Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California

Full text

ANR Publication 8575 | June 2017
http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu
ELISE S. GORNISH,
University of California
Cooperative Extension
Specialist, Department of
Plant Sciences, University
of California, Davis; JULEA
SHAW, Department of Plant
Sciences, University of
California, Davis
Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland
Systems in California
Grassland and rangeland habitat are some of the most economically,
socially, and environmentally important habitats in California (fig.
1). Unfortunately, widespread development and massive degradation
are quickly eroding the persistence and health of these systems (see
Huenneke and Mooney 1989; Cameron et al. 2014), making them one
of the most endangered ecosystems on the planet (Sampson and Knopf
1994; Peters and Noss 1995). Restoration of these systems encourages
revegetation and soil recovery
by encouraging natural
successional processes that
might otherwise take decades to
occur in the absence of applied
management (Beltran et al.
2014). In general, the restoration
process for grasslands and
rangelands involve
Figure 1. Plant-eye view of a typical California annual–dominated grassland habitat.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 2
•late summer: preparing soil
•fall: wait for annual grass weeds to emerge approximately
7–14 days after the first fall rains, manage weeds
•mid fall, early winter: apply restoration species as seed or
plugs
•late winter: broadleaf weed management (restoration species
should have about four leaves per seedling)
•spring: grass weed management
To ensure widespread, effective deployment of restoration in
California grasslands, practitioners should have access to general
guidelines developed from field-tested, science-based studies. Current
practical restoration guidelines for California habitats cover
•riparian habitat (Griggs 2009; Stark and Dettman 2010;
Jackson et al. 2015)
•river and stream habitat (Kier 1995; Flosi et al. 1998;
Carville 2000)
•dune habitat (Pickart and Sawyer 1998; Pickart 2008)
•mountain meadows (Stillwater Sciences 2012)
Although similar types of small documents exist for grassland
systems (Anderson 2001; Yolo County Resource Conservation
District 2002; Bornstein et al. 2011; Howard and Robbins 2002;
Sheley et al. 2008), there is an absence of a relatively comprehensive
ecological application guide for effective restoration in grassland
and rangeland systems for California. Synthesizing both published
and unpublished data, this guide was developed for practitioners
of any experience level to inform grassland restoration design and
application.
The techniques outlined in this publication follow a format
that attempts to provide general direction to effectively improve
grassland conditions in monetarily and logistically feasible
ways. Although this publication provides an overview to many
activities associated with California grassland and rangeland
restoration, particular focus is paid to restoration species choice,
because species identity can be the dominant driver of achieving
a restoration goal. The techniques outlined here are the result of
years of experience from research scientists and non-academic
practitioners and provides general guidelines for effective grassland
vegetation management.
IdentIfy RestoRatIon Goals
In order to design and deploy an effective restoration approach,
restoration goals and desired outcomes must be clearly defined (see
Barry et al. 2006; Vasey and Holl 2007). For example, is the goal of
the revegetation effort to support grazing animals, cultivate native
pollinators, enhance wildlife habitat, or protect against erosion? Is it
some combination of these? Although multiple benefits can derive
from single restoration strategies, species mixes and restoration
techniques can be unique to each goal. Once a goal is identified,
restoration approaches can be refined through considerations
of site size, shape, and context. For example, restoration sites
that are contiguous to agricultural fields might require different
approaches than those that are contiguous to state parks. Further,
small, rectangular sites might require dissimilar approaches to
large, irregularly shaped sites. Generally, understanding restoration
needs and priorities prior to designing an approach will likely lead
to higher success at a lower cost. Although rarely recorded in the
literature, restoration practitioners in California grasslands estimate
that native-only restoration costs typically from $1,000 to $3,000
per acre. These costs can easily be higher if inputs are hard to get or
particularly expensive. The following goals are often associated with
grassland restoration.
Biodiversity: Enhancing Biodiversity of Native Plant Species
Fundamental to the development of principles of ecological
restoration is the goal of increasing the number of native species
(Brudvig 2010). Since biodiversity enhancements typically result
in concomitant increases in a wide range of ecosystem services
(see Benayas et al. 2009), restoring for biodiversity can allow
practitioners to achieve multiple management goals. Seeding or
planting a high diversity of plant species is an obvious technique to
achieve this goal; however, practitioners should also consider how

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 3
species included in a restoration mix can be leveraged to facilitate
the survival and growth of other species. This might be particularly
critical in arid habitats (Padilla and Pugnaire 2006).
Resources
Wright, J., et al. 2009. Restoring biodiversity and ecosystem
function: Will an integrated approach improve results? In S.
Naeem, et al., ed., Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and
human wellbeing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 167–
177. http://www.lerf.esalq.usp.br/divulgacao/recomendados/
outros/wright2009.pdf.
Invasive Plant Management: Reducing Invasive Plant Cover
and Providing Invasion Resilience
Active restoration is a surprisingly uncommon weed management
strategy, despite the research that highlights its utility (see James et
al. 2015). Restoration can be a practical solution for achieving weed
management goals because seeded species can decrease resource
availability for invasives and cultivate soil microbial communities
that are antagonistic to nonnatives (fig. 2). An effective restoration
approach would include species that demonstrate functional
similarity to targeted invasives, which enhances the competitive
dominance of the natives (Funk et al. 2008).
Resources
Blumenthal, D., et al. 2003. Weed control as a rationale for
restoration. Ecology and Society 7(1): article 6. http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss1/art6/.
Harding, K. 2004. Controlling invasive species as part of
restoration treatments. Working Papers in Southwestern
Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration no. 8. http://library.eri.nau.
edu/gsdl/collect/erilibra/index/assoc/HASH01dd/f50a8b64.
dir/doc.pdf.
James, J., et al. 2010. Ecological principles for invasive plant
management. Burns, OR: Area-Wide EBIPM. http://
oregonstate.edu/dept/eoarc/sites/default/files/675.pdf.
Tjarks, H. 2012. Using a native understory to control weeds in
riparian restoration. Cal-IPC Newsletter. http://riverpartners.
org/news-and-events/newsletters/201212_NativeUnderstory.
html.
Figure 2. Large
patches of invasives
such as medusahead
(Taeniatherum caput-
medusae) can be
controlled with careful
restoration strategies.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 4
Pollinator Habitat: Providing Nectar and Breeding Habitat for
Native Bees and Butterflies
Although revegetation efforts for pollinators can be one of the
most expensive types of restoration goals (Miller and Hobbs
2007), pollinator habitat enhancement has been shown to benefit a
multitude of other ecosystem services (see Morandin and Kremen
2013). Pollinators are generally benefited by plants that flower at
different times during the growing season, which enhances resource
availability (fig. 3).
Resources
Adamson, N., B. Borders, J. Cruz, et al. 2014. Pollinator plants:
California. Portland, OR: Xerces Society. http://www.xerces.
org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CaliforniaPlantList_web.pdf.
Black, S., M. Shepherd, et al. 2009. Pollinator conservation
strategy. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society. http://www.
xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/yolo-nhp_pollinator-
strategy_xerces.pdf.
Bumblebee Conservation Trust (Scotland). n.d. Grassland
restoration and creation for bumblebees. Land Management
Series Factsheet 4. http://bumblebeeconservation.org/images/
uploads/Resources/BBCT_Land_Factsheet_4_Grassland_
restoration.pdf.
California Native Plant Society. 2009. Perennial meadow garden.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/grownative/pdf/plan_yb2.
Earnsahw, S. 2004. Hedgerows for California agriculture. Davis:
Community Alliance with Family Farmers. http://caff.org/
wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Hedgerow_manual.pdf.
Mäder, E., B. Borders, and A. Minnerath. 2013. Establishing
pollinator meadows from seed. Portland, OR: The Xerces
Society for Invertebrate Conservation. http://www.xerces.org/
wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EstablishingPollinatorMeadows.
pdf.
Xerces Society. 2017. Pollinator conservation seed mixes.
Portland, OR: The Xerces Society. http://www.xerces.org/
pollinator-seed/.
Wildlife Habitat: Providing Food, Security, Nesting, Breeding
Habitat, and Thermal Cover to Wildlife
Providing and enhancing wildlife habitat is one of the oldest
motivations for restoration and revegetation efforts; often, resources
are available through California agencies to help fund these efforts.
Consult the enormous amount of literature devoted to highlighting
effective techniques for the active cultivation of wildlife habitat for
Figure 3. Availability
of nectar resources can
enhance agricultural
production.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 5
a more detailed description of techniques. In general, to effectively
enhance grassland wildlife habitat, choose restoration species that
provide diversity in canopy cover (e.g., low-lying and erect species
as well as heterogeneous planting or seeding patterns). This can be
accomplished by maximizing functional richness of species choice:
no single species should make up more than 35% of the mixture
(Monson et al. 2004). Topography can also be modified to achieve
wildlife restoration goals in order to enhance habitat heterogeneity
(Schlafmann and Morrison 2005).
Resources
California Native Plant Society. 2010. Habitat meadow garden.
http://www.cnps.org/cnps/grownative/pdf/plan_habitat-
meadow.pdf.
DiGaudio, K., K. Kreitinger, and T. Guardali. n.d. Bringing the
birds back. California partners in flight. http://www.pointblue.
org/uploads/assets/pacvalley/SacValleyHabitatEnhancement.
pdf.
Eisenstein, B. 2015. Links to lists of plants that attract birds.
Weeding Wild Suburbia website, http://weedingwildsuburbia.
com/lists/ListofBirdLists.pdf.
Long, J., L. Quinn-Davidson. R. Goode, et al. 2015. Restoring
California black oak to support tribal values and wildlife. In R.
B. Stadiford and K. L. Purcell, ed., Proceedings of the Seventh
California Oak Symposium. General Technical Report PSW-
GTR-251. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest
Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/
documents/psw_gtr251/psw_gtr251_113.pdf.
USDA Forest Service. n.d. Wildlife restoration and monitoring:
Concepts and development. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/
FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5150405.pdf.
Erosion Control: Protecting against the Loss of Topsoil and
Cultivating Soil Formation
Protecting against the movement of sediment on hillsides and
bare areas is often a top priority for restoration in order to sustain
healthy soils (Gornish et al. 2016). If a site is relatively bare and
erosion is likely, applying weed-free rice straw bales at a rate of
approximately 40 bales per acre is a good approach (Barnett et al.
1967) just after seeding at about 60 pounds per acre can be helpful.
Post-fire seedings should include forbs, which tend to do well after
burns (Keeley and Keeley 1984). All erosion control seedings should
contain species characterized by rapid growth for fast coverage and
deep root systems that can restrict soil movement.
Resources
California Department of Transportation. 2010. Key concepts
of sustainable erosion control: Technical guide. http://www.
dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_la_design/guidance/ec_toolbox/
Erosion_Control_Technical_Guide_v2.pdf.
Casale, R. 2008. Post fire restoration “do’s” and
“don’ts.” Santa Cruz, CA: USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service. http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/
FIREDosDontsRESTORATION09.pdf.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2007. Temporary erosion
control options. Handout 6. http://www.valleywater.org/
uploadedFiles/Programs/BusinessInformationPermits/Permits/
TemporaryErosionControl.pdf?n=2552.
Shanks, L., D. Moore, and C. Sanders. 1998. Soil erosion. In
C. Ingels, et al., ed., Cover cropping in vineyards. Oakland:
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Publication 3338. http://www.ucanr.org/sites/intvit/
files/24454.pdf.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 6
Primary Production: Providing Forage for Grazing Animals
Enhancing grassland and pasture resources can provide economic
benefits to producers (fig. 4) as well as serving as a method for
invasive plant control (e.g. Davy et al. 2015). The Utah State
University Extension office estimated that perennial grasses and
forbs can yield between 400 to 1000 lb of feed/acre! This is because
native perennial grasses increase green forage availability for a longer
period during the growing season (Menke 1992). In order to enhance
productivity and cover, choosing species based on characteristics
that confer resilience to grazing (but are still palatable) is critical.
For example, native perennial forbs typically do not respond well to
grazing, so less of this type of plant should be used to achieve grazing
goals (Hayes and Holl 2003). Other characteristics to consider for
restoration mixes to enhance forage production include low to no
toxicity, rapid establishment and growth rate and high protein content
(e.g. include a minimum of 20% legumes in the mix).
Resources
Kroeger, T., F. Casey, P. Alvarez, et al. 2010. An economic
analysis of the benefits of habitat conservation on California
rangelands. Washington, DC: Defenders of Wildlife. https://
www.defenders.org/publications/an_economic_analysis_of_the_
benefits_of_habitat_conservation_on_california_rangelands.pdf
Carbon Storage/Nutrient Cycling: Enhancing Carbon
Sequestration and Soil Nutrient Dynamics
Conversion to and maintenance of perennial grasslands is becoming
a popular way to promote carbon sequestration and enhance nutrient
cycling. There are also quite a few government cost-share programs that
can help with financial investments associated with carbon sequestration
efforts. To achieve this management goal, restoration mixes should
be largely composed of perennial grasses, which cultivate the bacteria
needed to sequester carbon. The employment of fertilizer should also
be used to ensure that grasses are likely to dominate (Walker et al.
2015). The inclusion of legumes, such as species of Trifolium, Lupinus,
or Castilleja is another good way to enhance carbon and nitrogen
sequestration (fig. 5) (De Deyn et al. 2010 ).
Figure 4. Restoration
is a powerful tool to
enhance beef cattle
production.
Figure 5. Owls clover
(Castilleja exserta).

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 7
Resources
Savory Institute. 2013. Restoring the climate through capture and
storage of soil carbon through holistic planned grazing. http://
savory.global/assets/docs/evidence-papers/restoring-the-climate.pdf,
University of California Cooperative Extension San Luis
Obispo County. n.d. Carbon storage in rangelands. Ranching
Sustainability Analysis Info Sheet. http://cesanluisobispo.ucanr.
edu/files/136179.pdf.
PRe-VeGetatIon technIques
Once restoration goals have been identified, management techniques
must be designed and deployed. Many restoration practitioners posit
that revegetation activities cannot occur before major problematic
physical processes are solved (Tongway and Ludwig 2010). Therefore,
prior to considerations of any biotic management, chronic abiotic
disturbances must be acknowledged and mitigated: rectifying floods,
rockslides, chemical contaminations, etc. of the site is the first priority.
This section briefly outlines other major issues that must be addressed
in grassland restoration prior to seeding or planting activities.
Invasive Species Management
Integral to any grassland restoration design is invasive species
management. Native seed sown into fields dominated by invasive plants
generally perform very poorly (see Cione et al. 2002) and in many cases
fail to establish. Since applied invasive species management in California
has been well described elsewhere (e.g., Lanini et al. 1996; DiTomaso et al.
2013; Kyser et al. 2014) , only an extremely brief overview of best practices
will be presented here. Environmental variables (both previous and
current-year) can be important drivers of weed management success. For
example, Kimball et al. (2015) showed how weed management is much
less important for mediating weed germination in dry years than in years
of average or high precipitation. Alternatively, other papers have shown
that weed management in drought years can be particularly effective
because the density of invasives is already low (see Salo 2004).
