species. Consideration has to be given to seedbed and seeding
requirements of each seeded species. Native communities can be
restored when endemic species are given every opportunity to
express them self and when native seeded species are provided
maximum opportunity to germinate, establish, and become an
active component of the community.
tree invasion into many adjoining grass and shrublands
(Aro 1975; Tausch, this Proceedings; West, this Proceedings;
O'Brien and Woudenberg, this Proceedings).
Removal or controlled use of livestock from depleted
juniper-pinyon dominated areas will not facilitate the recovery of native vegetation, stabilize the soil, or return these
areas to their pre-settlement conditions (Goodloe 1993;
Stevens and Monsen, In press). Principle reasons are the
absence of an adequate seed source and the competitive
attributes of the pinyon-juniper trees. In order to return
many juniper-pinyon areas to a more natural state, tree
competition has to be reduced, a suitable seedbed has to be
created, and sites will need to be properly seeded to adapted
compatible species.
Juniper-Pinyon communities have been in a consistent
state offlux for the past 100 years. From the late 1800's to
the present, distribution and density of pinyon and juniper
and accompanying native understory has been significantly
altered. A majority of the juniper-pinyon stands in the Great
Basin prior to settlement were confined to selected areas,
and supported a diverse understory of perennial grasses,
forbs, and shrubs. Fire, combined with perennial understory
competition, controlled the spread and thickening of existing juniper-pinyon stands. The understory vegetation controlled or regulated the incidence and spread offires, which,
in turn, regulated the presence and distribution of juniper
and pinyon (Tausch, this Proceedings; West, this Proceedings; Gruell, this Proceedings; Gottfried and others 1995).
Heavy grazing by livestock o~er many years has resulted in
community changes and the eventual loss of the native
perennial understory and, in some locations, establishment
of exotic annuals that now dominate some understories.
These changes have resulted in lost or damaged archaeological sites (Chong 1993), reduction in deer and elk numbers
(Short and McCullock 1977; Suminski 1993) and degredated
watersheds (Roundy and Vernon, this Proceedings).
Adjoining semiarid grass and shrublands underwent
similar changes as desirable perennial species were eliminated or reduced in density and vigor by grazing. The loss of
dominant perennial grasses and other understory species,
and resulting absence or red uction in fire incident allowed
for an increase injuniper and pinyon trees, and substantial
Chaining _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
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.
Richard Stevens was Project Leader/Research Biologist (retired), Division
of Wildlife Resources, Great Basin Experiment Station, Ephraim, UT 84627.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Native communities can only be reestablished if the density of pinyon and juniper is reduced and desired native
species have an adequate seed bank or are seeded. Changes
in tree density can range from near complete stand removal
to limited thinning. Chaining and other mechanical treatments used to reduce tree density are substitute methods of
natural tree control most frequently attained by wildfires.
The objective of most improvement projects should not be to
remove all trees, but to remove sufficient numbers to allow
recovery ofthe understory species and to facilitate artificial
seeding (Stevens and Monsen, In press). Tree removal, by
whatever means is simply a technique used to change the
seral status of many sites.
Removal of undesirable, competing weedy trees can be
accomplished in a number of ways. Twice-over anchor
chaining, with 90 lb links, in opposite directions has been
used extensively. Vse of cable or a chain oflighter links is
satisfactory where it is desired to leave more trees and most
shrubs. Once-over chaining may be adequate when sufficient understory remains, and trees are sparse and mature,
and seeding is not required. Cabling is less effective than
chaining in removing trees, but it disturbs less understory.
There are three basic types of chain; smooth, Ely, and Dixie
sager (Stevens, this Proceedings).
Anchor chains are pulled behind two crawler tractors
traveling parallel to each other. For maximum tree removal,
chains cannot be dragged while stretched taught, but must
be dragged in a loose, J-shaped, V-shaped, or half-circle
pattern. The half-circle configuration provides the greatest
swath width and lowest percentage tree kill. It is primarily
used in mature, even-aged stands and when a low percent
tree kill is desired. Tree kill increases as the width of the J
or V-shaped pattern decreases. As the proportion of young
trees change in a stand, chaining width should increase or
decrease in order to achieve the desired amount of tree kill.
285
Chaining can be effectively used to regulate or manipulate
a community without destruction of understory species.
