This publication provides an overview of the research and practices for brush and weed control, seeding, and fertilization. Also covered are practices that reduce seasonal gaps in forage availability and quality and the economics of vegetation management.

While increasing carrying capacity by producing more forage remains an important objective, ranchers and public agencies also manage for fire hazard reduction, improved water quality, air quality, and biodiversity. In addition, suppressing introduced species and restoring native species has become a major theme among conservation organizations and some government agencies. 

Coyote brush is a native shrub common on California coastal prairies. It is largely unpalatable to cattle and is an aggressive encroacher on open prairies; as such, it is a threat to livestock production on some of California’s most productive rangelands. This experiment assessed the effectiveness of four common herbicides and three application methods to control coyote brush. Glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, and 2,4-deoxynivalenol (2,4-D) were analyzed using foliar spray and drizzle applications. Only glyphosate and imazapyr were analyzed using basal bark injection. All applications resulted in a short-term decrease in coyote brush cover, but plants that were treated with the selective herbicides triclopyr or 2,4-D appeared to recover after a year. The nonselective herbicides glyphosate and imazapyr performed well 12 months after application. Glyphosate and imazapyr performed similarly in controlling both large and small plants. No difference existed when comparing foliar spray and drizzle application methods, but both outperformed basal bark injection. As in previous studies, the drizzle method proved the most effective, requiring less labor and chemical than foliar application, and less threat of drift to non-target species. These results suggest that coyote brush can be controlled through both foliar spray and drizzle applications of glyphosate or imazapyr.

Increasing forage productivity in the Sierra foothill rangelands would help sustain the livestock industry as land availability shrinks and lease rates rise, but hardly any studies have been done on forage selections. From 2009 to 2014, in one of the first long-term and replicated studies of seeding Northern California's Mediterranean annual rangeland, we compared the cover of 22 diverse forages to determine their establishment and survivability over time. Among the annual herbs, forage brassica (Brassica napus L.) and chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) proved viable options. Among the annual grasses, soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus) and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) performed well. However, these species will likely require frequent reseeding to maintain dominance. Long-term goals of sustained dominant cover (> 3 years) are best achieved with perennial grasses. Perennial grasses that persisted with greater than 50% cover were Berber orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), Flecha tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) and several varieties of hardinggrass (Phalaris aquatica L., Perla koleagrass, Holdfast, Advanced AT). In 2014, these successful perennials produced over three times more dry matter (pounds per acre) than the unseeded control and also suppressed annual grasses and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis L.) cover.

Livestock production on California’s annual rangelands has adapted to the seasonality of rangeland forage dominated by annual grasses and forbs growing in a Mediterranean-type climate. Rangeland managers have learned to balance seasonal forage availability and quality with the changing physiological needs of their animals by feeding them hay and other supplements and by transporting them to other forage sources, including other vegetation types in cooler climates.

 This publication gives an overview of seasonal forage sources, nutrient requirements of grazing animals, seasonal forage quality, seasonal animal performance, supplemental feeding, water needs, livestock production systems, and animal health issues.