In order to increase restoration success, perform weed
management at least one season prior to seeding or replanting in
order to kill existing plants and prevent existing plants from going
to seed (Wrysinski 1999). Initiating weed management 2 years
before revegetation activities is even more ideal, as this allows
the practitioner to deplete the weed seed bank as well. However,
initiating management this early is often logistically and financially
infeasible. The type of weed management program chosen must
consider both existing invasive plants as well as the types of species
used for revegetation. Many of the conventional weed management
strategies listed below suggest targeting a particular point in the
life cycle of the plant (e.g., the seedling). Keep in mind that many
populations of invasive plants do not enter life stages at the same
time; for example, spraying a patch of seedings will likely not
provide eradication because some of the plants will not yet be in the
seedling stage. Multiple management events within a single season
can address this obstacle.
Late-spring burning of annual grasslands has been shown to
effectively reduce some important annual invasive plant species
(Pollak and Kan 1998; Wirka 1999) (fig. 6), although these types
Figure 6. Burning can
enhance desired plant
cover.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 8
of weeds can sometimes be replaced by invasive forbs after fire
(Parsons and Stohlgren 1989). Burning for multiple years appears
to be necessary for long-term control (see Swiecki and Bernhardt
2002) but may not always be feasible due to a lack of fuel to carry
a fire in the second year. Additionally, the effectiveness of fire can
be contingent upon the physical structure of dominant weeds. For
example, the germination of certain invasive plant species, such
as yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), has been shown to be
encouraged by fire (Sheley et al. 1999; Kyser et al. 2013). Despite
this, when included in an integrated management approach,
prescribed fire over consecutive years has been shown to be a useful
weed management approach (see DiTomaso et al. 1999). Keep in
mind that, in most cases, a burn permit is required prior to the
deployment of prescribed fire. Work closely with CAL FIRE (see
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_burnpermits)
and your local air pollution control district (see http://www.arb.
ca.gov/capcoa/roster.htm) to streamline the process of writing up
and getting approval for a permit.
Herbicides, which can significantly reduce exotic plant
populations (Cione et al. 2002), can be broadly separated into systemic
(can be translocated throughout the plant) and contact (do not move
from the point of contact) herbicides, as well as nonselective (control
all plants) and selective (control, e.g., grasses without affecting
broadleaf plants). Prioritizing weeds by distinguishing between grasses,
herbaceous broadleaves, and woody species is critical to successful and
effective chemical control. For example, in established or establishing
sites, broadleaf herbicides that offer loosely selective preemergent
control of primarily thistles (e.g., clopyralid and animopyralid) can be
applied in late fall. In contrast, broad-spectrum broadleaf herbicides
that do not provide residual control (e.g., 2,4-D) should be applied in
February to mid-March, while other types of nonselective herbicides,
(e.g., glyphosate) can used right after grass weed emergence but prior
to native plant emergence in October or November (glyphosate is
also effective on late-season annuals or perennials and can be applied
after desirable plants disperse their seed and senesce). Weed identity
is particularly important for herbicide choice. For example, a fall
preemergent application of aminopyralid (typically used to control
broadleaf weeds) is effective on medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-
medusae) but not on barb goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis) (G. Kyser,
pers comm.). Moreover, if legumes and/or composites are to be used
for reseeding, a fall application of clethodim or glyphosate would be
most effective.
Identifying life stages of the target species that are susceptible
to herbicides is also important. A spring application of a
nonselective herbicide prior to seed maturation can mimic the use
of a control burn in eliminating season-long plants and preventing
seed production for the subsequent year. Similar to burning, a
second application in the fall of the following season is required
to obtain the high level of exotic annual grass suppression often
required for native and perennial grass planting. Herbicide choice
is also restricted by site land use and species. Be sure to consult the
herbicide label to determine whether the herbicide is legal for use
on a particular site.
Mowing (fig. 7) can be an effective invasive plant management
technique when used at the correct time. Because many grasses
Figure 7. Mowing
can provide effective
reduction in exotic
plant cover.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 9
(both native and invasive) respond well to mowing (depending on
mower height), mowing should be done in the spring, when invasive
annual grasses have started producing immature seed. Disrupting
seed maturation is most effective in the milk stage of production
(when mashing the seed between your fingers produces a milky
substance). After this stage, mowing may not provide adequate
management on mature seedheads. Sanitize all equipment before
and after mowing activities to reduce the spread of invasives across
sites.
Grazing is an effective strategy for targeting nontoxic
weeds that can be extremely cost effective (Kimball et al. 2015),
particularly if low-cost fencing is available. In addition to targeting
weeds when they are vulnerable to grazing (boot stage), careful
grazing can also enhance soil aeration and nutrient recycling. The
type of animals used, the number of animals used, the duration of
grazing, and the site location can affect the cover and identity of
invasive species (Hayes and Holl 2003). On a large scale, grazing
should be viewed as a long-term weed suppression strategy (Davy
et al. 2015), but it requires adequate infrastructure such as water,
fencing, and access.
Effective weed management is not a single action, but an
activity that must be a continuous component of a restoration
project. Weedy threats from the seedbank and reinvasion from
edges necessitates active weed control before, during, and after
revegetation (see Anderson and Long 1999). Considerations of
herbicide-resistant weed presence, as well as the development of
herbicide resistance in treated species, are also important (see
Hanson et al. 2014). However, this risk is likely to be small in
natural areas since the same herbicide is rarely used for consecutive
years. In general, expect to pay about 10% of the direct restoration
costs each year following seeding activities in site maintenance
for weeds (Robins et al. 2001) and plan for at least 3 years of weed
management.
Plant MateRIals
Choosing Species and Genotypes
Plants to include in a restoration mix should be based on
management goals, and often, the species present at a reference
site (mature, undisturbed areas). This reference site can take many
forms, from a relatively uninvaded remnant to a documented
historical community. Reference sites should be characterized by
similar conditions to sites that are to be restored. These conditions
can include soil type, slope, aspect, elevation, the presence of
grazing, and climate. Reference sites can facilitate plant selection
because they provide a plant community target. However, they can
be difficult to use in restoration design because management goals
might include, for example, rapid erosion control, which may not
be quickly achieved using plants in the reference community. To
achieve this goal, the reestablishment of early-successional species
particularly suited for colonization and site improvement might be
required, even if these plants are absent from a reference site.
A critical part of restoration planning should also involve a
careful assessment of a site’s existing plant species. Often, many
native plants can be found hidden within even the most invaded
annual grasslands or on the margins of a degraded area. These native
species are a valuable source of information about species that might
grow best at the site and may even be a source for locally adapted
seed. Selecting appropriate plants for a restoration site also depends
on careful consideration of local soil and climatic conditions. If you
aren’t sure what soil type you have, use the free UC Davis SoilWeb
app (http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb-apps), which
describes the reported soil type for most areas in the United States
and is compatible with desktop computers, tablets, and smartphones.
Similarly, the CalClim website (http//www.calclim.dri.edu/) provides
easy assistance in determining a site’s climate.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 10
Sourcing Seed and Plants
California native species (fig. 8) are the focus of restoration
candidates in this guide. The cost of plant materials can be the
largest consumer of restoration dollars in a project. Deciding on
where to get plant material will be critical. Often, the easiest way
to acquire locally adapted plant materials for restoration is from
local or federal native nurseries and farms. You can check the
California Native Plant Link Exchange (cnplx.info) for lists of seed
and stock by county and producer or look into the native seed
network for resources on the native seed industry by state (www.
nativeseednetwork.org). Keep in mind that many nurseries develop
or cultivate their own varieties with characteristics that can make a
species more or less suitable for restoration in a particular area.
Alternatively, you can collect plants and seed from the field
yourself. An advantage of this is that it ensures the use of locally
adapted species and varieties for your project. If you gather seed
from the field, collect them from locations in or around the
restoration site to ensure local genotypes are used for the restoration
project (see Borders et al. 2011). However, field seed collecting
can sometimes require maneuvering through regulatory laws of
collection permits; securing knowledgeable field crews is often
needed to know how, when, and where to collect seed, and there can
be added costs of subsequent seed cleaning and storage. Moreover,
the environment in which the seed were produced can strongly affect
germination, growth rate, seed production, and longevity (Goodwin
and Doescher 1995; Bergum et al. 2010). Some agencies recommend
that seed be collected within 30 miles of a restoration site, but the
most important criteria are that climate and sometimes soils must
be matched in the restoration and collection sites (McKay et al.
2005). Outcrossing species can be collected at a greater distance than
selfing species, as the latter may form more locally adapted ecotypes
(Rice and Knapp 2008).
For more information on field collection see Emery 1988
and Monsen et al. 2004; for more information on propagation, see
McClaran 1981 and Amme 1985.
Once seed is collected, pretreatment may be required to ensure
germination. For example, 19% of native annual plant species found
in California have cold-cue seed germination (Mayfield et al. 2014).
To overcome seed dormancy of field-collected seed in the absence
of a laboratory, consider the biological needs of restoration species
in your management techniques. For example, seeding species in the
fall, preferably during or just before the autumn rains, can increase
the exposure of seed to periods of cold temperatures, moisture, and
late-season light, conditions that are often necessary for germination.
Seed Mixes
Regardless of your restoration goal, always use multiple species
in seeding or planting. Using a diversity of restoration species,
including a diversity of species that differ in traits (i.e., different
functional groups) is important for two reasons. First, choosing
Figure 8.
California natives
Lupinus bicolor
and Stipa pulchra.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 11
species that provide a diversity of functional traits increases the
likelihood of invasion resistance, which enhances community
stability (Young et al. 2009; Aigner et al. 2011; Kimball et al. 2014).
Second, individual species have been shown to maximize single
ecosystem functions (see Sutton-Grier et al. 2012), so increasing
species number in restoration mixes increases the likelihood of
maximizing an array of ecosystem services in a restored habitat.
Restoration seed mixes should be comprised of functionally
dissimilar species that match functional groups of vegetation at the
restoration site (annuals and perennials, forbs and grasses). However,
mixing annuals (which tend to grow quickly, bloom early, and have
shallower roots) and perennials (which tend to grow slowly, bloom
late, and have deep roots) in seed mixes can result in a significant
decrease in emerging perennials (Young et al. 2014). Planting or
seeding perennials earlier than annuals is a good way to encourage
germination and root development of perennials in the absence of
intense competitive pressure from annuals (Abraham et al. 2008;
Young et al. 2014). This approach will likely be most effective
when the invasive annual seed bank is depleted. Another approach
includes incorporating native annuals such as small fescue (Festuca
microstachys) that have been shown to facilitate the survival and
growth of native perennials in the restoration seed mix. Finally,
employ a multiyear approach where annuals are seeding sparsely
in the first year to avoid competition with perennials seeded the
following year.
How Much Seed Should You Use?
The amount of seed used depends on species identity, seed
characteristics, and cost. For example, larger-seeded grasses are often
more likely to germinate and emerge, but these types of seed are
generally more expensive (Lulow et al. 2007), so using more seed is
not always better (Porensky et al. 2012; Wilson 2015), particularly if
germination rates are high. Saturating the soil with seed might also
create a competitive environment for seed germination and seedling
growth.
Although seeding rates are constantly being tested, follow these
very general rules of thumb:
•9 to 20 pounds of seed per acre for seed mixes (Rose
1998; Anderson 2001; Lulow et al. 2007). This includes
approximately 3 to 7 pounds per acre of easily established,
fast-growing species and 6 to 10 pounds per acre of slower-
growing species (e.g., most perennial grasses).
•Broadcast large-seeded natives at more pounds of live seed
(PLS) per acre than smaller-seeded natives.
•Plant forbs at higher rates than perennial grasses.
•Use much lower seeding rates for shrubs than for herbaceous
species (see Cione et al. 2002; Montalvo et al. 2002).
Management for Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi
Grasses and most grassland forbs form associations with vesicular-
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (VAMF or AMF) that improve their
growth by increasing nutrient and water uptake. Most cool-season
grass species are facultatively mycorrhizal, meaning that they have
relatively small responses to mycorrhizae and can survive for some
time periods without mycorrhizae, especially in the absence of
competition. For example, inoculation did not improve the ability
of purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) to compete with slender oat
(Avena barbata), the latter having intrinsically higher growth rates
with or without inoculum (Nelson and Allen 1993). However, Eman
2016 found that preinoculation of S. pulchra plugs with local soil
improved growth. Typically, unless the topsoil is removed or altered,
natural levels of mycorrhizal inoculum are sufficient and inoculation
is not required. If inoculum is used, it should be from local sources
to reduce the unintended transport of nonbeneficial pathogens
(Schwartz et al. 2006).

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 12
ReVeGetatIon technIques
Timing
In California, most species should be seeded in the fall, preferably
during or just before the autumn and winter rains. This exposure
to periods of cold temperature, moisture, and late-season light are
often necessary for seed to overcome dormancy and germinate.
Moreover, cool and wet growing conditions in late winter and early
spring will be critical to seedling growth and establishment.
Planting in the fall means that restoration success can depend
on winter precipitation; unfortunately, no two years are the same in
terms of precipitation timing and amount. Unless the restoration
site can be irrigated, a very large investment in native seed planted
before a drought may be a waste of money. Given a fixed project
budget for a site, the chances for revegetation success may be
improved by hedging your bets and planting smaller investments
in seed over the course of several growing seasons. That way it will
be more likely that at least one or two of the years will be good for
seedling establishment.
Location
Seed can be applied to the entire area to be restored (which will
likely reduce the density of seed and seedlings per acre) or to a
subset of the area in strips or patches (which will concentrate
seed). Seeding only a subset of the area has been shown to be
an effective way to increase survival of emerging grass seedlings
(Rayburn and Laca 2013) while minimizing seed and logistical
costs. Subset seeding (commonly referred to as strip seeding or
spatially patterned seeding) generally involves the application of
seed in proximate but not necessarily contiguous strips or parcels.
This encourages the in-filling of unseeded areas between seeded
patches by desired plants as they mature. However, the in-filling of
nonseeded sites can be faster for grass species than for perennial
forbs (Jongepierova et al. 2007) and may be subject to reinvasion.
Even small restoration sites often include a range of spatial
microenvironments and soil types that greatly affect plant growth.
Different grasses are often found on south-facing slopes, for
instance, than on flat ground under a valley oak. Seeding the same
species across all sites may be a waste of seed if species in your mix
do not tolerate the micro-environments present. Rather than sowing
one seed mix throughout, consider making two or three seed mixes
tailored to the unique conditions across the restoration area.