Chain link size, modifications to links, and placement of
crawler tractor will determine disturbance severity to understory species. Types and size of chain and chaining
practices can be regulated to retain most all existing species
including threatened and endangered species, yet sufficiently reduce tree competition to facilitate seeding or promote natural recovery of understory species. Native
seedbanks are not harmed by appropriate chaining.
Not all juniper-pinyon sites support similar composition
of understory species. A variety of herbaceous and woody
plants exists in different amounts depending on degree of
depletion, community site, and climatic conditions. Species
composition of juniper-pinyon communities may be altered
to a different seral status with and without the introduction
of species attained by seeding. In some situations, juniperpinyon woodlands can be converted by only burning or
chaining to reduce tree density. This is possible if sufficient
native understory composition and density exists, and is
capable of recovery following treatment (Jacobs and
Gatewood, this Proceedings).
Seeding
Juniper-pinyon sites that have been void of understory
species for many years will most likely lack a sufficient
seedbank and natural recovery will not occur even if trees
are removed (Poulsen and others, this Proceedings). Understory shrub and herbaceous species that have been weakened by heavy grazing and competition from tree encroachment normally bears very little seed, and may persist for
years before eventually succumbing. Under these conditions, undisturbed stands of juniper-pinyon may exist for
many years with little understory seed being added to the
natural seedbank. Removal of competitive trees on many
sites will result in a slow, erratic recovery of associated
native species. Unless sites are artificially seeded, natural
recovery is often ineffective. W'ithout sufficient understory,
exotic weeds can become established and dominate the area.
Juniper-pinyon restoration programs should be designed
to allow for restoring native vegetation, and create stable
communities. Converting juniper-pinyon communities to
only an assembly of foreign species is not advisable.
Under normal chaining conditions, suitable seedbeds are
created to plant seeds of a number of species, having different seedbed requirements. The chain will create numerous
micro sites and allow for shallow or deep planting depth
requirements. In addition, seeds can be broadcast before or
after chaining, to achieve the desired planting depth, surface compaction, and stand establishment (Stevens and
Monsen, In press).
Natural seeding of targeted native species can be promoted when chaining is conducted following seed production. Chaining also promotes sprouting of some species, and,
if done at the correct season, favors their recovery and
spread. Chaining and seeding can be conducted at the most
appropriate season favoring establishment of the planted
species. Fall seeding, over the majority ofthe Intermountain
West, has proven to be the most ideal time to seed. Where
spring seedings are employed, they need to occur prior to
286
mid-March. In southern Utah, southern Nevada, and northern
Arizona, seeding just prior to the mid-July summer storms
has resulted in good success (Stevens, this Proceedings).
A majority of juniper-pinyon chainings and fires in the
Intermountain West have been successfully aerially seeded.
Most grasses and forbs and small seeded shrubs such as
sagebrush, and rabbitbrush can be seeded successfully with
both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter. Helicopters generally do a better job of distributing seed over small or irregular areas. Downdraft from helicopters can somewhat separate seed in a mix by size and weight. There is a tendency for
lighter seed to drift to the outer edge. When downed trees do
not interfere, seed can also be covered successfully using
drags or a pipe harrow. Single disk harrows, or similar light
machinery, can also be used to cover the seed in open debrisfree areas. Care must be taken to ensure that seeds are not
covered too deep and seedbeds are not too loose. Chaining, or
equivalent treatments, are required to cover seed when
burned sites are broadcast seeded. When this does not occur,
seeding is best done on top of the first snow over disturbed
soil, results may, however, be erratic.
Rangeland type drills, especially those with multiple seed
boxes and planting depth capabilities can be used to seed
many species on clear large open areas. Seeds that are in
short supply or those that require a firm seedbed can be
seeded with a Hansen seed dribbler or thimble seeder
mounted on the deck of a craw ler tractor. Seed is metered ou t
onto the crawler tracks, the seeds are embedded in the soil
by the tracks. When seeding species with very different
seeding requirements, more than one seeding procedure
may be required. Many species can be aerially seeded and
then planted by chaining. Following chaining, the surface
seeded species can then be aerially broadcast seeded.
Chaining can be the first essential action in reestablishing
native communities. The second essential action is properly
seeding adapted, compatible species that will lead to community restoration. Some native species have been seeded
for years, however, the number of native species seeded and
pounds of seed seeded has generally been less in comparison
to the seeding of exotic species.
