ABSTRACT. We investigated vegetation responses in terms of canopy, ground-layer diversity, and ecological species groups using two restoration treatments at two degraded oak barren and savanna sites in central Wisconsin, USA. The two restoration models tested were (1) process-only, which reintroduced fire in the form of prescribed burning, and (2) structural manipulation, which used prescribed burning following selective timber removal. Both methods have been widely promoted, debated, and investigated in the fire-prone ecosystems of western North America, but they have not been studied in midwestern ecosystems. Vegetation was monitored in permanent quadrats prior to and following treatment applications. All treatment responses were compared against trends at control sites. We used diversity, canopy, and cover estimates within ecological groups between pre-and post-treatment periods as our response. Effect size was calculated, and the statistical significance of effects was determined using one-factor analysis of variance. Following treatments, canopy levels were restored to prior savanna levels with structural manipulation, but failed to respond to process-only approaches. Likewise, multiple positive responses were detected in the ground layer with structural manipulation, but few with process-only treatments. Despite initial responses, ground-layer restoration appears to be constrained by the dominance of Pennsylvania sedge (Carex pensylvanica). Many savanna forbs, legumes, and C 4 graminoids were missing. We presume that 70 yr of fire suppression and associated succession to oak woodlands were largely responsible for sedge conversion and the loss of savanna species. Despite observed limitations, structural manipulation treatments appeared to be more effective than process-only approaches. Sites with holdover savanna species that have not been dominated by sedge should be targeted for immediate restoration before further losses occur. Further investigation of sedge mat thresholds and long-term restoration dynamics is required.
Aquatic ecologists face challenges in identifying the general rules of the functioning of ecosystems. A common framework, including freshwater, marine, benthic, and pelagic ecologists, is needed to bridge communication gaps and foster knowledge sharing. This framework should transcend local specificities and taxonomy in order to provide a common ground and shareable tools to address common scientific challenges. Here, we advocate the use of functional trait‐based approaches (FTBAs) for aquatic ecologists and propose concrete paths to go forward. Firstly, we propose to unify existing definitions in FTBAs to adopt a common language. Secondly, we list the numerous databases referencing functional traits for aquatic organisms. Thirdly, we present a synthesis on traditional as well as recent promising methods for the study of aquatic functional traits, including imaging and genomics. Finally, we conclude with a highlight on scientific challenges and promising venues for which FTBAs should foster opportunities for future research. By offering practical tools, our framework provides a clear path forward to the adoption of trait‐based approaches in aquatic ecology.
Functional traits are morphological, biochemical, physiological, structural, phenological or behavioural characteristics of organisms that influence performance or fitness. Grouping species by functional characteristics is a long‐standing idea, but there has more recently been rapid development in the application of trait‐based approaches to diverse topics in ecology. Two common applications of functional traits are to characterise community responses to changes in the environment, including community assembly processes, and to quantify the influence of community shifts on ecosystem processes. Practical decisions include: What types of traits should be considered? How can traits be measured or inferred? Are traits correlated or traded‐off? Which, and how many, traits should be assessed? How should trait data be analysed? Functional trait approaches enhance ecological understanding by focusing on the mechanisms that govern interactions between organisms and their environments. Measuring and understanding traits increases our understanding of ecological processes, thus also informing conservation and restoration. Key Concepts Functional traits are morphological, biochemical, physiological, structural, phenological or behavioural characteristics that influence organism performance or fitness. Traits can be broadly classified either as having an effect on ecosystem properties and the services that human societies derive from them, or as characterising a response to environmental change or with respect to processes affecting community assembly. Common data types for traits include continuous, categorical, ordinal and binary variable formats. The data type has repercussions for subsequent data analyses. Methods for measuring traits vary from time‐consuming (hard traits) to rapid (soft traits), and in turn the information content of the resulting data also varies. Trait syndromes describe patterns of inter‐trait correlation that define differences and trade‐offs in ecological strategies. When choosing traits for calculating functional diversity it is important to consider which, and how many, traits are included, as well as what insights they will provide into the ecosystem processes, community structure or assembly processes under consideration. Functional traits are at the forefront of efforts to develop a mechanistic understanding of how species diversity influences ecosystem functioning, and the current ecological literature presents many indices by which functional diversity can be computed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.