Collecting monitoring data poses significant challenges for many land managers, yet it is crucial for determining whether both short- and long-term project goals are being met and for identifying the most effective restoration methods to achieve desired outcomes [1]. Ideally, monitoring should be an integral component of any restoration plan. This process involves systematically collecting field data on key variables such as native and nonnative plant cover, species survival, growth metrics (e.g., plant height), and species richness (i.e., the number of native plant species). These data should then be analyzed using summary statistics (e.g., averages), visualized through graphs, and, where possible, subjected to statistical analysis. Such a comprehensive approach will enable practitioners to track restoration outcomes over time, assess progress relative to project objectives, and make meaningful comparisons across different years, sites, and treatments. This can then be used to inform adaptive management and guide future restoration efforts [2].

There are different approaches for collecting monitoring data in the field. The method chosen will depend on the size of the site, the type of restoration methods employed, characteristics of the vegetation, and the resources and time available. It is rarely possible to collect monitoring data across an entire site, so monitoring can be done on a subset of smaller areas. These can be randomly or systematically located across a site to capture the full range of environmental variability that can influence plant performance. One common approach is to use square or rectangular frames or ‘quadrats’ constructed out of PVC. These are laid out on the ground and plant density and percent cover of each species is recorded. Another approach involves using transects (i.e., point line intercept method); measuring tapes are laid out across a site and the plants present at regular intervals (e.g., every 50 cm) are recorded. Data can then be used to calculate percent cover by taking the number of observations for a given species and dividing it by the total number of points. Another method for tracking plant survival and growth is to permanently mark or tag individual plants and track these over time. Permanent photo monitoring locations are an easy and valuable way to track restoration trajectories over time. Finally, including measurements of plant physiological performance, such as traits related to water stress, could help identify problems early, before plants die or restoration efforts fail [3]. Collaboration with researchers can support the collection and interpretation of this type of data.

While restoration monitoring often prioritizes vegetation dynamics, it is also useful to consider additional metrics that can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of project success. Metrics such as wildlife abundance and diversity [4] and ecosystem functions and services [5] are equally valuable indicators of restoration outcomes. These measures can reveal how well the restored ecosystem supports wildlife and maintains ecological processes, which are critical components of a healthy ecosystem. In many cases, these broader goals are actually  the primary objectives of restoration projects.

Recommendations for Monitoring Restoration Projects

• Build monitoring into the plan: Monitoring should be planned from the start to track progress and inform adaptive management
• Choose methods based on resources and site conditions: Quadrat sampling, transects, photo points, and tagged plants are common options
• Focus on key indicators: Track native and nonnative cover, species richness, survival, and growth
• Use the data: Summarize and visualize results to assess outcomes over time and across sites
• Collaborate when needed: Partner with researchers for technical support

In arid and semi-arid regions like much of California, a lack of water is often the biggest challenge for getting plants established. Rainfall can vary a lot from year to year and even within a single season, and long periods without rain can make restoration especially difficult. For perennial plants, making it through the first dry summer is often key to their long-term survival.

When feasible, irrigation can significantly enhance restoration success, especially during periods of drought. In much of California’s deserts, grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands, the growing season occurs in winter and spring, making this the optimal time for seeding and transplanting. Late spring seeding is generally not recommended. If irrigating seeded plots, aim to keep the soil consistently moist for about a week after sowing, then water every five days or so to support seedling survival. Seed-based restoration can be successful without irrigation during good rainfall years, but success can be highly variable depending on the timing and amount of precipitation. For transplants, irrigate at the time of outplanting and continue watering regularly if rainfall is low. Watering should be gradually reduced to ensure that plants acclimate to natural conditions and develop deeper, more resilient root systems capable of surviving without supplemental irrigation. Keep in mind that some species naturally go dormant in summer and may not respond well to irrigation during this period [1], potentially increasing the risk of rot or stress. Watering can also encourage weed growth, which may quickly outcompete native species. To minimize this risk, it’s important to have a weed management plan in place.

Irrigation can be implemented in a variety of ways depending on site conditions, resources, and restoration goals. Common methods include drip irrigation, hand-watering of outplants, and sprinklers, each offering different levels of control and coverage. Irrigating large seeded areas is best accomplished with overhead sprinklers or temporary irrigation systems that can provide even coverage across the site. Buried clay pots (also known as ollas) provide a low-cost, low-tech solution especially suitable for arid landscapes. These unglazed, porous pots slowly release water into the surrounding soil and should be installed before planting. The pots should be buried with about 2 cm of the rim exposed above the soil surface and positioned near each plant. Buried PVC pipes can also be used to direct water deeper into the root zone [2]. Additionally, planting in shallow basins or depressions surrounded by soil berms helps capture and direct rainfall and irrigation water toward the root area of transplants, enhancing water availability where it’s needed most. Amending soil with water-holding gels may also benefit outplanted individuals [3].