Application
Seed can be applied in many ways. The easiest way is by broadcast
seeding by hand or by vehicle across sites. This can be an effective
way to target seed onto disturbed soils. However, this approach can
be difficult to successfully apply across large areas and can be one of
the most costly seeding techniques (Kimball et al. 2015). A general
rule of thumb suggests not to broadcast seed by hand when a site is
greater than 2 acres. Aerial seeding (both fixed-wing and helicopter)
can address these larger areas, but this approach is restricted to
practitioners who have access to the variety of tools (e.g., vehicles,
pilots, etc.) needed for this approach. Broadcast seeding can
require from 20 to 80% more seed than is needed for other seeding
approaches (Monsen et al. 2004; Stromberg et al. 2007; Anderson
and Long 2010) and tends to not spread seed uniformly across
target areas. This lack of uniformity, however, can increase space
between seed, reducing competition between individuals in the seed
mixture. Ultimately, this dynamic can actually lead to higher rates
of native seedling establishment than with drill seeding (Kimball
et al. 2014). If broadcast seeding is used, the soil should be disked
approximately 1 to 2 inches deep prior to seeding to increase seed-
soil contact and also to reduce the presence of small mammals
(Stevens and Monsen 2004). Once seed is spread, ensuring the
adhesion of seed to the soil can be accomplished by imprinting,
which can involve pulling an imprinter over seeded areas, moving
animals through a seeded area, or putting cardboard sheets on top
of the seed and stepping on them.
Hydroseeding, which involves spraying a mixture of seed,
mulch, and fertilizer in a water-based slurry to the soil surface, can
also be used to prepare a seedbed (see Roberts and Bradshaw 1985).
This method is less labor intensive than hand seeding, can be useful
for seeding areas inaccessible to drills, and can quickly cover large

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 13
areas. However, this approach is subject to high failure rates in plant
establishment, is often costly, and requires access to machinery.
Hydroseeding can be improved by scarifying the soil surface and
hydromulching (Montalvo et al. 2002).
Finally, in drill seeding, (fig. 9<<F9>>) seed is dispensed from
a seed hopper pulled by a tractor and placed in a furrow directly
into the soil. This method can ensure that seed is deposited deeper
in the soil profile, an environment that is typically characterized by
more ideal conditions for germination than those found at the soil
surface. For example, many grasses demonstrate best emergence
when drill seeded 0.5 to 1.5 inches into the soil. Since seed is
typically placed in conditions that facilitate germination using a
seed drill, less seed is needed per acre, making it one of the more
cost-effective techniques (Montalvo et al. 2002; Kimball et al. 2015).
However, if desired vegetation already exists at the site, drill seeding
might not be the best method for restoration, as it can uproot
existing plants. Heavy drill machinery can also disturb the seed bed,
limiting germination rates.
The seed application technique used in a restoration project
depends on financial and logistical constraints as well as site
conditions and plant species used. Site conditions are important
because they can interact with the seeding approach. For example,
heavy machinery used for drill seeding might compact soil in
sites characterized by high clay content (Monsen et al. 2004),
subsequently leading to puddling and reduced availability of
moisture for plants. The use of heavy duty drilling equipment is
also generally unfeasible in rough, rocky terrain. Drier areas might
benefit more from hydroseeding approaches, which add moisture
to the soil surface. However, since this approach requires significant
water, hydroseeding during drought conditions might prove
untenable.
The restoration species used can also impact seed application
choice. As an obvious example, shrubs appear to do better
with direct transplanting (see McAdoo et al. 2013). But seed
characteristics are a less-apparent factor. Seed with long awns
can get stuck in drills and often do better with hand seeding or
by no-till drilling. If a competitively dominant native is included
in a mixture, drill seeding is not ideal because it can cause seed
to be placed in very close contact with one another in a furrow,
facilitating a very competitive environment. Studies from other
areas have demonstrated that broadcast seeding is more effective
than drill seeding for the long-term success of native forbs (Wilson
et al. 2004).
Direct Planting
Applying seed for restoration is often preferred to direct planting
(plugs or plants) because it can be less expensive per area of
Figure 9.
Drill rows in a
Yolo County
restoration
project.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 14
coverage (Parmerlee and Young 2010), easier to deploy, and has
less likelihood of inadvertently introducing plant pathogens. In
cases where established plants are required immediately on smaller
parcels of land, direct planting is a preferred method.
In grasslands, the presence of even a few established herbs,
shrubs, and trees can enhance restoration practices (Stahlheber
and D’Antonio 2014) and provide a variety of ecosystem services
(fig. 10). These include erosion control, shade for grazing animals,
increased landscape heterogeneity, and exotic plant reduction
(see Belsky et al. 1989; Fritzke 1997). This is another example of
why care should be taken to identify and preserve existing native
plants on a site prior to restoration activities. Plugs (also referred
to as container stock) can also have higher establishment rates
than direct-seeded plants. However, because plugs are much more
expensive than seeding (Pelmerlee and Young 2010), planting them
is typically done only in relatively small areas. Using plugs for
grassland restoration can require creative techniques to improve the
survival and growth of transplanted materials. For example, lining
plug holes with PVC piping can protect root damage by ground
squirrels, which can decimate newly established plants, especially
shrubs and trees. Using hand-held digging forks and shovels on
small areas or tractors on larger areas can loosen soil to encourage
root penetration of newly planted plugs.
Plugs should be installed between December and February to
ensure that at least one winter rain event provides moisture to the
growing plugs. If irrigation is possible, the season of plug planting
becomes wider (e.g., September to April). Some practitioners
actually install plugs even earlier (August) because late summer
is most conducive to growth in that it allows for sufficient
photosynthesis and carbon storage; this is advisable only if sufficient
moisture is available (usually via irrigation). Whenever plants are
transplanted, roots should always be kept moist and cool.
Transplanting induces plant stress, so to minimize this stress
and increase the likelihood of restoration success transplants
should be installed in areas free of existing plant competition
and with adequate moisture. For example, planting plugs at a
distance of 7 inches from existing vegetation can be sufficient to
reduce competitive effects on plugs (Huddleston and Young 2004).
Applying mulch prior to or immediately after planting is one
relatively easy way to decrease invasive plant cover and increase soil
moisture (Holl et al. 2014b). Mulch application is less important
if the base of the plug is encased in a tube shelter (more common
with tree seedlings and shrubs, e.g., Tubex tree shelters). This tube
can also be useful for preventing rodent damage, and can serve
as protection for water gel packets. Adding litter and soil from
conspecific canopies can also increase survival and growth through
the introduction of beneficial bacteria and fungi (Scott and Pratini
1997).
After plugs are installed, grazing should be removed from the
area for at least one season to reduce soil compaction and direct
plant damage. If grazing cannot be removed, fencing should be
installed to protect plugs. This fencing can also serve to reduce
small mammal herbivory (depending on fencing cell size). Fencing
Figure 10. Established
perennial bunchgrass
restoration in Modoc
County, CA.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 15
is expensive, however; studies have found that planting in grazed
areas can double planting costs (see Kraetsch 2001). For more
information on restoration techniques for installing established
plants, see McCreary and Tecklin 2005.
After Seeding or Planting
The establishment stage of seeded natives is extremely vulnerable
to the competitive effects of invasive plants. Therefore, after the
majority of seeding and planting has been conducted, maintain
weed management to ensure adequate establishment and
survival of seeded species. Knowing how to identify the native
plants you seeded, extant native plants, and invasive weeds at
the seedling and small plant stage will be critical for managing
your plantings in the first year. This is also a reason to be very
strategic with planting amounts and locations: a large investment
in seed planted over an area that is too large to be weeded and
maintained will go to waste. Weeding and other maintenance
costs should always be factored into any seed investment.
Fortunately, after a few growing seasons many California native
grasses become established (i.e., native biomass approaches
approximately 1 pound per yard) and can compete effectively
with exotic species (Seabloom et al. 2003; Lulow 2006).
Resist the urge to pile on the fertilizer, which can enhance
invasive growth more than natives and be detrimental to soil
biota (Emam 2014). Follow-up management depends on both
the identity of invasive species as well as seeded native species
characteristics. The application of a nonselective weed control
herbicide, such as glyphosate (1.25 pints per acre; Lulow et al.
2007) early in the season (January or February) is an effective way
to treat initial weedy seedlings, but it must be done carefully in
order to avoid desirable seedlings. In late spring of the first growing
season, broadleaf herbicide (Transline or 2,4D) can be applied
(Lulow 2006). Burning is another way to reduce weedy species, and
it can also enhance native species diversity (see Young et al. 2015).
Mowing has been shown to reduce invasives while favoring short-
statured native species with big, thin leaves (Sandel et al. 2011).
Although inconsistently done (Kettenring and Adams 2011),
assessment of restoration activities is important for the success
of the project as well as for informing future project (fig. 11).
Monitoring seeded or planted individuals will alert practitioners to
encroaching weeds, herbivory damage, desiccation stress, and other
controllable factors. At a minimum, assessment will require pre- and
post-restoration surveys or comparison of restored and unrestored
sites. The proxy used to measure success (density, cover, survival,
etc.) can affect restoration outcome interpretations (Gomez-
Aparcio 2009). For example, if restoration species demonstrate
high density in very patchy populations, assessing density might
suggest a successful project, while assessing overall cover might
suggest an unsuccessful project. It is also important to consider
the context-dependency of restoration success (Young et al. 2014).
Techniques that prove effective at one site in one year might not
demonstrate the same level of success the following year, especially
since, in many cases, weather can be more important than applied
management for modifying plant communities (see Cione et al.
Figure 11. Assessing
restoration outcomes
is critical.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 16
2002; Swiecki and Bernhardt 2008). Additionally, site-specific
factors such as topography, soil moisture, soil type, soil microbial
composition, land-use history, and nitrogen deposition can directly
and indirectly moderate restoration success. Since landscapes are
heterogeneous, restoration practices that work at one site might not
work at a nearby, seemingly similar site (Clewell and Rieger 1997),
particularly if applied in different years or seasons.
sPecIes
Following are brief descriptions of native plant species that are
typically used in restoration, based on available literature and
practitioner knowledge. All listed species are suggestions, and
practitioners are strongly suggested to review species ranges and
habitat preferences at calflora.org. Appendix A at the end of this
publication lists species by region (for a map of regions, see fig.
12) and restoration goal. The number of pounds per acre to seed
denotes the range of values found in the literature when the species
is included in a mix. Contrary information is sometimes listed, as
disparate sources provide dissimilar observations.
Yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
Perennial forb that prefers well-drained soils in full sun. Found in
virtually all non-desert systems in California. Has been shown to be
enhanced by the application of mulch. Seed approximately 0.03 to 2
pounds per acre.
Pro: Improves soil quality, good for erosion control, salt tolerant,
good pollinator plant, drought tolerant, relatively high germination,
relatively high establishment success, disturbance tolerant.
Con: Grazing intolerant, generally found at low density, flood
intolerant, can become weedy.
Citations: Kaye 1997; Hallock et al. 2003; Pywell et al. 2003;
Dewey et al. 2006; Sheley and Half 2006; Hyvonen 2007; Long and
Anderson 2010; Sandel et al. 2011; Adams 2012; Holl et al. 2014a.
Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus)
Cosmopolitan, late-season blooming annual forb. Does well
early in the restoration process, then demonstrates low density in
subsequent years. Seed approximately 1.2 to 2 PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, good for erosion control,
heavy metal tolerant, nitrogen fixer, disturbance tolerant, relatively
drought tolerant, fire resistant, provides butterfly habitat, responds
well to grazing.
Con: Can become weedy.
Citations: Wilkerson et al. 2014; Kimball et al. 2015.
Southern
Desert
Valley
Central coast
Northern coast Basin
Northern
interior
Figure 12. Map
of California
regions.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 17
Deerweed (Acmispon glaber)
Perennial subshrub largely found on the coast and in the foothills.
Pioneer species that tends to prefer sandy soils.
Pro: Tolerant of serpentine soils, tolerant of slightly saline
soils, nitrogen fixer, drought tolerant, establishes well after fire, fire
tolerant, good for wildlife, good pollinator plant.
Con: Short lived, does not compete well with shrubs of later
successional stages.
Citations: Keeley and Keeley 1984.
Spike bentgrass (Agrostis exarata)
Perennial grass found almost everywhere except California deserts.
Seed approximately 1 to 5 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, disturbance tolerant, good
for wildlife, good forage species, good competitor to Phalaris
arundinacea.
Fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii)
Annual forb found mostly in coastal and Central Valley areas
in California, often in undisced soil. Requires full sun. Seed
approximately 1 to 2 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, drought tolerant, disturbance
tolerant, establishes well after fire, good pollinator plant, has been
shown to reduce seed output of Bromus tectorum.
Con: Toxic to livestock, can become weedy, relatively low
germination.
Citations: Davidson and Fox 1974; Whitson et al. 2000;
Gillespie and Allen 2008; Forbis 2010; Borders et al. 2011; Leger et
al. 2014.
Coulter snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum)
Annual forb confined to the southern part of California. It is
especially common in areas that have recently burned (early
successional). Seed approximately 1.12 pounds per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant, establishes well after fire.
Sixweeks three awn (Aristida adscensionis)
Annual grass localized in southern California.
Pro: Good for erosion control, disturbance tolerant, relatively
drought tolerant, tolerant of wasteland habitat, good forage species
when immature.
Con: Can become weedy, can have an allelopathic effects on
Rhizobium spp.
Citations: Murthy and Nagodra 1977.
Purple three awn (Aristida purpurea)
Warm-season perennial grass localized in southern California in
desert, coastal, and mountain habitats. Dry, coarse, or sandy soils in
desert valleys and foothills are ideal. Seed approximately 4 PLS per
acre.
Pro: good for erosion control, disturbance tolerant, drought
tolerant, good pollinator plant, wildlife habitat, deer resistant,
forage species when green (but not favored in presence of other
bunchgrasses).
Con: Can become weedy, requires two or more seasons to
establish before grazing can be introduced, seedhead awns can
become lodged in soft tissue of livestock.
Citations: Ogle et al. 2011; Ogle et al. 2014.
California sagebrush, California mugwort
(Artemisia californica)
Evergreen shrub that is generally confined to coastal areas south of
Point Reyes below 2,625 feet. Seed approximately 2 to 5 pounds per
acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, tolerant of sandy soils,
tolerant of alkaline soils, good for erosion control, wildlife habitat,
moderately adapted to fire, will establish on slope, drought tolerant,
facilitates blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and coast live oak (Q.
agrifolia) seedling establishment.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 18
Con: Seed might require exposure to wildfire for germination,
allelopathy likely reduces native plant neighbors, short seed shelf
life, unpalatable to livestock (except domestic goats).
Citations: Keeley and Keeley 1987; Callaway and D’Antonio 1991;
Callaway 1992; Hickman 1993; Hauser 2006; Kimball et al. 2015.
Mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana)
Cosmopolitan perennial shade-tolerant herb. Seed approximately 7
to 8 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, good for erosion control,
deer resistant, good pollinator plant, provides wildlife habitat,
disturbance tolerant, drought tolerant, rapid growth rate.
Con: Flood intolerant, short seed shelf life, can become weedy,
relatively low survival of planted seedlings.
Citations: Bornstein et al. 2005; Long and Anderson 2010;
McClain et al. 2011; Moore et al. 2011.
