Hostname: page-component-546b4f848f-q5mmw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-02T16:54:19.529Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Restoring Western Juniper- (Juniperus occidentalis) Infested Rangeland after Prescribed Fire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley*
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA–ARS, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720
Jon D. Bates
Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, USDA–ARS, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR 97720
Corresponding author's E-mail:


Restoring range sites dominated by western juniper is central to maintaining healthy functioning shrub–steppe ecosystems. On sites without adequate species composition to respond favorably to juniper controlled by fire, revegetation is necessary. We tested the following two hypotheses related to restoration after juniper control: (1) higher seeding rates would translate into higher density of seeded species, and (2) a rich seeding mixture would provide higher density and biomass than monocultures. Western juniper control was done by cutting 25% of the trees in 2002, allowing cut trees to dry for one year, followed by a broadcast fire applied in October 2003 which killed the remaining live juniper trees. Seeding treatments were applied in 2003 and included seeding six native species in monocultures, seeding a mixture of all six species at four rates (16.8, 22.4, 28.0, or 33.6 kg ha−1 of pure live seeds), and a nonseeded control. Treatments were applied on a Sagebrush/bunchgrass and Snowberry/fescue site. We found that bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue, big bluegrass, and western yarrow density ranged from 450 to 700 plants m−2, which was over six-fold that of the control in 2004 at both sites. Only arrowleaf balsamroot did not establish successfully. The density of big bluegrass nearly doubled from 2004 to 2005. The highest plant density resulted from the highest seeding rate. The highest biomass production was combination seeding at 22.4 kg ha−1 on the Sagebrush/bunchgrass site and 33.6 kg ha−1 on the Snowberry/fescue site. Seeding a combination of species resulted in a moderate to high density of plants and optimized plant diversity and richness over seeding monocultures.

Weed Management
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Literature Cited

Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F., and Svejcar, T. J. 2000. Understory dynamics in cut and uncut western juniper woodlands. J. Range Manag. 53:119126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, J. D., Miller, R. F., and Svejcar, T. 2005. Long-term successional trends following western juniper cutting. J. Range Manag. 58:533541.Google Scholar
Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T., Miller, R. F., and Angell, R. A. 2006. The effects of precipitation timing on sagebrush steppe vegetation. J. Arid Environ. 64:670697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 2004. Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species. J. Range Manag. 57:97105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III, Walker, B. H., Hobbs, R. J., Hooper, D. U., Lawton, J. H., Sala, O. E., and Tilman, D. 1997. Biotic control over the functioning of ecosystems. Science. 277:500504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dukes, J. 2001. Biodiversity and invisibility in grassland microcosms. Oecologia. 126:563568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eddleman, L. 2002. Establishment and development of broadcast seeded grasses under western juniper slash. Prineville, OR. Range Field Day Progress Report, Department of Rangeland Resources, Oregon State University and Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center. Range Science Series Report #5. 57.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. 2005. The Ecology of Seeds. New York Cambridge University Press. 260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, D. A. and McNaughton, S. J. 1991. Stability increases with diversity in plant communities: empirical evidence from the Yellowstone drought. Oikos. 62:360362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London, UK Acadamic. 892.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U. and Vitousek, P. M. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on ecosystem processes. Science. 277:13021305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J. S., Carpinelli, M. F., and Sheley, R. L. 1999. Revegetating weed infested rangeland. Pages 133141. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, T. 2003. The restoration gene pool concept: beyond the native versus nonnative debate. Restor. Ecol. 11:281290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. N. and Lyon, D. J. 2004. Seeding Rates for Winter Wheat in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension. Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 4.Google Scholar
Leckenby, D. A., Adams, A. W., and Roberts, R. W. 1971. Mule deer winter range ecology and management. Portland, OR. Oregon State Game Commission P-R Project Report W-70-R-1. 82.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughton, S. J. 1977. Diversity and stability of ecological communities: a comment on the role of empiricism in ecology. Am. Nat. 111:515525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. F., Bates, J. D., Svejcar, T. J., Pierson, F. B., and Eddleman, L. E. 2005. Biology, ecology, and management of Western Juniper (Juniperus occidentalis). Corvallis, OR. Oregon State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 152. 77.Google Scholar
Miller, R. F., Svejcar, T. J., and Rose, J. A. 2000. Impacts of western juniper on plant community composition and structure. J. Range Manag. 53:574585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S. 1998. Species redundancy and ecosystem reliability. Conserv. Biol. 12:3945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S. and Li, S. 1997. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem reliability. Nature. 390:507509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noson, A. C., Schmitz, R. F., and Miller, R. F. 2006. Influence of fire and juniper encroachment on birds in high elevation sagebrush steppe. West. N. Am. Nat. 66:343353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passey, H. B., Hugie, V. K., Williams, E. W., and Ball, D. E. 1982. Relationships between soil, plant community, and climate on rangelands of the intermountain west. Washington, DC. USDA Soil Conservation Service Technical Bulletin 1662. 52.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York Marcel Dekker, Inc. 429.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L., Sheley, R. L., Zabinski, C. A., Engel, R. E., Svejcar, T. J., and Borkowski, J. J. 2005. Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor. Ecol. 13:448459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. 1998. Propagation of Pacific Northwest Native Plants. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press. 256.Google Scholar
SAS Institute, Inc 2006. Software version 9.1.3. Cary, NC SAS Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Schaefer, R. J., Thayer, D. J., and Burton, T. S. 2003. Forty-one years of vegetation change on permanent transects in northeastern California: implications for wildlife. Calif. Fish Game. 89:6671.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Half, M. L. 2006. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture. Restor. Ecol. 14:627635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single entry. J. Range Manag. 54:144151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Svejcar, T. J. 2005. Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. Weed Sci. 53:307314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant-infested rangeland. Weed Sci. 51:260265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. and Knops, J. 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science. 277:13001303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature. 379:718720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaitkus, M. and Eddleman, L. E. 1987. Composition and productivity of a western juniper understory and its response to canopy removal. Pages 456460. in Everett, R. L. Proceedings: Pinyon–Juniper Conference. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, General Technical report INT-215.Google Scholar
Velagala, R. P., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Influence of density on intermediate wheatgrass and spotted knapweed interference. J. Range Manag. 50:523529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, T. A. and Pyke, D. A. 2003. Restoring forbs for sage grouse habitat: fire, microsites, and establishment methods. Restor. Ecol. 11:370377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1979. Arrowleaf balsamroot and mules ear seed germination. J. Range Manag. 32 (1):7174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. J. Range Manag. 34:501505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. A., Evans, R. A., and Rimbey, C. 1985. Weed control and revegetation following western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis) control. Weed Sci. 33:513517.Google Scholar