Plant Community Responses to Mastication and Mulching of One-Seed Juniper (Juniperus monosperma)

Understory Vegetation Change Following Woodland Reduction Varies by Plant Community Type and Seeding Status: A Region-Wide Assessment of Ecological Benefits and Risks

“…While this mechanism explains the robust changes associated with chaining in understory vegetation, including the only significant positive change in sagebrush (i.e., at mountain big sagebrush sites), it had a similar effect on annual grasses, particularly at black and mountain big sagebrush sites [ 79 , 182 , 183 , 184 ]. Mastication is also known to promote annual grass establishment, more so than perennial grasses ([ 98 , 132 , 141 , 185 , 186 , 187 ], but see [ 188 ]) because the production and distribution of mulch favors annual grass growth by reducing soil temperature, increasing soil moisture, and elevating inorganic nitrogen supply to plants [ 39 , 73 , 132 , 189 , 190 ]. These results indicate that annual grasses will likely proliferate in the short-term even when perennial grasses increase following P–J reduction [ 116 , 142 , 187 ].…”

Mastication Treatments Increase Perennial Herbaceous Cover Across Soil Types in Southeastern Colorado Piñon-Juniper Woodlands

“…Only three introduced species were present across our sampling area— T. dubius, S. tragus, and C. album —all of which are annual forbs and only one of which (S. tragus) is projected to become more invasive in our study area (McMahon et al 2021). Another study in northern Arizona also found low introduced species cover 3 yr post mastication when pretreatment cover was low (Rubin and Roybal 2018). As a result, we suggest that managers survey for introduced plants before implementing treatments so that introduced species can be treated beforehand or areas with introduced plants can be avoided.…”

Understory Vegetation Response to Thinning Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands

“…Previous studies found an increase in herbaceous cover after reducing tree density ( Bates et al 20 0 0 ;Miller et al 2005 ;Owen et al 2009 ;Ray et al 2019 ) by improving effective rainfall (less interception), increasing available sunlight for the understory, and reducing competition on soil water and nutrients ( Ernst and Pieper 1996 ;Bates et al 20 0 0 ;Brockway et al 2002 ;Huffman et al 2013 ). However, other studies have shown no significant increase on understory cover on treatment sites ( Clary 1971 ;Evans and Young 1985 ;Huffman et al 2008 ;Garduno et al 2010 ;Rubin and Roybal 2018 ). It has been reported that other factors that drive changes to understory cover following tree thinning include treatment type, soil properties, long-term weather patterns, and pretreatment vegetation composition ( Clary 1971 ;Vaitkus and Eddleman 1987 ;Pieper 1995 ;Jacobs and Gatewood 1999 ;Huffman et al 2013 ;Monaco and Gunnell 2020 ).…”