Narrow leaf milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis)
Perennial herb with a relatively cosmopolitan distribution around
the state. Easier to maintain transplants than to establish from seed.
Pro: Tolerant of clay soils, tolerant of saline soil, good
pollinator plant, host plant for monarch butterflies, deer resistant,
drought tolerant.
Con: Flood intolerant, can be poisonous to livestock due to
alkaloids.
Citations: Long and Anderson 2010.
Blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
Perennial grass found in southern California and infrequently in the
Central Valley. Drought dormant. Seed approximately 1 to 3 PLS per
acre for drill seeding (increase 50 to 100% for broadcast seeding.
Pro: Found in a large range of soils, good for erosion control,
extremely drought tolerant, tolerant of low-nutrient soils, good
forage species, attracts birds and butterflies.
Con: Flooding intolerant, shade intolerant, intolerant of acidic soil.
Citations: USDA Forest Service 1937, Wilson et al. 1976.
California bromegrass (Bromus carinatus)
Perennial grass found in virtually all nondesert systems in
California that prefers clay and loam soils. Seed approximately 1 to
4 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, rapid establishment, establishes
well after fire, good forage species for cattle and wildlife, cover for
small mammals and birds, relatively high germination, can establish
on slopes, high survival of established individuals, soil stabilization
and infiltration, tolerant of periodic drought, good competitor with
exotic weeds.
Con: Becomes weedy, short longevity, since it is easily spread
should not be used near crops.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Stromberg and Kephart 1997;
Chiaramonte et al. 2003; Hallock et al. 2003; Seabloom et al. 2003;
Adams 2012; Holl et al. 2014a.
Redmaids (Calandrinia menziesii)
An annual forb that prefers well-drained soils. Establishes well
after fire. Found in almost every county in California. Does not
transplant well. Seed approximately 0.07 to 0.56 pounds per acre.
Pro: Can grow in nutrient-poor soils, drought tolerant, good
for wildlife, good forage species for cattle, fire resistant, establishes
well after fire.
Con: Can be a minor weed in agricultural areas, difficult to
establish.
Citations: Hayes and Holl 2011; Porensky et al. 2012; Kimball
et al. 2014.
California sun cup (Camissoniopsis bistorta)
Annual forb confined to the southern California. Seed
approximately 0.22 pounds per acre.
Pro: Disturbance tolerant.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 19
Owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta)
Annual forb that is found in most of the coast and central part of
California. Seed approximately 1 pound per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of sandy and clay soils, good pollinator plant,
larval plant for the endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly.
Con: Difficult to establish, can need a perennial host plant
(hemiparasitic).
Citations: Hayes and Holl 2011; Kimball et al. 2015; Marushia
and Allen 2011.
Spikeweed (Centromadia fitchii)
Annual forb found mostly in grassland and wetland/vernal pool
habitats in the Central Valley. Seed approximately 2 pounds per
acre.
Pro: Disturbance tolerant, good pollinator plant, early
germination, good competitor to invasive annuals.
Con: Can become weedy, avoided by livestock.
Cobweb thistle (Cirsium occidentale)
This endemic, cosmopolitan perennial/biennial forb is found
throughout California outside of the Central Valley. Prefers well-
drained soils. Seed approximately 1.5 PLS per acre.
Pro: Good pollinator plant, nesting material for native bees,
deer resistant, drought tolerant.
Citation: Kimball et al. 2015.
Davy’s clarkia (Clarkia davyi)
Endemic annual forb found mainly on California coastal prairies.
Pro: High survival.
Con: Low cover.
Citations: Hektner and Foin 1977; Adams 2012; Holl et al.
2014a.
Purple clarkia (Clarkia purpurea)
Annual forb found across systems in California.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, relatively unaffected by
competition, drought tolerant, good pollinator plant.
Con: Does not compete well with weedy species.
Citations: Espeland 2013.
Elegant clarkia (Clarkia unguiculata)
Endemic annual forb found around the Central Valley and the
southern coast.
Pro: Drought tolerant, good pollinator plant, larval host for
Clark’s sphinx moth, tolerant of most soil types and habitat types,
high germination, establishes well after fire.
Con: Intolerant of heavy clay soil.
Citations: Travers 1999.
Turkey mullein (Croton setiger)
Cosmopolitan summer annual forb that grows in open, dry areas.
Pro: Good for wildlife, drought tolerant, quickly colonizes
disturbed areas.
Con: Can be weedy in agricultural areas, toxic to livestock.
Citations: Kingsburg 1964.
Popcorn flower (Cryptantha intermedia)
Annual forb that is found mostly in dry, sandy soils in southern
California. Can be enhanced by fire. Seed approximately 1 pound
per acre.
Pro: Relatively drought tolerant, good pollinator plant.
Con: Relatively low germination, poor establishment.
Citations: Keeley and Keeley 1987; Beyers and Wakeman 1997;
Dickens and Allen 2014; Bell et al. 2016.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 20
California oatgrass (Danthonia californica)
Perennial grass found on the periphery of the Central Valley.
Seeding alone is recommended. Seed approximately 10 to 20 PLS
per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, some populations tolerant
of serpentine soils, good forage species for livestock and wildlife,
stays green year long with adequate soil moisture, tolerant of
heavy grazing, good pollinator plant, good for erosion control, fire
resistant, potential high seed dormancy.
Con: Host for blind seed disease (Gloeotinia temulenta),
which harms ryegrass seed, slow seedling development, low
establishment, not a good competitor against invasive species until
established.
Citations: Hatch et al. 1999; Bartolome et al. 2004; Suttle and
Thomsen 2007, Amme and Miallef 2008, Hayes and Holl 2011
Clustered tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata)
Annual forb is found mostly in coastal southern California. Seed
approximately 1 PLS per acre.
Pro: Clay soils tolerant, alkaline soil tolerant, drought tolerant,
disturbance tolerant, good for wildlife, good pollinator plant.
Con: Can become weedy, outcompeted by invasive annuals,
deters grazing.
Citations: Allen et al. 1998; Kimball et al. 2015.
California hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa)
Perennial grass largely found on the periphery of the Central Valley.
Prefers well drained-soil. Seed approximately 2 to 3 PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of saline soils, heavy metal tolerant, good for
wildlife, good forage species for livestock, good pollinator plant,
shade tolerant.
Con: Drought intolerant.
Citations: Cox and Hutchinson 1980.
Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata)
Warm-season, sod-forming perennial grass. Cosmopolitan, but
tends to be found in wetlands. Prefers sandy soils.
Pro: Tolerant of saline soils, alkaline soils, and clay soils;
disturbance tolerant, excellent for erosion control, high survival
after transplanting, responds well after a burn, good forage species
for wildlife.
Con: Alternate host plant to red rust (Puccinia aristidae) that
infect spinach, can become weedy.
Citations: Hansen et al. 1976.
Giant wildrye (Elymus condensatus)
Perennial grass found largely on the coast. Seed approximately 2.5
PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, drought tolerant, green all
season long, grazing tolerant.
Con: Easily hybridizes with other Elymus species.
Citation: Kimball et al. 2015.
Bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides)
Perennial grass found across California. Early successional species.
Seed approximately 7 PLS per acre.
Pro: Outcompetes invasive annuals weeds after fire or
disturbance, disturbance tolerant, good competitor with cheatgrass
and medusahead, fire resistant, good for erosion control, fair forage
species for livestock and wildlife before seedhead development.
Con: Short lived, hybridizes easily, seedhead harmful to
livestock, susceptible to rust.
Citations: Clausnitzer et al. 1999.
Blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus)
Perennial grass found on the coast and around the Central Valley.
This species best used as an early seral species and performs well on
well-drained upland sites. Seed approximately 5 to 7 pounds per acre.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 21
Pro: Tolerant of alkaline soils, tolerant of clay and sandy
soils, can do well as an understory species, drought tolerant, good
at resisting invasion from yellow starthistle, high establishment
success, can establish on slopes, high germination, fast growing,
remains green for most of the growing season, disturbance tolerant,
fire tolerant, habitat for wildlife, new growth is palatable to
livestock.
Con: Intolerant of continuous grazing, intolerant of shallow
soils, takes at least two years to mature in ideal conditions, can be
hard to establish, can become weedy, flood intolerant.
Citations: Sampson et al. 1951; Bugg et al. 1997; Stromberg
and Kephart 1996; Rose et al. 1998; Hallock et al. 2003; Deering and
Young 2006; Lulow 2006; Suttle and Thomsen 2007; Lulow 2008;
Young et al. 2009; Long and Anderson 2010; Porensky et al. 2012;
Holl et al. 2014b.
Thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus)
Perennial grass found in a variety of habitats, but does best on well-
drained soils. Seed approximately 1 to 11 PLS acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, disturbance tolerant, drought
resistant, fire tolerant, good for livestock and wildlife, does not get
weedy, good for resisting invasion by knapweed, strong seedling
vigor, can maintain high cover long-term, quick establishment.
Con: Does not compete well with aggressive invasives during
establishment.
Citations: Scher 2002; Pantel et al. 2011; Wilson 2015.
Big squirreltail (Elymus multisetus)
Perennial grass found throughout California, preferring well
drained soils, but can tolerate clay soils. Seed approximately 4 to 15
pounds per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant, good for erosion control, relatively
competitive against common invasive plants once established, high
establishment success, good forage species in the spring, tolerant of
a variety of habitats.
Con: Low fire tolerance, does not do well as an understory
species, takes at least two years to mature in ideal conditions, does
not persist, hybridizes easily.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Dukes 2002; Lulow et al. 2007;
Suttle and Thomsen 2007; Rowe and Leger 2011; Goergen and
Chambers 2012.
Slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus)
Perennial grass found mostly in the foothills. Seed approximately 1
to 4 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of saline soils, good for erosion control, can
establish on slopes, tolerant of a variety of habitats, excellent
forage species, good for wildlife, high establishment success, rapid
germination, fast growing, flood tolerant.
Con: Can be weedy, short lived, hybridizes easily.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Lulow 2006; Deering and Young
2006; Long and Anderson 2010.
Creeping wildrye (Elymus triticoides)
Water loving long-lived cool season perennial grass that uniquely
produces long, robust rhizomes. Can survive in the sun or shade.
Seed approximately 0.5 to 4 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, tolerant of saline soils, flood
tolerant, fast growing once established, good for erosion control,
grazing tolerant, wildlife habitat, rapid growth once established.
Con: Slow germination, does not establish well, can become
weedy, fire intolerant.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Lulow 2006; Long and Anderson
2010.
Brittlebush (Encelia farinosa)
Perennial shrub found in sandy soils in the southern coast and
deserts of California.
Pro: Good for erosion control, good pollinator plant, good for
wildlife, easy to propagate, drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 22
Con: Poor forage value, allelopathic, not fire resilient,
relatively low germination.
Citations: Ludwig et al. 1988; Padgett et al. 1999.
California fuchsia (Epilobium canum)
Perennial forb found on the periphery of the Central Valley and on
the coast.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, relatively drought tolerant,
excellent pollinator plant, deer tolerant.
California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum)
Perennial evergreen shrub found mostly south of San Francisco.
Seed approximately 4 to 11 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, tolerant of serpentine
soils, and acidic soils, good for erosion control, good for wildlife,
excellent pollinator plant, drought tolerant, effective at colonizing
disturbed sites, good seed producer (300 pounds per acre/yr).
Con: Poor establishment, can become weedy.
Citations: Stylinski and Allen 2001; Bell et al. 2016.
St. Catherine’s lace (Eriogonum giganteum)
Endemic perennial shrub that is restricted to the coast. Endemic to
the Channel Islands. Should not be planted in high traffic areas. Full
sun. Needs good soil drainage.
Pro: Good for wildlife, drought tolerant, tolerant of clay soils,
grows fast once established.
Con: Brittle plant is easily damaged.
California poppy (Escholzia californica)
Annual or perennial herb found almost everywhere in California.
Does well with hydroseeding, but does not mix well with Avena
fatua or Lolium perenne. Does well early in the restoration process
and then demonstrates low density in subsequent years. Seed
approximately 3 to 4 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, very adaptable to different soil
and climate conditions, excellent pollinator plant, drought tolerant,
disturbance tolerant, high germination, cost effective.
Con: May be toxic to livestock, can become weedy in some
areas, low emergence, poor competitor for light and water.
Citations: Chiaramonte et al. 2003; Hallock et al. 2003; Funk et
al. 2015; Wilkerson et al. 2014; Kimball et al. 2015.
Goldenrod (Euthamia occidentalis)
Perennial forb found in coastal and inland areas in California. Often
found in wet meadows, wetlands, and along stream banks. Full sun
or partial shade.
Pro: Tolerant of clay, tolerant of saline soils, good for erosion
control, pollinator plant for native bees, facultative wetland species.
Con: Flood intolerant.
Citations: Long and Anderson 2010.
Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis)
One of the most common and widely distributed perennial grasses
in the western US. Found mostly north of San Francisco. It is a late
seral species that should be used in secondary seeding efforts. Seed
approximately 8 to20 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, good forage species, can grow
as an understory species, good wildlife species, deer resistant, resists
cheatgrass invasion, high survival once established.
Con: Slow to establish, requires adequate soil moisture, can
not compete with invasives, flood intolerant.
Citation: USDA Forest Service 1937; Bugg et al. 1997;
Huddleston and Young 2004.
Small fescue (Festuca microstachys)
Cool-season annual grass found throughout the state that prefers
sandy soils. Seed approximately 1PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of low-nutrient soils, some ecotypes tolerant
of serpentine soil, drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant, good for
erosion control, fast growing.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 23
Con: Low productivity, can be used as forage but has a short
lifespan, does not compete well with cheatgrass.
Citations: Hallock et al. 2003.
Sixweeks grass (Festuca octoflora)
Annual grass found all over California. It is most common in open
and disturbed areas. It prefers coarse-textured soils, but can tolerate
a wide range of soils. Seed approximately 8 PLS per acre.
Pro: Highly drought tolerant, low nitrogen tolerant, does well
in disturbed areas.
Con: Low coverage, slow growing, shade intolerant,
unpalatable to livestock.
Citations: Lonard and Gould 1974.
Red fescue (Festuca rubra)
Perennial grass that is located in both coastal and upland areas.
Prefers well drained (sandy loam) soils. Seed approximately 6 to 20
pounds per acre.
Pro: Can establish on slopes, good for erosion control, salt
tolerant, grazing tolerant, relatively drought tolerant, wildlife
habitat, fire resistant, can facilitate establishment of other species,
high recruitment once established.
Con: Relatively poor at establishment, not palatable to
livestock, can restrict forb growth.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Walker et al. 2015.
Gumplant (Grindelia camporum)
Endemic, late season blooming perennial forb that is found on the
coast and within the Central Valley. It is found along stream banks
and occasionally in wetlands. Seed approximately 0.08 to3 pounds
per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of both clay and sandy soils, salt tolerant, grows
readily, disturbance tolerant, drought tolerant, good for wildlife
habitat, high germination, cost effective, excellent pollinator plant,
deer tolerant.