Following are a number of reasons or excuses given for not
seeding natives more extensively:
1. Little or no desire to seed natives. This is very common
with individuals that are single resource oriented and those
that are comfortable with doing business as they always
have.
2. Seed of few native species are available. People have
perceived this and used it as a problem for years, however,
seed of more and more native species are becoming available. Utah Division of Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service have
put considerable effort into selecting native species and into
promoting and developing native seed sources for restoration seedings (McArthur and Young, this Proceedings). Species being selected and promoted today include:
Bluebunch wheatgrass
Sheep fescue
Prairie junegrass
Mutton bluegrass
Sandberg bluegrass
Mountain bluegrass
Needle-and -thread
Thurber needlegrass
Bottlebrush squirreltail
Showy goldeneye
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Table 2-Pounds of native seed sold in 1996
by five Utah seed companies.
Table 1-Number of native species seeded by Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, 1959 through 1996.
Year
Species
1959
1966
1979
1989
1995
1996
Grasses
Forbs
Shrubs
0
0
8
4
6
16
6
8
22
9
9
20
11
11
18
16
17
18
Total
8
26
36
38
40
51
In 1959, Utah Wildlife Resources seeded only eight different native species (table 1). In 1996 they seeded 51 native
species.
Seed of a large number of natiye species is becoming
available each year. A 1996 survey of all Utah seed companies with only five responses shows that seed of 113 native
species were available and sold in 1996 (table 2). Species are
being added yearly. Demand will determine the availability
of native seed.
3. Native seed is unavailable in sufficient volume. With
some planning, this should not be an excuse or problem.
Natives are becoming more available every year. Table 2
shows that 530,8161b of native seed was sold by only five of
Utah's 13 seed companies in 1996. Seed is available or will
be available if there is a consistent demand. Amount of
native seed seeded has increased significantly through the
years. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has moved from
where native seed only accounted for less than 5 percent of
the seed seeded in 1959 to over 47 percent in 1995 (table 3).
In order for an agency to do this, they need to; a) develop a
native attitude, b) plan ahead at least one season in advance
so that basic seed needs are known, c) order seed ahead so
that seed companies have sufficient time to acquire the seed,
d) have a seed warehouse program and adequate seed
inventory, e) manage lands for seed production, and D
develop and implement seed collection permits and regulations that will allow for obtaining sufficient seed at a desirable price.
4. Native species do not produce sufficient quantity of
forage. Ifa manager's objectives are truly multiple resources
and community and ecological restoration, then volume of
livestock forage production will not be a major governing
factor. It is not uncommon for the total production of a
complete community to be equal to 01' exceed that of a few
species seeding. Communities will have longer succulent
periods, and respond more positively to fire and variations
in precipitation, insects, and diseases than will few species seedings.
5. Natives are difficult to establish. Natives may be
somewhat harder to establish if they are not properly seeded.
Most exotic grasses and forbs were agronomically selected.
As such, they respond well to agronomic seeding requirement. Many managers try to employ exotic species seeding
requirements on native and fail. Native species have evolved
with differing seeding requirements, some have evolved
with the seed being buried deep and others do best when
seed is surface seeded on disturbed bare ground. Some
species do best seeded in litter, where others establish best
in bare ground. Seeding techniques have to match seeding
requirements.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Grasses
Bluegrass, Sandberg
Bluegrass, Sherman big
Brome, mountain
Dropseed, sand
Fescue, Idaho
Fescue,sheep
Foxtail, meadow
Galleta
Grama, blue
Grama, sideoats
Hair-grass, tufted
Junegrass, prairie
Needle-and-thread
Needlegrass, green
Needlegrass, Letterman
Redtop
Ricegrass, Indian
Sacaton, alkali
Squirreltail, bottlebrush
Three-awn, purple
Timothy, alpine
Wheatgrass, bluebunch
Wheatgrass, slender
Wheatgrass, Snake River
Wheatgrass, stream bank
Wheatgrass, thickspike
Wheatgrass, western
Wildrye, beardless
Wildrye, Great Basin
Total
Pounds of
seed sold
1,144
2,500
19,202
950
123
9,950
1,202
1,150
300
2,000
110
105
620
2,865
210
10
11,555
2,000
7,685
100
200
9,552
14,400
15,000
11,850
27,305
23,616
100
22,522
188,326
Forbs
Aster, blueleaf
Aster, Engelmann
Aster, Pacific
Balsamroot, arrowleaf
Balsamroot, cutleaf
Beeplant-spiderflower
Columbine
Cowparsnip
Eriogerons
Eriogonums
Fairwell to spring
Flax, Lewis
Gallardia
Geranium, sticky
Gilia
Globemallow, desert
Globemallow, gooseberryleaf
Globemallow, munro
Globemallow, scarlet
Goldeneye, showy
Helianthella, oneflower
Ligusticum, Porter
Louisiana sage
Lupine, desert
Lupine, mountain, silky, silver
Marigold, desert
Mulesear
Paintbrush, Indian
356
20
410
625
140
3,200
50
70
300
100
100
3,965
80
10
2
900
360
500
60
530
60
20
115
58
2,681
100
140
10
(con.)
