Recovery of plains rough fescue grasslands on reclaimed well sites

Elsinger, Mae E.; Dhar, Amalesh; Naeth, M. Anne

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126122

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of this study support our central hypothesis that disturbed rough fescue grasslands may recover using natural regeneration as the revegetation technique, since most of the plant community parameters such as total vegetation cover, richness, diversity, and evenness of pipelines did not differ from undisturbed prairie, although differences in plant community composition reduce the assumption of total restoration success. Similar observations were reported in other studies of fescue grasslands (Desserud & Naeth 2013;Woosaree & Otfinowski 2018;Elsinger et al 2022) and non-fescue grasslands (Ruprecht 2006;Albert et al 2014;. Desserud and Naeth (2013) and Woosaree and Otfinowski (2018) found vegetation cover with natural regeneration was similar to undisturbed rough fescue grassland.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Although our pipeline study provided evidence of recovery as most of the plant community characteristics were similar to original grassland within 6-21 years including dominant species, the differences in plant community composition might be due to topsoil stripping as stated in other grassland studies (Desserud et al 2010;Elsinger et al 2022;Soulodre et al 2022). According to Elsinger et al (2022), impacts of construction method that involved intensive soil handling such as topsoil stripping had detrimental effects on recovery of fescue grassland. Schnoor et al (2015) found heavy disturbance through disking was detrimental to restoration of native species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…However, some European studies reported that passive restoration after soil filling can effectively support grassland recovery within 10–20 years Central Europe (Ruprecht 2006; Albert et al 2014; Valkóa et al 2017). In western Canadian grasslands, impacts on soil and vegetation from oil and gas development have persisted over 50 years (Nasen 2009), with other pipeline studies concluding that succession towards undisturbed vegetation may require up to 26 years (Naeth 1985), or occur within 2–23 years (Desserud & Naeth 2013; Naeth et al 2020; Elsinger et al 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Alberta Canada alone, there is over 445,000 km of pipelines (Alberta Energy Regulator 2021). The increased demand for pipeline construction over the past few decades has resulted in increased habitat fragmentation and pressures on biological diversity (Copeland et al 2009; Ludlow et al 2015), posing significant challenges for conservation and range management (Hammermeister et al 2003; Naeth et al 2020; Elsinger et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Plains rough fescue grassland restoration using natural regeneration after pipeline disturbances

Elsinger

Dhar

Naeth

2022

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plains rough fescue (Festuca hallii), once a dominant grassland in the Northern Great Plains, has been reduced to a fraction of its original extent by agricultural intensification and energy sector disturbances and has become a threatened community type. Despite thousands of kilometers of pipelines in grasslands, little is documented about long-term restoration outcomes. This research assessed recovery of rough fescue grassland 6-21 years after pipeline construction with topsoil stripping and natural regeneration relative to undisturbed reference sites in south-central Canada. Soil properties varied between pipelines and undisturbed prairie, although most were within theoretical values to support plant growth and development. Vegetation cover, species richness and Shannon diversity and evenness did not differ significantly between pipelines and undisturbed prairie. Multivariate analysis (multi-response permutation procedure) showed plant community composition, and its dominant species differed significantly between pipelines and undisturbed prairie. Bray-Curtis dissimilarity indices showed dominant species and functional species groups on pipelines were more similar to undisturbed prairie than the undesirable species group. Presence of early-to late-successional species and increasing F. hallii with pipeline age indicate restoration was possible with topsoil salvage and replacement, using natural regeneration as a revegetation method, but requires time to develop and restore a typical rough fescue grassland ecosystem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Plains rough fescue grassland restoration using natural regeneration after pipeline disturbances

Elsinger

Dhar

Naeth

2022

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Native grasses are commonly used for reclamation as they have the ability to colonize, adapt to poor soil conditions, reduce erosion, require few management inputs, and make the area aesthetically pleasing (Alberta Environment and Parks 2016; Elsinger et al 2022). Using native species increases biodiversity and develops sites with a more natural state for self‐sustaining ecosystems (Albert et al 2014; Deák et al 2020; Soulodre et al 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeding and transplanting native forbs on reclamation sites in Alberta, Canada

Arychuk,

Dhar,

Wilkinson

et al. 2024

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of industrial disturbances are reclaimed with native grass species, although use of many native forbs in reclamation is limited due to low availability, high expense, poor germination, and lack of information on how to successfully establish them. Therefore, a study was conducted to assess the performance (establishment, growth, and survival) of native forbs (10 species by seeding and 12 species by transplanting) on disturbed sites planted in different seasons (spring and fall) and subjected to different types of vegetation management (mowed and unmowed). All seeded forb species established successfully, although density of most of the native forbs was very low (<20 stems/plot). Transplanted forb species established well, with 65% of seedlings surviving two growing seasons. Establishment and survival of seeded and transplanted native forbs were associated with plant competition, where forbs established well with annual weeds and less successfully with perennial weeds. Both spring seeding and transplanting increased forb establishment; and seeding and transplanting in fall versus spring produced more seed. Mowing generally had limited effects on forbs. Of the seeded species, Vicia americana, Achillea millefolium, and Ratibida columnifera consistently had the highest densities across treatments, whereas spring transplanting increased establishment of Anemone cylindrica, Gaillardia aristata, Geum triflorum, Monarda fistulosa, and Dalea purpurea. Spring‐transplanted forbs spread over a larger area than fall‐transplanted forbs. In most cases, seeding and transplanting native forbs in the spring can be more effective than in fall to reclaim disturbed sites if land management practices are used to control perennial weeds.

show abstract