Con: Can be toxic to livestock, can become weedy in crop
areas, can be slow to establish, flood intolerant.
Citations: Long and Anderson 2010; Porensky et al. 2012;
Wilkerson et al. 2014; Kimball et al. 2015.
Hayfield tarweed (Hemizonia congesta)
Summer active annual forb found mostly west of the Central Valley.
Seed approximately 2 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, excellent pollinator plant,
good for wildlife, drought tolerant, can be tolerant of invasives, early
germination, long-lasting seed bank.
Con: Tends to hybridize with related species, does not respond
well to fertilizer application.
Citations: Chiariello and Field 1996; Dukes 2002.
Meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum)
Perennial grass found throughout California. Does best on fine
textured soils. Seed approximately 1
5 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, high establishment success,
fast growth rate, high survival once established, high value for
deer forage in Spring, tolerant of low fertility soils and prescribed
fire, does relatively well in the first year of seeding, shade tolerant,
flood tolerant, can establish on slopes and in ditches, relatively high
germination, good for erosion control.
Con: Low to moderate forage value for livestock, can be weedy,
not a good understory species, generally does not last past the first
year, relatively non-resistant to invasion, low and slow germination;
low establishment, can hybridize with some Hordeum and Elymus
species.
Citations: Bugg et al. 1997; Lulow 2006; Deering and Young
2006; Long and Anderson 2010; Adams 2015; Holl et al. 2014a; Holl
et al. 2014b.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 24
Foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum)
Perennial grass found across California.
Pro: Tolerant of saline soils, tolerant of most soil types,
drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant, good for erosion control.
Con: Can be weedy, poor forage species (once mature), fire
intolerant, poor competitor, poor for wildlife.
Common rush (Juncus patens)
Perennial grasslike forb found mostly on coastal areas but not
confined to wetlands. Seed approximately 1 to 2 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of sandy and clay soils, drought tolerant once
established, attracts birds, nesting material for birds, easily grown
from seed, tolerant of low soil drainage.
Con: Low cover.
Citations: Adams 2012; Holl et al. 2014a.
June grass (Koeleria macrantha)
Perennial grass widespread in California except for the Central
Valley and the southern deserts. This species can grow in both full
sun and partial shade.
Pro: Relatively drought tolerant, grazing tolerant, fast growing,
fire tolerant, good for erosion control, salt tolerant.
Con: Cannot tolerate clay soils, negatively affected by nitrogen
addition, can be difficult to establish.
Citation: Lulow 2008.
Goldfields (Lasthenia californica)
Annual forb that is found throughout California, although less so in
the Central Valley.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, good pollinator plant,
relatively drought tolerant, fire resistant, establishes to high cover.
Coastal tidytips (Layia platyglossa)
Annual forb found at low elevations, mostly in coastal areas on clay
soils. Seed approximately 0.56 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good pollinator plant, attracts wildlife, drought tolerant,
salt tolerant, nitrogen fixing.
Con: Short seed shelf life.
Annual lupine (Lupinus bicolor)
Annual forb found in a diverse array of open sandy habitats in
almost every county in California. Has been shown to respond well
to mulch. Seed approximately 0.3 pounds per acre.
Pro: Does well in disturbed soils, good pollinator plant,
drought tolerant, fire resistant, nitrogen fixer, high cover.
Con: Low natural cover, does not compete well with
perennials, vulnerable to small rodent herbivory.
Citations: Fitch and Bentley 1949; Heady 1956; Eviner 2004;
Potthoff et al. 2005; Cox and Allen 2008; Young et al. 2011.
Summer lupine (Lupinus formosus)
Perennial forb found mostly on coastal areas with clay soils. Seed
approximately 8.1 PLS per acre.
Pro: Good for wildlife, drought tolerant, shade tolerant, good
pollinator plant, host plant of endangered Mission blue butterfly,
deer resistant.
Con: Toxic to livestock (crooked calf disease), expensive, can
take over a year to increase in density.
Citations: Wilkerson et al. 2014.
Chick lupine (Lupinus microcarpus)
Abundant annual forb found in most areas in California. Seed
approximately 1.5 to 6.7 pounds per acre.
Pro: Alkaline soil tolerant, tolerant of most soil types, arsenic
tolerant, drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant, excellent pollinator
plant, high survival through time, good wildlife habitat, nitrogen
fixer, easy to establish.
Con: Can be toxic to livestock, high variation in seedling
establishment.
Citations: Brown and Bugg 2001; Parks Canada Agency 2011;
Wilkerson et al. 2014; Kimball et al. 2015; Diaz et al. 2016.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 25
Sky lupine (Lupinus nanus)
Annual forb found in the Central Valley and central and north
coasts.
Pro: Disturbance tolerant, tolerant of many soil types, nitrogen
fixer, good pollinator plant, drought tolerant, fire resistant.
Con: Low germination.
Citations: Moore 2009.
Arroyo lupine (Lupinus succulentus)
Annual forb that is almost endemic to California. Prefers moist
clay or heavy soils on the coast in full sun. Higher growth rate in
high-nitrogen soils. Does well early in the restoration process and
demonstrates low density in subsequent years. Seed approximately
2.5 to 4 PLS per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion and soil stabilization, tolerant of clay
soils, excellent pollinator plant, deer resistant, drought tolerant,
establishes well after fire, nitrogen fixer.
Con: Low germination.
Citations: Johnson et al. 1987; Chiaramonte et al. 2003;
Hallock et al. 2003; Wilkerson et al. 2014; Kimball et al. 2015.
Cliff aster (Malacothrix saxatilis)
Endemic perennial forb found in the southern coast. Seed
approximately 1 to 2 pounds per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant.
Citations: Kimball et al. 2015.
California melicgrass (Melica californica)
Endemic cool-season rhizomatous perennial grass. Prefers full
sun or partial shade in well-drained upland locations. Seed
approximately 20 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control and slope stabilization, tolerant
of most soil types, tolerant of serpentine soil, deer resistant, drought
tolerant, fast growth rate, fire resistant, robust to invasion, forage
plant for wildlife, does well under oaks, good for livestock.
Con: Requires good drainage, weak rhizomatous growth, slow
growing–can take up to 4 years to mature.
Citations: Stebbins 1999; Bugg et al. 1997; Lulow 2006; Lulow
2006; Long and Anderson 2010; Porensky et al. 2012.
California melic (Melica imperfecta)
Perennial grass found mostly outside of the Central Valley. Does
best with partial shade. Seed approximately 10 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good for erosion control, grazing tolerant for deer and
elk, drought tolerant, fire resistant.
Con: Irregular germination.
Citation: Bugg et al. 1997.
Douglas’ microseris (Microseris douglasii)
Annual forb found in the Central Valley and on the coast.
Pro: Tolerant of clay soils, tolerant of serpentine soils.
Con: Responds poorly to grazing.
Citations: Funk et al. 2015.
Orange monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus)
Almost endemic perennial showy shrub that is an important host
plant for checkerspot butterfly larvae. Does best on well drained
soils.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, tolerant of serpentine soils,
drought tolerant, pollinator plant for hummingbirds, host plant for
buckeye and checkerspot butterflies, deer resistant.
Annual muhly (Muhlenbergia microsperma)
Annual grass found across habitat types in the south of California.
Pro: Disturbance tolerant, drought tolerant, fire resistant.
Deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens)
Warm-season perennial bunchgrass found in the Central Valley and
along the southern coast, favored in sandy or well-drained soils.
Seed approximately 4 PLS per acre.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 26
Pro: Flood tolerant, salt tolerant, drought tolerant, good wildlife
habitat, good for erosion control, relatively fast growing, fire tolerant.
Con: Mature plants are poor for grazing, can reduce growth of
other native plants.
Citations: Long and Anderson 2010.
Baby blue eyes (Nemophila menziesii)
Annual forb found throughout the western and central part of
California, less so in the valley. Seed approximately 3 to 6 pounds
per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types and habitat types, good
pollinator plant, drought tolerant, fire resistant.
Con: Intolerant of saline conditions.
Bunchleaf penstemon (Penstemon heterophyllus)
Endemic perennial forb found on the periphery of the Central
Valley and on the coast.
Pro: Drought tolerant, good for wildlife, good pollinator plant,
tolerant of many habitats, tolerant of a variety of well-drained soils,
rapid growth rate.
California phacelia (Phacelia californica)
Endemic perennial forb mostly found in low elevations on the coast
in well drained soils. Seed approximately 0.25 to1.5 pounds per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant, good wildlife habitat, good pollinator
plant, grazing tolerant, creates copious seed.
Con: Flood intolerant.
Citation: Long and Anderson 2010; Wilkerson et al. 2014.
Caterpillar phacelia (Phacelia cicutaria)
Annual forb found along the foothills and the southern coast in
frequently burned areas (charate-induced germination). Seed
approximately 0.5 PLS per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant, pollinator plant for native bees.
Citation: Kimball et al. 2015.
Common phacelia (Phacelia distans)
Annual forb that is found mostly south of San Francisco. Seed
approximately 1.27 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most habitats, drought tolerant.
Lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia)
Annual forb found mostly south of the Central Valley. Seed
approximately 2 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, drought tolerant, good
pollinator plant, attracts beneficial insects, reduces soil nitrates and
calcium, high establishment success.
Con: Can become weedy.
California plantain (Plantago erecta)
Annual forb found mostly on low elevation shallow soils on the coast
and foothills in California. Particularly valuable restoration species
because it provides food for the endangered Checkerspot butterfly.
Seed approximately 1 to 5.6 PLS per acre.
Pro: Good pollinator plant, pollinator plant for endangered
Checkerspot butterfly, good for erosion control, quick establishment,
relatively high germination.
Con: Not particularly drought tolerant, flood intolerant, poor
competitor with invasive annuals.
Citation: Kimball et al. 2015.
Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda)
Perennial grass with cosmopolitan distribution that does well on
well-drained upland sites. Seed approximately 30 pounds per acre or
3 PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, drought tolerant, can establish
on slopes, favored by fire, good early forage species for livestock and
wildlife, can compete with cheatgrass and other invasives.
Con: Drought intolerant, flood intolerant, low density, slow and
low germination.
Citations: USDA Forest Service 1937; Champlin and Winward
1979; Bugg et al. 1997; Deering and Young 2006; Long and Anderson
2010; Funk et al. 2015; Nafus et al. 2015.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 27
Chia (Salvia columbariae)
Annual forb found in areas with well-drained soils on the Central
Coast and everywhere in southern California. Seed approximately
1.12 pounds per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, good wildlife habitat, good
pollinator plant, drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant, fire tolerant.
Con: Tends to be avoided by herbivores.
Alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides)
Warm-season perennial grass found in the Central Valley as well
as throughout the southern part of the state. Requires full sunlight.
Seed approximately 2 PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, salt tolerant, drought tolerant,
accumulates heavy metals, flooding tolerant, good for wildlife, good
forage species, grazing tolerant, good for erosion control, relatively
fast growing, can suppress invasive thistles.
Con: Does not reseed well.
Citations: Herbel and Nelson 1966; Dreesen and Marple 1979;
Winter et al. 1982; Marcum 2006; Ferrero-Serrano et al. 2008.
Nodding needlegrass (Stipa cernua)
Cool-season perennial bunchgrass that does not like heavy soil and
needs full sun or partial shade. Seed approximately 11 pounds per
acre.
Pro: Deer resistant, drought tolerant, good for erosion control.
Con: Fire intolerant, flood intolerant, hybridizes easily with
Stipa pulchra.
Citations: Love 1954; Bugg et al. 1997; Monsen et al. 2004;
Long and Anderson 2010.
Foothill needlegrass (Stipa lepida)
This mostly coastal cool-season perennial bunchgrass dislikes heavy
(class 2) soil and tends to occur with buckwheats and yarrows. Seed
approximately 2.5 pounds per acre.
Pro: Good pollinator plant, grazing tolerant (but does better
without grazing), drought tolerant, fire resistant, good for erosion
control, long-lived.
Con: Fire intolerant.
Citations: Hallock et al. 2003; Bartolome et al. 2004; Monsen
et al. 2004.
Purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra)
Cool-season perennial bunchgrass. One of the most common clone-
forming native grass species in California. Likes sandy loam soils,
soils with high clay content, and well-drained upland sites. Does
better in the absence of grazing and after topsoil has been removed.
Seed drilling better than hydroseeding. Seed approximately 1 to 10
PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of poor-nutrient and low-moisture soils, tolerant
of alkaline soil, tolerant of serpentine soils, tolerant of clay soils,
strong root systems, good for erosion control, pollinator plant for
native bees, great forage species, will grow well in dense patches of
filaree, very high survival once established, high germination, long
lived.
Con: Very low emergence rate, low establishment in presence
of annuals, slow germination and growth rate (takes about 3 to 4
years to reach maturity), fire intolerant, flood intolerant, susceptible
to competition from invasives when establishing, awns can injure
livestock.
Citations: Crampton 1974; Hull and Muller 1977; Bartolome
and Gemmill 1981; Bishop 1996; Dyer et al. 1996; Bugg et al. 1997;
Stromberg and Kephart 1997; Hatch et al. 1999; Bartolome et al.
2004; Monsen et al. 2004; Deering and Young 2006; Lulow et al.
2007; Buisson et al. 2008; Long and Anderson 2010; Adams 2012;
Porensky et al. 2012; Holl et al. 2014; Young and Veblen 2015;
Kimball et al. 2015.
California aster (Symphyotrichum chilense)
An almost endemic perennial forb with a mostly coastal
distribution. Tends to do better with shallow seeding and no
mowing. Seed approximately 0.75 to 1 pound per acre.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 28
Pro: Tolerant of clay soils, good pollinator plant, good for
wildlife habitat, drought tolerant, excellent for erosion control.
Con: Flood intolerant, low germination, low survival.
Citation: Dewey et al. 2006; Hybner et al. 2009; Long and
Anderson 2010; Holl et al. 2014a.
Indian clover (Trifolium albopurpureum)
Annual forb often found in clay and loamy soil in the Central Valley
and the coast.
Pro: Responds well to grazing, well adapted to a variety of
habitats, disturbance tolerant, drought tolerant, good for wildlife,
good pollinator plant, blooms long into summer, nitrogen fixer.
Con: Low cover.
Citation: Franklin 2010; Funk et al. 2015.
Pinole clover (Trifolium bifidum)
Annual forb that is largely found in the north and central coast of
California and requires full sunlight.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, nitrogen fixer, high
establishment success.
Citation: Lulow 2008; Porensky et al. 2012.
Bull clover (Trifolium fucatum)
Annual forb found on the coast and near the Central Valley.
Does well early in the restoration process and then demonstrates
low density in subsequent years. Prefers well drained soils. Seed
approximately 2.43 PLS per acre.
Pro: Tolerant of most soil types, good pollinator plant, good
forage species, nitrogen fixer.
Con: Can become weedy, drought intolerant.
Citations: Wilkerson et al. 2014.