287
Table 2 (Con.)
Grasses
Pounds of
seed sold
Year
Forbs
Penstemon, Eaton-firecracker
Penstemon, Palmer
Penstemon, Rocky Mountain
Penstemon, Rydberg
Penstemon, thickleaf
Penstemon, Wasatch
Poppy, California
Poppy, Iceland
Sunflower, common
Sweetanise
Sweetvetch, Utah-northern
Yarrow, western
Total
Species
40
2,010
500
140
20
220
2,000
100
5,900
490
597
8,443
35,422
Shrubs
Bitterbrush, antelope
Bitterbrush, desert
Buffaloberry, roundleaf
Buffaloberry, silver
Chokecherry
Cliffrose
Currant, golden
Currant, wax
Dogwood, redosier
Elderberry, blue
Elderberry, red
Ephedra, green
Ephedra, Nevada
Eriogonum, Wyeth
Greasewood
Hopsage, spiny
Mahogany, curlleaf mountain
Mahogany, true mountain
Rabbitbrush, Douglas
Rabbitbrush, low
Rabbitbrush, mountain rubber
Rabbitbrush, white rubber
Rose, Woods
Sagebrush, black
Sagebrush, silver
Sagebrush, basin big
Sagebrush, fringed
Sagebrush, mountain big
Sagebrush, sand
Sagebrush, silver
Sagebrush, Wyoming big
Saltbush, Quail
Saltbush, fourwing
Saltbush, Gardner
Saltbush, mat
Saltbush, shadscale
Serviceberry, Saskatoon
Serviceberry, Utah
Snowberry, mountain
Sumac, Rocky Mountain
Sumac, skunk bush
Winterfat
Total
Grand Total
288
Table 3-Percentage of Total Pounds Seeded of Native and
Introduced Species by Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources; 1953-1996.
6,047
900
45
10
785
802
80
120
50
400
150
1,605
1,255
10
955
180
605
830
2,200
1,600
5,350
11,765
2,200
405
150
20,230
560
22,522
200
400
120,000
100
76,350
4,200
310
14,250
347
675
810
350
1,820
5,445
307,068
530,816
Natives
Introduced
1959
1966
1979
1989
1995
1996
5
24
95
76
38
62
46
54
47
53
40
60
There are native species whose seed viability lasts only a
few days and others that retain good viability for 30 plus
years. Seed dormancy, afterripening and need for scarification varies between species. These all need to be considered
when seeding natives.
Poor establishment is generally a result of poor action
and management rather than species and seed characteristics. There is a great need for managers to not do things as
they have always done them, but rather to gain new knowledge and experience and move forward into community
restoration and sound ecological management. Good establishment occurs where seed is given every opportunity to
germinate and establish.
Successful native see dings occur:
1. On sites where competition has been reduced sufficiently to allow for successful establishment of seeded species and recovery of on site endemic species.
2. When species are seeded that are adapted to the site
conditions.
3. When species that are compatible with each other and
with endemic on site species are seeded.
4. When species are seeded into the ecological nitch they
are most adapted. One cannot expect a late seral species to
do well on a disturbed site. Pioneer species will establish and
perform better on disturbed sites than will late seral species.
5. When seed is planted in the proper season. Late fall
and early winter are the most preferred time to seed. One
needs to ask the question; when and how does each native
species naturally seed and establish the most successfully?
