Sumac and elderberry would work great...they are both on my state's list of recommended plants for erosion control. Also Alleghany serviceberry, red chokeberry, large cranberry, american hazelnut, blueberries (since you wanted to go for edibles) My reason for not suggesting trees was because I've been told that trees next to a cliff or steep bank tend to take parts of the bank with them if they fall down. Steep drop offs have been my personal experience with erosion control. Is that an issue here? Is there a steep embankment involved? Your picture doesn't show one, but I wasn't sure if your picture showed the area with the erosion problem. I'm not trying to persuade you NOT to plant trees, I'm generally a huge tree fan. I'd advise you AGAINST planting any non-native grasses for erosion control. To be be effective for erosion control, a plant has to aggressively spread by roots or rhizomes...exactly the traits that tend to make a plant invasive, Anything that's going to work for erosion control is going to spread, and you don't want aggressive nan-natives spreading uncontrolled. Similarly, ivies tend to be invasive and can take down trees. I'd be careful with planting ivies. Probably NOT compatible with your trees. The pecan trees should probably be planted more then 4 feet from any really steep drop off. You are adding a few steps that really aren't necessary if the goal is erosion control or feeding wildlife...although they may help if you are trying to get a significant crop. (Trees usually grow fine without that much effort to improve the soil). Oh, and Fall is actually a great time to plant potted trees, shrubs and grasses...in my area, at least. Cool weather gets the trees to focus on root growth and many nurseries and "Big Box" stores have end of season sales. I wouldn't worry too much about trees "not agreeing with each other"...Black Walnut, silver maple and Eastern Red Cedar don't agree with much, but apart from that you can mostly ignore these issues and focus on desired light levels and moisture level. If you like edibles and natives, have you considered American Persimmon or Paw Paw? Oh...and how much land are we talking here?

Loquat Oriental Raisin Tree Oriental Persimmon Desert Willow 'Lucretia Hamilton' Fire Dragonî Shantung Maple Pomegranate Pineapple Guava (more of a large shrub that can get medium tree-sized) Black Mulberry (keep away from any structures due to invasive roots) Fig (grows lower and wider with invasive roots) Saucer Magnolia Vitex (large shrub that can get small tree-sized) Here is a link that might be useful: Hovenia dulcis This post was edited by blakrab on Wed, Sep 24, 14 at 23:25

If you had success before growing them in soil before, a possible problem in hydro could be the pH. There is an experiment you can do to see whether pH is a problem. Instead of treating the seeds with acid direct sow a few of them in Vermiculite & see if the growth is any better. Keep this separate from your present system so you do not alter it. Some of the species from chaparral/desert areas do poorly in the standard acidic solutions/media but thrive in a more alkaline environment.

Marianne, yes -- it's alfalfa. China's population growth long ago outstripped its sustainable water supply, so, ironically, we in California have been shipping our water (in the form of hay) to China, even as our own supply falls short. subk3, the article you cite deserves more than a little refutation. Victor Davis Hanson, sitting down there on his raisin farm in Fresno and wishing to suck up cheap, taxpayer-subsidized Northern California water for his personal gain, finds maintenance of the salmon fisheries offensive. This Northern Californian (four generations, both sides), with family involved in ranching, dairy, and commercial fishing, takes exception to that. It is NOT a matter of 'favoring fish over people" and "pet salmon" (good grief, what an idiotic phrase), but allowing fisheries (which also provide jobs, by the way) and all the ecosystems upon which our lives depend to survive and function. I see no compelling reason to blight and destroy our lands in order to make Hanson wealthy. The dams that were torpedoed would have been destructive of both fisheries (dams on the Klamath especially!) and other natural resources that support life here (not to mention the one, Auburn Dam, that was brilliantly planned to be built on a major earthquake fault...), "Wasted" water flowing through natural systems has the added benefit of diluting the toxic run-off from Central Valley agricultural fields and keeping my drinking water from being shut off because of salt water intrusion making it up to the pumps that pull fresh water out of the Delta. By the way, despite Hanson's claims, a dam that can be effective and useful for "flood control", (the pretense that allowed federal funding of California's dam projects) cannot also be storing water and, not so surprisingly, dams like the Coyote Dam on the Russian River, which the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s assured us would end the flooding on that river forever, have done nothing of the sort, since they are always kept as full as they can be, storing water. Mr. Hanson seems to live in the past by a century or so, when agriculture was the "premier industry" of the state. No more. It is, at best, 2 to 3% of California's economy. Are we to continue squandering 80% of utilized water (40% of all fresh water available in California) to support that 2 or 3% of the economy (much of which now involves making big bucks by sending our water, in the form of commodities, to other countries, not "feeding our nation" as is often and disingenuously claimed). Market forces will eventually sort this out, not the "environmental activists".