Clammy clover (Trifolium obtusiflorum)
Annual forb found in moist, gravelly soil on the periphery of the
Central Valley. Does well early in the restoration process and then
demonstrates low density in subsequent years. Seed approximately
1.2 PLS per acre.
Pro: Disturbance tolerant, nitrogen fixer, good for erosion
control, good pollinator plant.
Con: Low long-term establishment.
Citations: Graham 1941; Gorelick 1969; Wilkerson et al. 2014.
Tomcat clover (Trifolium willdenovii)
Low-elevation annual forb that is found in both coastal and inland
areas along almost the entire length of the state. Prefers heavy soils
in full sun. Seed approximately 0.32 pounds per acre.
Pro: Drought tolerant, disturbance tolerant, good pollinator
plant, relatively high establishment success, fast growing, nitrogen
fixer.
Con: Can become weedy, low cover, low recovery after
grazing.
Citations: Lulow 2008; Adams 2012; Porensky et al. 2012.
RefeRences
Abraham, J., J. Corbin, and C. D’Antonio. 2008. California native
and exotic perennial grasses differ in their response to soil
nitrogen, exotic annual grass density, and order of emergence.
Plant Ecology 201:445-456.
Adams, T. 2012. Effectiveness of applied nucleation and dense
planting to restore California coastal grassland. Senior thesis,
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Aigner, P., K. Hulvey, C. Koehler, et al. 2011).Restoring
California’s inland grasslands: Don’t forget the forbs!
Fremontia 39:41–44.
Allen, E., P. Padgett, A. Bytnerowicz, et al. 1998. Nitrogen
deposition effects on coastal sage vegetation of southern

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 29
California. In A. Bytnerowicz et al., ed., Proceedings of the
International Symposium on Air Pollution and Climate
Change Effects on Forest Ecosystems 1996. General Technical
Report PSW-GTR-166. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Research Station. 131–139.
Amme, D. 1985. Nursery production of western native perennial
grasses. Proceedings of Conference XVI, International Erosion
Control Association. San Francisco: IECA.
Amme, D., and S. Micallef. 2008. The ecology and development
of California Oatgrass: The champagne of grasses. Grasslands
1:3–11.
Anderson, J. 2001. Direct seeding of California native grasses in
the Sacramento valley and foothills. In P. Robins et al., ed.,
Bring farm edges back to life! Woodland, CA: Yolo County
Resource Conservation District.
Anderson, J., and R. Long. 1999. Hedgerows: Turning farm
waste areas into active IPM life cycles. Sacramento: California
Department of Pesticide Regulation Pest Management Grants
Final Report No. 97-0247.
Barnett, A., E. Diseker, and E. Richardson. 1967. Evaluation of
mulching methods for erosion control on newly prepared and
seeded highway backslopes. Agronomy Journal 59:83–85.
Barry, S., S. Larson, and M. George. 2006. California native
grasslands: A historical perspective. Grasslands 16:7–11.
Bartolome, J., and B. Gemmill. 1981. The ecological status of
Stipa pulchra (Poaceae) in California. Madroño 28:172–184.
Bartolome, J., J. Fehmi, R. Jackson, et al. 2004. Response of a
native perennial grass stand to disturbance in California’s coast
range grassland. Restoration Ecology 12:279–289.
Bell, C., E. Allen, K. Weathers, et al. 2016. Simple approaches to
improve restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat in southern
California. Natural Areas Journal 36:20–28.
Belsky, A., R. Amundson, J. Duxbury, et al. 1989. The effects of
trees on their physical, chemical and biological environments
in a semi-arid savanna in Kenya. Journal of Applied Ecology
26:1005–1024.
Beltran, R., N. Kreidler D. Van Vuren, et al.. 2014. Passive
recovery of vegetation after herbivore eradication on Santa
Cruz Island, California. Restoration Ecology 22:790–797.
Benayas, J., A. Newton, A. Diaz, et al. 2009. Enhancement of
biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration:
A meta-analysis. Science 325:1–10.
Bergum, K., A. Hild, and B. Mealor. 2010. Phenotypes of
two generations of Sporobolus airoides seedlings derived
from Acroptilon repens–invaded and non-invaded grass
populations. Restoration Ecology 20:227–233.
Beyers, J., and C. Wakeman. 1997. Season of burn effects
in southern California chaparral. Paper presented at the
2nd Interface between Ecology and Land Development in
California Conference, 18–19 April 1997, Occidental College,
Los Angeles, CA.
Bishop, G. 1996. A vegetative guide to selected native grasses
of California. Lockeford, CA: USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service Lockeford Plant Materials Center.
Borders, B., B. Cypher, N. Ritter, et al. 2011. The challenge of
locating seed sources for restoration in the San Joaquin Valley,
California. Natural Areas Journal 31:190–199.
Bornstein, C., D. Fross, and B. O’Brien. 2005. California native
plants for the garden. Los Olivos, CA: Cachuma Press
———. 2011. Reimagining the California lawn: Water conserving
plants, practices, and designs. Los Olivos, CA: Cachuma Press.
Broan, C., and K. Rice. 2001. The mark of Zorro: Effects of
the exotic annual grass Vulpia myuros on California native
perennial grasses. Restoration Ecology 8:10–17.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 30
Brown, C., and R. Bugg. 2001. Effects of established perennial
grasses on introduction of native forbs in California.
Restoration Ecology 9:38–48.
Brudvig, L. 2010. The restoration of biodiversity: Where has
research been and where does it need to go? American Journal
of Botany 98:549–558.
Bugg, R., C. Brown, and J. Anderson. 1997. Restoring native
perennial grasses to rural roadsides in the Sacramento valley
of California: Establishment and evaluation. Restoration
Ecology 5:214–228.
Buisson, E., S. Anderson, K. Holl, et al. 2008. Reintroduction
of Nasella pulchra to California coastal grasslands: Effects of
topsoil removal, plant neighbor removal and grazing. Applied
Vegetation Science 11:195–204.
Callaway, R. 1992. Effect of shrubs on recruitment of Quercus
douglasii and Quercus lobata in California. Ecology 73:2118–
2128.
Callaway, R., and C. D’Antonio. 1991. Shrub facilitation of
coast live oak establishment in central California. Madroñno
38:158–169.
Cameron, D., J. Marty, and R. Holland. 2014. Whither the
rangeland?: Protection and conversion in California’s
rangeland ecosystems. PLoS ONE 9:e103468.
Carville, J. 2000. Rivers of power: A citizen’s guide to hydropower
and river restoration. Friends of the River.
Champlin, M., and A. Winward. 1979. The response of
bunchgrasses to prescribed burning in mountain big sagebrush
plant communities. In 1979 Progress report: Research in
rangeland management. Corvallis: Oregon State University
Agricultural Experiment Station Special Report 549. 14–16.
Chiaramonte, M., M. Scharff, B. Haddock, et al. 2003. Effects
of erosion control treatments on native plant and ryegrass
establishment. Sacramento: Caltrans Storm Water Program
and California State University.
Chiariello, N., and C. Field. 1996. Annual grassland responses
to elevated CO2 in multiyear community microcosms. In C.
Körner and F. Bazzaz, ed., Carbon dioxide, populations, and
communities. San Diego: Academic Press. 139–157.
Cione, N., P. Padgett, and E. Allen. 2002. Restoration of a
native shrubland impacted by exotic grasses, frequent fire,
and nitrogen deposition in southern California. Restoration
Ecology 10:376–384.
Clausnitzer, D., M. Borman, and D. Johnson. 1999. Competition
between Elymus elymoides and Taeniatherum caput-medusae.
Weed Science 47:720–728.
Clewell, A., and J. Rieger. 1997. What practitioners need from
restoration ecologists. Restoration Ecology 5:350–354.
Cox, R., and E. Allen. 2008. Stability of exotic annual grasses
following restoration efforts in southern California coastal
sage scrub. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:495–504.
Cox, R., and T. Hutchinson. 1980. Multiple metal tolerances in
the grass Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. from the Subury
smelting area. New Phytologist 84:631–647.
Crampton, B. 1974. Grasses in California. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Davidson, E., and M. Fox. 1974. Effects of off-road motorcycle
activity on Mojave desert vegetation and soil. Madroño
22:381–390.
Davy, J., L. Roche, D. Nay, et al. 2015. Introducing cattle
grazing to a noxious weed-dominated rangeland shifts plant
communities. California Agriculture 69:230–236.
De Deyn, G., R. Shiel, N. Ostle, et al. 2010. Additional carbon
sequestration benefits of grassland diversity restoration.
Journal of Applied Ecology 48:600–608.
Deering, R., and T. Young. 2006. Germination speeds of exotic
annual and native perennial grasses in California and the
potential benefits of seed priming for grassland restoration.
Grasslands 16:14–17.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 31
Dewey, D., P. Johnson, and R. Kjelgren. 2006. Effects of irrigation
and mowing on species diversity of grass and wildflower
mixtures for the intermountain west. Native Plants Journal
7:267–278.
Diaz, O., Y. Tapia, M. Cazanga, et al. 2016. Lupinus microcarpus
growing in arsenic-agricultural soils from Chile: Toxic effects
and its potential use as phytoremediator plant. Journal of
Environmental Protection 7:116–128.
DiTomaso, J., G. Kyser, and M. Hastings. 1999. Prescribed
burning for control of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)
and enhanced native plant diversity. Weed Science 47:233–242.
DiTomaso, J., G. Kyser, S. Oneto, et al. 2013. Weed control in
natural areas in the western United States. Davis: University of
California Weed Research and Information Center.
Dickens, S., and E. Allen. 2014. Exotic plant invasion alters
chaparral ecosystem resistance and resilience pre- and post-
wildfire. Biological Invasions 16:1119–1130.
Dreeson, D., and M. Marple. 1979. Uptake of trace elements
and radionuclides from uranium mill tailings by four-winged
saltbrush (Atriplex canescens) and alkali sacaton (Sporobolus
airoides). Fort Collins, CO: Proceedings of the Second
Symposium on Uranium Mill Tailings Management.
Dukes, J. 2002. Species composition and diversity affect
grassland susceptibility and response to invasion. Ecological
Applications 12:602–617.
Dyer, A., H. Fossum, and J. Menke. 1996. Emergence and survival
of Nassella pulchra in a California grassland. Madroño
43:316–333.
Emam, T. 2014. To P or not to P? Effects of phosphorus level on
California native grasses. Grasslands 24:10–12.
<3M>. 2016. Local soil, but not commercial AMF inoculum,
increases native and non-native grass growth at a mine
restoration site. Restoration Ecology 24:35–44.
Emery, D. 1988. Seed propagation of native California plants.
Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.
Espeland, E. 2013. Three California annual forbs show little
response to neighbor removal. Journal of Arid Environments
88:121–124.
Eviner, V. 2004. Plant traits that influence ecosystem processes
vary independently among species. Ecology 85:2215–2229.
Ferrero-Serrano, A., T. Collier, A. Hild, et al. 2008. Combined
impacts of native grass competition and introduced weevil
herbivory on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rangeland
Ecology and Management 61:529–534.
Fitch, H., and J. Bentley. 1949. Use of California annual-plant
forage by range rodents. Ecology 30:306–321.
Flosi, G., S. Downie, J. Hopelain, et al. 1998. California salmonid
stream habitat restoration manual. 3rd ed. Sacramento:
California Department of Fish and Game.
Forbis, T. 2010. Germination phenology of some Great Basin
native annual forb species. Plant Species Biology 25:221–230.
Franklin, J. 2010. Vegetation dynamics and exotic plant invasion
following high severity crown fire in a southern California
conifer forest. Plant Ecology 207:281–295.
Fritzke, S. 1997. A California black oak restoration project in
Yosemite Valley, Yosemite National Park, California. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-160.
Funk, J., E. Cleland, K. Suding, et al. 2008. Restoration through
re-assembly: Plant traits and invasion resistance. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 23:695–703.
Funk, J., M. Hoffacker, and V. Matzek. 2015. Summer irrigation,
grazing and seed addition differentially influence community
composition in an invaded serpentine grassland. Restoration
Ecology 23:122–130.
Gillespie, I., and E. Allen. 2008. Restoring the rare forb Erodium
macrophyullum to exotic grassland in southern California.
Endangered Species Research 5:65–72.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 32
Goergen, E., and J. Chambers. 2012. Facilitation and interference
of seedling establishment by a native legume before and after
wildfire. Oecologia 168:199–211.
Gomez-Aparicio, L. 2009. The role of plant interactions in the
restoration of degraded ecosystems: A meta-analysis across
life-forms and ecosystems. Journal of Ecology 97:1202–1214.
Goodwin, J., and P. Doescher. 1995. After-ripening in Festuca
idahoensis seeds: Adaptive dormancy and implications for
restoration. Restoration Ecology 3:137–142.
Gorelick, G. 1969. Notes on larval host acceptance in a California
population of Plebejus acmon. Journal of the Lepidoptera
Society 23:31–32.
Gornish, E., E. Brusati, and D. Johnson. 2016. Practitioner
perspectives on using non-native plants for revegetation.
California Agriculture 70(4): 194–199.
Graham, E. 1941. Legumes for erosion control and wildlife.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Miscellaneous Publication 412.
Griggs, T. 2009. California riparian habitat restoration handbook.
2nd ed. California Riparian Habitat Joint Venture.
Hallock, B., M. Scharff, S. Rein, et al. 2003. Vegetation
establishment for erosion control under simulated rainfall.
Proceedings from the 34th International Erosion Control
Association Annual Conference. Denver, CO: IECA.
Hansen D., P. Dayanandan, P. Kaufman, et al. 1976. Ecological
adaptations of salt marsh grass, Distichlis spicata, and
environmental factors affecting its growth and distribution.
American Journal of Botany 63:635–650.
Hanson, B., S. Wright, L. Sosnoskie, et al. 2014. Herbicide-
resistant weeds challenge some signature cropping systems.
California Agriculture 68:142–152.
Hatch, D., J. Bartolome, J. Fehmi, et al. 1999. Effects of burning
and grazing on a coastal California grassland. Restoration
Ecology 7:376–381.
Hauser, S. 2006. Artemisia californica. In USDA Fire Effects
Information System. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Rocky Mountain
Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.
Hayes, G., and K. Holl. 2003. Cattle grazing impacts on annual
forbs and vegetation composition of mesic grasslands in
California. Conservation Biology 6:1694–1702.
———. 2011. Manipulating disturbance regimes and seeding to
restore mesic Mediterranean grasslands. Applied Vegetation
Science 14:304–315.
Heady, H. 1956. Changes in a California annual plant community
induced by manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37:798–
812.
Hektner, M., and T. Foin. 1977. Vegetation analysis of a northern
California coastal prairie: Sea Ranch, Sonoma County,
California. Madroño 24:83–103.
Herbel, C., and A. Nelson. 1966. Species preferences of Hereford
and Santa Gertrudis cattle on a southern New Mexico range.
Journal of Range Management 19:177–181.
Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of
California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holl, K., G. Hayes, C. Brunet, et al. 2014a. Constrains on
direct seeding of coastal prairie species: Lessons learned for
restoration. Grasslands 24:8–12.
Holl, K., E. Howard, T. Brown, et al. 2014b. Efficacy of exotic
control strategies for restoring coastal prairie grasses. Invasive
Plant Science and Management 7:590–598.
Howard, V., and P. Robins, ed. 2002. Capay Valley conservation
and restoration manual: A handbook for landowners.
Woodland, CA: Yolo Resource Conservation District.
Huddleston. R., and T. Young. 2004. Spacing and competition
between planted grass plugs and preexisting perennial grasses
in a restoration site in Oregon. Restoration Ecology 12:546–
551.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 33
Huenneke, L., and H. Mooney. 1989. Grassland structure and
function: California annual grassland. Dordrecht, Netherlands:
Kl uwe r.
Hull, J., and C. Muller. 1977. The potential for dominance
by Stipa pulchra in a California grassland. The American
Midland Naturalist 97:147–175.
Hybner, R., E. Graham, M. Majerus, et al. 2009. Comparative
evaluations of grasses, forbs, and seed mixtures from “local”
versus “non-local” origins at (Stucky Ridge) Anaconda, MT.
In R. Barnhisel, ed., Revitalizing the environment: Proven
solutions and innovative approaches. Lexington, KY: American
Society of Mining and Reclamation.
Hyvonen, T. 2007. Can conversion to organic farming restore the
species composition of arable weed communities? Biological
Conservation 137:382–390.
Jackson, L., A. Hodson, K. Fyhrie, et al. 2015. Habitat restoration
practices for California rangeland riparian corridors. Davis:
University of California, Davis, Department of Land, Air and
Water Resources.
James, J., E. Gornish, J. DiTomaso, et al. 2015. Managing
medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) on rangeland: A
meta analysis of control efforts and assessment of stakeholder
needs. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68:215–223.
Johnson, N., B. Liu, and B. Bentley. 1987. The effects of nitrogen
fixation, soil nitrate, and defoliation on the growth, alkaloids,
and nitrogen levels of Lupinus succulentus (Fabaceae).
Oecologia 74:425–431.
Jongepierová, I., J. Mitchley, and J. Tzanopoulos. 2007. A field
experiment to recreate species rich hay meadows using
regional seed mixtures. Biological Conservation 139:297–305.
Kaye, T. 1997. Seed dormancy in high elevation plants:
Implications for ecology and restoration. In T. Kaye, ed.,
Conservation and management of native plants and fungi.
Corvallis, OR: Native Plant Society of Oregon. 115–120.
Keeley, J., and S. Keeley. 1984. Postfire recovery of California
coastal sage scrub. American Midland Naturalist 111:105–117.
———. 1987. Role of fire in the germination of chaparral herbs
and suffrutescents. Madroño 34:240–249.
Kettenring, K., and C. Adams. 2011. Lessons learned from
invasive species control experiments: A systematic review.
Journal of Applied Ecology 48:970–979.
Kimball, S., M. Lulow, K. Mooney, et al. 2014. Establishment
and management of native functional groups in restoration.
Restoration Ecology 22:81–88.
Kimball, S., M. Lulow, Q. Sorenson, et al. 2015. Cost-effective
ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 23:800–810.
Kingsbury, J. 1964. Poisonous plants of the United States and
Canada. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kraetsch, R. 2001. Ten years of oak restoration in the City
of Walnut Creek open spaces. In R. Standiford, et al., ed.,
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Oak Woodlands: Oaks
in California’s changing landscape. General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-184. Albany, CA: USDA Pacific Southwest Research
Station.
Kyser, G., A. Hazebrook, and J. DiTomaso. 2013. Integration
of prescribed burning, aminopyralid, and reseeding for
restoration of yellow starthistle-infested rangeland. Invasive
Plant Science and Management 6:480–491.
Kyser, G., J. DiTomaso, K. Davies, et al. 2014. Medusahead
management guide for the Western States. Davis: University of
California Weed Research and Information Center.
Lanini, W., R. Long, and J. Anderson. 1996. Preemergence
herbicides have little effect on vigor of perennial grasses.
California Agriculture 50:38–41.
Leger, E., E. Goergen, and T. Forbis de Queiroz. 2014. Can native
annual forbs reduce Bromus tectorum biomass and indirectly
facilitate establishment of a native perennial grass? Journal of
Arid Environments 102:9–16.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 34
Lonard, R., and F. Gould. 1974. The North American species of
Vulpia (Gramineae). Madroño 22:217–230.
Long, R., and J. Anderson. 2010. Establishing hedgerows on
farms in California. Oakland: University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 8390.
Love, R. 1954. Interspecific hybridization in Stipa. II. Hybrids
of S. cernua, S. lepida, and S. pulchra. American Journal of
Botany 41:107–110.
Ludwig, J., G. Cunningham, and P. Whitson. 1998. Distribution
of annual plants in North American deserts. Journal of Arid
Environments 15:221–227.
Lulow, M. 2006. Invasion by non-native annual grasses: The
importance of species biomass, composition, and time among
California native grasses of the Central Valley. Restoration
Ecology 14:616–626.
———. 2008. Restoration of California native grasses and clovers:
The role of clipping, broadleaf herbicide, and native grass
density. Restoration Ecology 16:584–593.
Lulow, M., T. Young, J. Wieka, et al. 2007. Variation in the
initial success of seeded native bunchgrasses in the rangeland
foothills of Yolo County, California. Ecological Restoration
25:20–28.
Marcum, K. 2006. Use of saline and non-potable water in the
turfgrass industry: Constraints and developments. Agricultural
Water Management 80:132–146.
Marushia, R., and B. Allen. 2011. Control of exotic annual
grasses to restore native forbs in abandoned agricultural land.
Restoration Ecology 19:45–54.
Mayfield, M., J. Dwye, A. Main, et al. 2014. The germination
strategies of widespread annual plants are unrelated to regional
climate. Global Ecology and Biogeography 23:1430–1439.
McAdoo, J., C. Boyd, and R. Sheley. 2013. Site, competition,
and plant stock influence transplant success of Wyoming big
sagebrush. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66:305–312.
McClain, C., K. Holl, and D. Wood. 2011. Successional models
as guides for restoration of riparian forest understory.
Restoration Ecology 19:280–289.
McClaran, M. 1981. Propagating native perennial grasses.
Fremontia 9:21–23.
McCreary, D., and J. Tecklin. 2005. Restoring native California
oaks on grazed rangelands. In R. Dumroese, L. Riley, and T.
Landis, ed., National proceedings: Forest and Conservation
Nursery Associations. Proc. RMRS-P-35. Fort Collins, CO:
USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station.
McKay, J., C. Christian, S. Harrison, et al. 2005. “How local is
local?”: A review of practical and conceptual issues in the
genetics of restoration. Restoration Ecology 13:432–440.
Menke, J. 1992. Grazing and fire management for native
perennial grass restoration in California grasslands. Fremontia
20:22–25.
Miller J., and R. Hobbs. 2007. Habitat restoration: Do we know
what we’re doing? Restoration Ecology 15:382–390.
Moore, K. 2009. Fluctuating patch boundaries in a native annual
forb: The roles of niche and dispersal limitation. Ecology
90:378–387.
Moore P., K. Holl, and D. Wood. 2011. Strategies for restoring
native riparian understory plants along the Sacramento river:
Timing, shade, non-native control, and planting methods. San
Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 9:1–15.
Monsen, S., R. Stevens, N. Shaw. et al. 2004. Restoring western
ranges and wildlands. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-
136-vol-3. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Research Station. 699–884.
Montalvo, A., P. McMillan, and E. Allen. 2002. The relative
importance of seeding method, soil ripping, and soil variables
on seeding success. Restoration Ecology 10:52–67.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 35
Morandin, L., and C. Kremen. 2013. Hedgerow restoration
promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to
adjacent fields. Ecological Applications 23:829–839.
Murthy, S., and T. Nagodra. 1977. Allelopathic effects of Aristida
adscensionis on Rhizobium. Journal of Applied Ecology
14:279–282.
Nafus, A., T. Svejcar, D. Ganskopp, et al. 2015. Abundances of
coplanted native bunchgrasses and Crested Wheatgrass after
13 years. Rangeland Ecology and Management 68:211–214.
Nelson, L., and E. Allen. 1993. Restoration of Stipa pulchra
grasslands: Effects of mycorrhizae and competition from
Avena barbata. Restoration Ecology 1:40–50.
Ogle, D., L. St. John, M. Stannard, et al. 2011. Pasture and range
seedings: Planning, installation, evaluation, management.
Technical Note 10. Boise, ID: USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service.
Ogle, D., L. St. John, M. Stannard et al. 2014. Technical Note 24:
Conservation plant species for the Intermountain West. Boise,
ID: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Padgett, P., L. Vazquez, and E. Allen. 1999. Seed viability and
germination behavior of the desert shrub Encelia farinosa
Torrey and A. Gray (Compositae). Madroño 46:126–133.
Padilla, F. and F. PugnaireI. 2006. The role of nurse plants in the
restoration of degraded environments. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment 4:196–202.
Palmerlee, A., and T. Young. 2010. Direct seeding is more cost
effective than container stock across ten woody species in
California. Native Plants 11:89–102.
Pantel, A., J. Romo, and Y. Bai. 2011. Above-ground net primary
production for Elymus lanceolatus and Hesperostipa curtiseta
after a single defoliation event. Rangeland Ecology and
Management 64:283–290.
Parks Canada Agency. 2011. Recovery strategy for dense-
flowered lupine (Lupinus densiflorus) in Canada. Species
at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Ottawa: Parks Canada
Ag ency.
Parsons, D., and T. Stohlgren. 1989. Effects of varying fire
regimes on annual grasslands in the southern sierra Nevada of
California. Madroño 36:154–168.
Peters, R., and R. Noss. 1995. America’s endangered ecosystems.
Defenders 70:16–27.
Pickart, A. 2008. Restoring the grasslands of Northern
California’s coastal dunes. Grasslands 27:1.
Pickart, A., and J. Sawyer. 1998. Ecology and restoration of
Northern California coastal dunes. Sacramento: California
Native Plant Society.
Pollak, O., and T. Kan. 1998. The use of prescribed fire to control
invasive exotic weeds at Jepson Prairie Preserve. In C. W.
Witham, et al., ed., Ecology, conservation, and management
of vernal pools. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society.
241–249.
Porensky, L., K. Vaughn, and T. Young. 2012. Can initial
interspecific spatial aggregation increase multi-year
coexistence by creating temporal priority? Ecological
Applications 22:927–936.
Potthoff, M., L. Jackson, K. Steenwerth, et al. 2005. Soil biological
and chemical properties in restored perennial grassland in
California. Restoration Ecology 13:61–73.
Pywell, R., J. Bullock, D. Roy, et al. 2003. Plant traits as predictors
of performance in ecological restoration. Journal of Applied
Ecology 40:65–77.
Rayburn, A., and E. Laca. 2013. Strip-seeding for grassland
restoration: Past successes and future potential. Ecological
Restoration 31:147–153.
Rice, K., and E. Knapp. 2008. Effects of competition and life
history stage on the expression of local adaptation in two
native bunchgrasses. Restoration Ecology 16:12–23.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 36
Roberts, R., and A. Bradshaw. 1985. The development of a
hydraulic seeding technique for unstable sand slopes II. Field
evaluation. Journal of Applied Ecology 22:979–994.
Robins, P., R. Holmes, and K. Laddish. 2001. Bring farm
edges back to life! Woodland, CA: Yolo County Resource
Conservation District.
Rose, C. 1998. Water quality and irrigation ecosystem
management project: Yolo County Resource Conservation
District. Fresno and Redding: Central Valley Regional Water
Control Board.
Rose, R., C. Chachulski, and D. Haase. 1998. Propagation of
Pacific Northwest Native plants. Corvallis: Oregon State
University Press.
Rowe, C., and E. Leger. 2011. Competitive seedlings and
inherited traits: a test of rapid evolution of Elymus multisetus
(big squirreltail) in response to cheatgrass invasion.
Evolutionary Applications 4:485–498.
Salo, L. 2004. Population dynamics of red brome (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens): Times for concern, opportunities for
management. Journal of Arid Environments 57:291–296.
Sampson, A., A. Chase, and W. Hedrick. 1951. California
grasslands and range forage grasses. Bulletin 724. Berkeley:
University of California College of Agriculture, California
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 724.
Samson, F., and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North
America. BioScience 44:418–421.
Sandel, B., J. Corbin, and M. Krupa. 2011. Using plant functional
traits to guide restoration: A case study in California coastal
grassland. Ecosphere 2:1–16.
Schlafmann, D., and P. Morrison. 2005. California partners for
fish and wildlife program: Conserving birds through private
partnerships. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report
PSW-GTR-191. 1195–1197.
Scher, J. 2002. Elymus lanceolatus. In Fire Effects Information
System. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
Schwartz, M., J. Hoeksema, C. Gehring CA, et al. 2006. The
promise and the potential consequences of the global transport
of mycorrhizal fungal inoculum. Ecology Letters 9:501–515.
Scott, T., and N. Pratini. 1997. The effects of native soils on
Engelmann oak seedling growth. In N. Pillsbury et al. tech.
coords, Proceedings, symposium on oak woodlands: Ecology,
management, and urban interface issues. General Technical
Report PSW-GTR-160. Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service
Pacific Southwest Research Station. 657–660.
Seabloom, E., W. Harpole, O. Reichman, et al. 2003. Invasion,
competitive dominance, and resource use by exotic and native
California grassland species. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science 100:13384–13389.
Sheley, R., and M. Half. 2006. Enhancing native forb
establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture.
Restoration Ecology 14:627–635.
Sheley, R., L. Larson, and J. Jacobs. 1999. Yellow starthistle. In
R. Sheley, et al., ed., Biology and management of noxious
rangeland weeds. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
408–416.
Sheley, R., J. Mangold, K. Goodwin, et al. 2008. Revegetation
guidelines for the Great Basin: Considering invasive weeds.
ARS–168. Washington, DC: USDA Agricultural Research
Service.
Stark, B., and K. Dettman. 2010. Restoration field guide. San
Luis Obispo, CA: The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo
Cou nty.
Stebbins, G. 1999. The genus Melica in California. Grasslands 9:3, 5.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 37
Stevens, R., and S. Monsen. 2004. Guidelines for restoration and
rehabilitation of principal plant communities. In S. Monsen, et
al., compilers, Restoring Western Rangelands and Wildlands.
General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol 1. Fort Collins,
CO: USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.
199–294.
Stillwater Sciences. 2012. A guide for restoring functionality
to mountain meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Berkeley, CA:
Stillwater Sciences.
Stromberg, M., and P. Kephart. 1996. Restoring native grasses in
California old fields. Ecological Restoration 14:102–111.
