This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain.
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. 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.
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.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999 327

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
Current use
Potential use
Available for wildland collection
Pure live seed
(Ib/yr)
Dollar value
765,873 2,460,450 370,212
$3,232,749 $12,232,250 $3,261,417 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.
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.
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.
328 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).
Species 8 Current Use Potential use
Avaliable wildland collected
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pIs Iblyr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Species ~ 10,000 Ib/yr
Small burnet C ,9
Blue flax d ,9
Western yarrow d
Antelope bitterbrush
Forage kochiac
,9
Wyoming big sagebrushe,f,9
Fourwing saltbush 9
Bottlebrush squirreltail
Western wheatgrass9
Bluebunch wheatgrass9
Thickspike wheatgrass 9
Basin wildrye9
Indian ricegrass9
Stream bank wheatgrass9
Mountain brome 9
Meadow brome 9
Slender wheatgrass 9
Species 1,000-9,999 Ib pls/yr
Arrowleaf balsamroot
Rocky Mountain Beeplant
Palmer penstemon9
Rocky Mountain penstemon9
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
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
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
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
20-50
25-75
10-50
25-100
25-100
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
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
500-2,500
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
200-1,000
500-2,500
200-2,000
500-2,500
10,000-50,000
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
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
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
100-500
25-300
10-100
50-200
3,000 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.
Price to grower or collector b
$Ip/s lIb
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
25.00
25.00
25.00
14.00
10.00-20.00
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
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
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999
329

Table 3-Pounds of native seed sold in 1996 by five Utah seed companies.
Grass species
Thickspike wheatgrass
Western wheatgrass
Basin wildrye
Mountain brome
Snake River wheatgrass
Slender wheatgrass
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)
Pounds of seed
27,305
23,616
22,522
19,202
15,000
14,400
11,850
11,555
9,950
9,552
7,865
2,865
2,500
2,000
2,000
6,324
Forb species
Western yarrow
Common sunflower
Blue flax
Rocky Mountain bee plant
Lupine (several species)
Palmer penstemon
Pounds of seed
8,443
5,900
3,965
3,200
2,686
2,010
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 others d
(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
Total
Grand Total
188,506 35,427 307,068
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. dOesert 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
38th 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. INT-
GTR-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 38th 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.
330 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-9. 1999