6. When seed is properly placed in the soil. Species seeding
requirements vary between species. The most ideal seeding
location and depth can range from surface to 3 to 4 inches
deep, in a firm to loose seedbed and in or under litter or on
exposed soil.
7. When the right equipment and techniques are used to
prepare the seedbed and to plant the seed.
8. When on site endemic species are given every opportunity to express them self. Site preparation and seeding
equipment and techniques need to favor the desirable endemic species rather than eliminate or harm them.
Native communities can be restored through a combination of proper community management practices and proper
seeding of compatible species ecologically adapted to the
site and endemic communities.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
Acknowledgments
Funds were provided through Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project W82R, Study 5 and Rocky Mountain
Research Station, USDA, Forest Service, Provo, Utah.
References ____________________
Aro, R S. 1975. Pinyon-juniper woodland manipulation. In: Gifford,
G. H.; Busby, F. E. eds. The pinyon-juniper ecosystem: A symposium. 1975 May; Logan, UT. Utah State University: 67-75.
Chong, Geneva. 1993. Revegetation of pinyon-juniper woodlands
with native grasses. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Shaw, Douglas W.,
technical coordinators. Managing pinyon-juniper ecosystems for
sustainability and social needs; proceedings of the symposium.
1993 April 26-30; Sante Fe, New Mexico, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236.
Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 34-41.
Goodloe, Sid. 1993. The pinyon-juniper invasion: an inevitable
disaster. In: Aldon, Earl F.; Shaw, Douglas W., technical coordinators. Managing pinyon-juniper ecosystems for sustainability
and social needs; proceedings of the symposium. 1993 April.2630; Sante Fe, New Mexico, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236. Fort Collms,
Co: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 153-154.
Gottfried, G. J.; Swetnam, T. J.; Allen, C. D.; Betancourt, J. L.;
Chung-MacCoubrey,AL.1995. Pinyon-juniperwoodl.ands~ Chapter 6. In: Finch, D. M.; Tainter, J. A, eds. Ecology, dIversIty and
sustainability of the middle Rio Grande basin. Gen. Tech. Rep.
RM-268. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station.
Gruell, G. E. 1998. These Proceedings. Historical and modern roles
of fire in pinyon-juniper.
Jacobs, B. F.; Gatewood, R G. 1998. These Proceedings. Restoration
studies in degredated pinyon-juniper woodlands ofnorth-central
New Mexico.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
McArthur, E. D.; Young, S. A. 1998. These Proceedings. Development of native seed supplies to support restoration of pinyonjuniper sites.
O'Brien, R A; Woudenberg, S. W. 1998. These Proceedings. Distribution of pinyon-juniper woodlands in Utah and Nevada from an
inventory perspective.
Poulsen, C. L.; Walker, S. C.; Stevens, R 1998. These Proceedings.
Soil seed banking in pinyon-juniper with differing levels of tree
cover and understory density, and composition.
Round;, B. A.; Vernon, J. L. 1998. ~hese P~ocee?ings ..Wa.tershed values and conditions assocIated wIth pmyon-Jumper
comm uni ties.
Short, H. L.; McCulloch, C. Y. 1977. Managing pinyon-juniper
ranges for wildlife. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-47. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 10 p.
Stevens, R 1998. These Proceedings. Mechanical chaining and
seeding.
Stevens, R; Monsen, S. B. In Press. Pinyonjuniper. In: Monsen, S. B.;
Stevens, R, eds. Restoration and revegetation of western ranges
and wildlands. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Gen. Tech. Rep.
Suminski, Rita R. 1993. Management implications for mule deer
winter range in northern pinyon-juniper. In: Aldon, Earl F.;
Shaw, Douglas W., technical coordinators. Managing pinyonjuniper ecosystems for sustainability and social needs; proce.edings of the symposium. 1993 April 26-30; Sante Fe, New MexIco,
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-236. Fort Collins, Co: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. 133-139.
Tausch, R J. 1998. These Proceedings. Transition ~nd t.hresholds:
influences and implications for management m pmyon and
juniper woodlands.
. .
West, N. E. 1998. These Proceedings. Distribution, composItIOn,
and classification of current juniper-pinyon woodlands and
savannas across western North America.
289