Stromberg, M., C. D’Antonio, T. Young, et al. 2007. California
grassland restoration. In M. Stromberg, ed., Ecology and
management of California grasslands. Berkeley: University of
California Press. 254–280.
Stylinski, C., and E. Allen. 2001. Lack of native species recovery
following severe exotic disturbance in southern California
shrublands. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:544–554.
Suttle, K., and M. Thomsen. 2007. Climate change and grassland
restoration in California: Lessons from six years of rainfall
manipulation in a north coast grassland. Madroño 54:225–233.
Sutton-Grier, A., J. Wright, and C. Richardson. 2012. Different
plant traits affect two pathways of riparian nitrogen removal in
a restored freshwater wetland. Plant and Soil 365:41–57.
Swiecki, T., and E. Bernhardt. 2002. Exotic and native plant
monitoring at Jepson Prairie Preserve. Full Report for
Phytosphere Research, PR Project 2001-0401.
———. 2008. Effects of grazing on upland vegetation at Jepson
Prairie Preserve Solano County, CA. Final Report for
Phytosphere Research.
Stahlheber, K., and C. D’Antonio. 2014. Do tree canopies enhance
perennial grass restoration in California oak savannas?
Restoration Ecology 22:574–581.
Tongway, D., and J. Ludwig. 2010. Restoring disturbed
landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Travers, S. 1999. Pollen performance of plants in recently burned
and unburned environments. Ecology 80:2427–2434.
USDA Forest Service. 1937. Range plant handbook. Washington,
DC: Government Printing Office.
Vasey, M., and K. Holl. 2007. Ecological restoration in California:
Challenges and prospects. Madroño 54:215–224.
Walker, E., T. Conradi, H. Meimber, et al. 2015. Seed selection
for grassland restoration: Competitive effects of a dominant
grass is mediates by seed source and nutrient availability.
Restoration Ecology 23:261–267.
Whitson, T., L. Burrill, S. Dewey, et al. 2000. Weeds of the West.
9th ed. Jackson, WY: Western Society of Weed Science.
Wilkerson, M., K. Ward, N. Williams, et al. 2014. Diminishing
returns from higher density restoration seedlings suggest
trade-offs in pollinator seed mixes. Restoration Ecology
22:782–789.
William M. Kier Associates. 1995. Watershed restoration—A
guide for citizen involvement in California. NOAA Coastal
Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 8. Silver Spring,
MD: NOAA Coastal Ocean Office.
Wilson, A., D. Hyder, and D. Briske. 1976. Drought resistance
characteristics of blue grama seedlings. Agronomy Journal
68:479–484.
Wilson, S. 2015. Managing contingency in semiarid grassland
restoration through repeated planting. Restoration Ecology
23:385–392.
Wilson, S., J. Bakker, J. Christian, et al. 2004. Semiarid old-
field restoration: Is neighbor control needed? Ecological
Applications 14:476–484.
Winter, K., M. Schmitt, and G. Edwards. 1982. Microstegium
vimineum, a shade adapted C4 grass. Plant Science Letters
24:311–318.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 38
Wirka, L. 1999. The state of the art: Prescribed burning in
California grasslands. Grasslands 9:1–8.
Wrysinski, J. 1999. Roadside establishment of native perennial
grasses. In P. Robbins, et al., ed., Bring farm edges back to life!
Woodland, CA: Yolo County Resource Conservation District.
23–28.
Yolo County Resource Conservation District. 2002. Capay Valley
conservation and restoration manual. 2nd ed. Woodland, CA:
Yolo county Resource Conservation District.
http://www.yolorcd.org/documents/cv_conservation_
restoration_manual.pdf.
Young, D., L. Porensky, K. Wolf, et al. 2015. Burning reveals
cryptic plant diversity and promotes coexistence in a
California prairie restoration experiment. Ecosphere 6:1–11.
Young S., J. Barney, G. Kyser, et al. 2009. Functionally similar
species confer greater resistance to invasion: Implications
for grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 17:884–892.
Young, S., G. Kyser, J. Barney, et al. 2011. The role of light and
soil moisture in plant community resistance to invasion
by Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). Restoration
Ecology 19:599–606.
Young, T., E. Zefferman, K. Vaughn, et al. 2014. Initial success
of native grasses is contingent on multiple interactions
among exotic grass competition, temporal priority, rainfall,
and site effects. AoB PLANTS.
Young, T., and K. Veblen. 2015. Strong recruitment from
sparse plug plantings of native California bunchgrasses.
Grasslands 25:9–11.

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 39
aPPendIx a: sPecIes
lIsted by ReGIon and
RestoRatIon Goal
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Geographic region: Southern
Restoraon goal: Forage producon
Flood tolerant
Calandrinia
menziesii
Dischlis
spicata
Elymus
trachycaulus
Elymus
tricoides
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus
lanceolatus
Elymus
mulsetus
Festuca
microstachys
Hordeum
brachyantherum
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Elymus
glaucus
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Elymus
trachycaulus
Elymus
tricoides
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Agross
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus
mulsetus
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Flood tolerant
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus
lanceolatus
Elymus
mulsetus
Festuca
microstachys
Hordeum
brachyantherum
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Flood tolerant
Agross
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Elymus
tricoides
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus
mulsetus
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Flood tolerant
Elymus
trachycaulus
Elymus
tricoides
Dischlis
spicata
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 40
Geographic region: Southern
Restoration goal: Invasive plant management
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Aristida
adscensionis
Aristida
purpurea
Elymus
elymoides
Elymus
multisetus
Elymus
trachycaulus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Achillea
millefolium
Elymus
glaucus
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Elymus
elymoides
Elymus
multisetus
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Agrostis
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Elymus
multisetus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Agrostis
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Elymus
multisetus
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Elymus
trachycaulus
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Achillea
millefolium
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 41
Geographic region: Southern
Restoration goal: Enhance biodiversity
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Acmispon glaber
Antirrhinum
coulterianum
Camissoniopsis
bistorta
Castilleja exserta
Cirsium occidentale
Clarkia purpurea
Clarkia unguiculata
Cryptantha
intermedia
Elymus condensatus
Elymus elymoides
Elymus lanceolatus
Elymus multisetus
Epilobium canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Escholzia californica
Festuca microstachys
Festuca octoflora
Festuca rubra
Juncus patens
Koeleria macrantha
Lasthenia californica
Lupinus bicolor
Lupinus formosus
Lupinus microcarpus
Malacothrix saxatilis
Melica imperfecta
Mimulus aurantiacus
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Nemophila menziesii
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Phacelia cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Salvia columbariae
Sporobolus airoides
Stipa lepida
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood intolerant
Asclepias fascicularis
Bouteloua gracilis
Euthamia occidentalis
Grindelia camporum
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Juncus patens
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Flood
intolerant
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Acmispon glaber
Acmispon
strigosus
Antirrhinum
coulterianum
Camissoniopsis
bistorta
Castilleja exserta
Cirsium
occidentale
Clarkia purpurea
Clarkia
unguiculata
Cryptantha
intermedia
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus elymoides
Elymus
lanceolatus
Elymus multisetus
Epilobium canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Festuca
microstachys
Festuca octoflora
Festuca rubra
Juncus patens
Koeleria
macrantha
Lasthenia
californica
Lupinus bicolor
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Melica imperfecta
Mimulus
aurantiacus
Nemophila
menziesii
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Phacelia cicutaria
Salvia columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Stipa lepida
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Flood intolerant
Bouteloua gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Agrostis exarata
Bromus carinatus
Castilleja exserta
Clarkia purpurea
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus multisetus
Epilobium canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Escholzia
californica
Festuca octoflora
Juncus patens
Lasthenia
californica
Layia platyglossa
Lupinus formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Lupinus
succulentus
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Melica imperfecta
Microseris
douglasii
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Nemophila
menziesii
Phacelia cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Salvia columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Flood intolerant
Asclepias
fascicularis
Bouteloua gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Grindelia
camporum
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Agrostis exarata
Castilleja
exserta
Clarkia
purpurea
Elymus
condensatus
Elymus
multisetus
Epilobium
canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Festuca
octoflora
Juncus patens
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
succulentus
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Melica
imperfecta
Microseris
douglasii
Nemophila
menziesii
Phacelia
cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Plantago erecta
Poa secunda
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichu
m chilense
Flood tolerant
Festuca rubra
Juncus patens
Koeleria
macrantha
Lasthenia
californica
Flood
intolerant
Asclepias
fascicularis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Festuca rubra
Juncus patens
Koeleria
macrantha
Lasthenia
californica
Flood
intolerant
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Juncus patens
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Flood
intolerant
Asclepias
fascicularis
Euthamia
occidentalis

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 42
Geographic region: Southern
Restoration goal: Enhance pollinators
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Acmispon americanus
Acmispon glaber
Amsinckia menziesii
Antirrhinum
coulterianum
Aristida purpurea
Calandrinia menziesii
Camissoniopsis
bistorta
Castilleja exserta
Cirsium occidentale
Clarkia purpurea
Clarkia unguiculata
Cryptantha
intermedia
Deinandra fasciculata
Epilobium canum
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Escholzia californica
Lasthenia californica
Lupinus bicolor
Lupinus formosus
Lupinus microcarpus
Malacothrix saxatilis
Mimulus aurantiacus
Nemophila menziesii
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Phacelia cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Phacelia tanacetifolia
Salvia columbariae
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood intolerant
Achillea millefolium
Artemisia
douglasiana
Asclepias fascicularis
Bouteloua gracilis
Euthamia occidentalis
Grindelia camporum
Plantago erecta
Stipa cernua
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
glaber
Acmispon
strigosus
Antirrhinum
coulterianum
Castilleja
exserta
Cirsium
occidentale
Clarkia
purpurea
Clarkia
unguiculata
Cryptantha
intermedia
Epilobium
canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Lasthenia
californica
Lupinus bicolor
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Mimulus
aurantiacus
Nemophila
menziesii
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Phacelia
cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Salvia
columbariae
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Plantago erecta
Stipa cernua
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
americanus
Amsinckia
menziesii
Castilleja exserta
Clarkia purpurea
Deinandra
fasciculata
Epilobium canum
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Escholzia
californica
Lasthenia
californica
Layia platyglossa
Lupinus formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Lupinus
succulentus
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Microseris
douglasii
Nemophila
menziesii
Phacelia cicutaria
Phacelia distans
Phacelia
tanacetifolia
Salvia columbariae
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Trifolium
willdenowii
Flood intolerant
Artemisia
douglasiana
Asclepias
fascicularis
Bouteloua gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Grindelia
camporum
Plantago erecta
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrichum
chilense
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Castilleja
exserta
Clarkia
purpurea
Epilobium
canum
Eriogonum
giganteum
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
succulentus
Malacothrix
saxatilis
Microseris
douglasii
Nemophila
menziesii
Phacelia
cicutaria
Phacelia
distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Plantago
erecta
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Achillea
millefolium
Asclepias
fascicularis
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Euthamia
occidentalis
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Asclepias
fascicularis
Euthamia
occidentalis

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 43
Geographic region: Southern
Restoraon goal: Enhance wildlife
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
glaber
Clarkia
purpurea
Deschampsia
cespitosa
Lasthenia
californica
Lupinus
bicolor
Lupinus
formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Melica
imperfecta
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Spa lepida
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Spa cernua
Spa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
glaber
Clarkia
purpurea
Deschampsia
cespitosa
Lasthenia
californica
Lupinus
bicolor
Melica
imperfecta
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Penstemon
heterophyllus
Sporobolus
airoides
Spa lepida
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Spa cernua
Spa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Deschampsia
cespitosa
Lasthenia
californica
Muhlenbergi
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Agross
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Clarkia
purpurea
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Lupinus
succulentus
Melica
imperfecta
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Agross
exarata
Clarkia
purpurea
Lasthenia
californica
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
succulentus
Melica
imperfecta
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Spa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Deschampsia
cespitosa
Lasthenia
californica
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 44
Geographic region: Southern
Restoraon goal: Enhance soil health
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Layia
platyglossa
Flood tolerant
Layia
platyglossa
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
glaber
Lupinus
bicolor
Lupinus
formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Phacelia
tanacefolia
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
glaber
Acmispon
strigosus
Lupinus
bicolor
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood tolerant
Bromus
carinatus
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
formosus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Lupinus
succulentus
Phacelia
tanacefolia
Trifolium
albopurpureum
Trifolium
willdenowii
Flood tolerant
Layia
platyglossa
Lupinus
succulentus
Trifolium
albopurpureum

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 45
Geographic region: Southern
Restoration goal: Erosion control
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Distichlis
spicata
Koeleria
macrantha
Lupinus
bicolor
Lupinus
microcarpus
Melica
imperfecta
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Stipa lepida
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood
intolerant
Plantago
erecta
Stipa cernua
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Lupinus
bicolor
Melica
imperfecta
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Stipa lepida
Trifolium
obtusiflorum
Flood
intolerant
Plantago
erecta
Stipa cernua
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Agrostis
exarata
Bromus
carinatus
Lupinus
microcarpus
Lupinus
succulentus
Melica
imperfecta
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Plantago
erecta
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Agrostis
exarata
Lupinus
succulentus
Melica
imperfecta
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Plantago
erecta
Stipa pulchra
Symphyotrich
um chilense
Flood tolerant
Distichlis
spicata
Koeleria
macrantha
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 46
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Geographic region: Desert
Restoration goal: Forage production
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Distichlis
spicata
Festuca
microstachys
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Festuca
microstachys
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Distichlis
spicata
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 47
Geographic region: Desert
Restoration goal: Invasive plant management
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Aristida
adscensionis
Aristida
purpurea
Elymus
elymoides
Lupinus
microcarpus
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Elymus
elymoides
Muhlenbergia
rigens
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Lupinus
microcarpus
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Poa secunda

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 48
Geographic region: Desert
Restoration goal: Enhance biodiversity
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Camissoniopsi
s bistorta
Elymus
elymoides
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
Festuca
microstachys
Festuca
octoflora
Koeleria
macrantha
Lupinus
microcarpus
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Phacelia
distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
strigosus
Camissoniopsi
s bistorta
Elymus
elymoides
Festuca
microstachys
Festuca
octoflora
Koeleria
macrantha
Muhlenbergia
microsperma
Phacelia
distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood tolerant
Eriogonum
fasciculatum
Festuca
octoflora
Lupinus
microcarpus
Phacelia
distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Festuca
octoflora
Phacelia
distans
Salvia
columbariae
Sporobolus
airoides
Flood
intolerant
Bouteloua
gracilis
Poa secunda
Flood tolerant
Koeleria
macrantha
Sporobolus
airoides

ANR Publication 8575 | Restoration Manual for Annual Grassland Systems in California | June 2017 | 49
Geographic region: Desert
Restoration goal: Enhance pollinators
NO
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Is site on or near
agricultural fields
or rangeland?
What best
describes soil?
Saline soil? YES
CLAY
YES NO
SANDY
YES NO
Flood tolerant
Acmispon
americanus
Aristida
purpurea
Camissoniopsi
s bistorta
Erigonum