Grazing can be a valuable restoration tool in certain ecosystems, such as grasslands [1]. In these systems, regular grazing can help sustain native plant diversity and reduce competition from invasive species. However, in other ecosystems such as vernal pools, chaparral, montane meadows, and coastal dunes, grazing may act as a disturbance that harms sensitive vegetation [2]. In these cases, excluding grazers using fencing, exclosures, or tree guards may be necessary to protect restoration outcomes.

It is important to remember that the effectiveness and impacts of grazing depend on several factors, including timing, intensity, duration, and the type of livestock used [3], as well as plant community composition. Cattle, sheep, and goats differ in their grazing behavior, selectivity, and effects on vegetation and soils. When properly managed, grazing can successfully control invasive species, reduce thatch and fuel loads, increase soil heterogeneity, and improve seed-to-soil contact. If poorly managed, however, grazing may hinder restoration by causing excessive herbivory or trampling.

It is recommended to exclude livestock from restoration areas for at least one year to allow plants to establish. In some systems, however, introducing livestock (specifically sheep) shortly after seeding can improve restoration outcomes, as short-duration grazing may increase seed-to-soil contact through trampling and create small-scale soil disturbances that promote germination [4]. In summary, potential benefits of grazing must be balanced with the risk of damage to establishing (and existing) native plants. Careful planning and ongoing monitoring are essential to ensure that grazing contributes positively to restoration goals.

Mowing can be a valuable tool for maintaining restoration sites by controlling weeds, reducing thatch, and lowering fuel loads. Large areas can be treated with tractor-mounted or push mowers, while smaller or more rugged terrain (e.g., steep slopes or uneven ground) may require weed whips or brush cutters. Mowing is most commonly used in grasslands and oak savanna understories, but it can also support weed control in shrub-dominated systems by targeting vegetation in interspaces. Brush hogs, as opposed to flail mowers, are particularly useful for dense vegetation and can handle woody plants such as shrubs or small saplings.

The effectiveness of mowing depends on site-specific factors such as climate, vegetation composition, and implementation details, particularly the timing, frequency, and mower height. In some cases, mowing timed to target invasive annuals before seed set can be highly effective. For example, this method has been successfully used to control yellow starthistle [1], though sites should be monitored for resprouting and may require follow-up treatments. Repeated, well-timed mowing can also help shift species composition when the invasive seed bank is short-lived. For example, in native perennial grasslands invaded by Avena species, annual spring mowing before seed set has significantly reduced the annual grass seed bank over time, increased native bunchgrass cover, and benefited native forbs [2]. However, outcomes can vary. While mowing may suppress annual grasses, it can also promote nonnative forbs, especially low-growing species like Erodium. It is generally ineffective in grasslands where non-native perennial grasses dominate [3].

If using mowing, practitioners should also consider equipment hygiene (to avoid spreading invasive seeds between sites), potential impacts on wildlife (e.g., ground-nesting birds), and the value of combining mowing with other treatments such as reseeding or prescribed fire. Long-term success often depends on repeated applications, regular monitoring, and adapting strategies to site-specific conditions and vegetation responses.

In California, prescribed fire is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool for ecological restoration and land stewardship. When applied appropriately, it can help reduce the buildup of flammable fuels, control invasive species, and create more favorable conditions for native plant species. Prescribed burns can also enhance diversity and improve long-term resilience in grasslands [1], oak woodlands [2], forests [3], and other fire-adapted landscapes, as well as enhance restoration success. Using fire as part of restoration planning can improve site conditions before planting and help suppress weeds that compete with young native plants [4]. However, prescribed fire is not appropriate for every ecosystem, and in some cases, it can disrupt or damage native plant communities. 

It is important to acknowledge that Indigenous peoples in California have been using fire as a land stewardship practice for thousands of years. These cultural burning traditions are distinct from modern prescribed fire in their purpose, scale, and approach, but they provide similar ecological benefits: supporting biodiversity, enhancing habitat, and maintaining the health and resilience of fire-adapted ecosystems [5].

Prescribed burning in California typically takes two forms: broadcast burns, which cover larger areas under controlled conditions, and pile burns, which target smaller accumulations of brush or woody material to reduce fuel loads [6]. The choice of method depends on site conditions, restoration goals, and safety considerations. Successful implementation requires collaboration between landowners, ecologists, fire professionals, and agencies such as CAL FIRE and local air quality districts. Burn plans must carefully outline objectives, timing, weather windows, and contingency measures, with necessary permits secured well in advance. Joining local prescribed burn associations (PBAs) or working with experienced practitioners can help ensure burns are conducted safely, effectively, and in alignment with ecological goals.