Seed and microsite limitations mediate stochastic recruitment in a low-diversity prairie restoration

Long, Quinn G.; Foster, Bryan L.; Kindscher, Kelly

doi:10.1007/s11258-014-0387-y

Cited by 17 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did find, however, that the ratio of seeded to nonseeded species percent cover increased with higher seeding density. Our results are consistent with other studies, which have found increased seeded species and decreased nonseeded species establishment with increased seed density (Sheley & Half ; Long et al ; Foster et al ; Barr et al ; Piper ). We emphasize that the main effect of seeding density on forbs was an increase in seeded forb richness, which echoed the results of Dickson and Busby () and Jaksetic et al (), and suggests that for some species, greater seeding density helps to overcome the “germination bottleneck” in establishment noted by James et al ().…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Increased seeding rates may help overcome the low probability of germination and establishment of individual seeds. In fact, increasing sowing density has been shown to increase the establishment and richness of seeded plants (Hulvey & Aigner 2014;Long et al 2014; Barr et al 2017), as well as decrease the occurrence of nonsown species (Carter & Blair 2012;Martin & Wilsey 2012;Nemec et al 2013;Foster et al 2015). Increasing seeding density does not necessarily increase diversity (but see Goldblum et al 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are two strategies better than one? Manipulation of seed density and soil community in an experimental prairie restoration

Lubin

Schultz

Bever

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration practitioners have a variety of practices to choose from when designing a restoration, and different strategies may address different goals. Knowledge of how to best use multiple strategies could improve restoration outcomes. Here, we examine two commonly suggested strategies in a single tallgrass prairie restoration experiment: increased forb sowing density and prairie soil inoculation. We designed a study with two different forb seeding densities. Within these densities, we transplanted seedlings into 1‐m2 plots that had been grown in either a whole prairie soil inoculum or sterilized prairie soil. After 4 years, we found positive effects of both high forb sowing density and inoculation treatments on the ratio of seeded to nonseeded plant cover in these plots, and negative effects of both treatments on nonseeded plant diversity. No effects of either treatment were seen on seeded plant diversity. Each strategy also affected the plant community in different ways: high forb sowing density increased seeded forb richness and decreased native nonseeded plant cover, while inoculation decreased non‐native cover, and tended to increase average successional stage of the community. These effects on restoration outcome were typically independent of each other, with the result that plots with both manipulations had the most positive effects on restoration outcomes. We thus advocate the combined use of these restoration strategies, and further studies which focus on both seeding and soil community manipulation in restoration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are two strategies better than one? Manipulation of seed density and soil community in an experimental prairie restoration

Lubin

Schultz

Bever

et al. 2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This agrees with a number of studies from diverse habitats (e.g. Clark et al 2007), including temperate heathland (Manning et al 2005), temperate forest (Eriksson & Ehrlén 1992), tallgrass prairie (Long et al 2014), and semiarid grassland (Fick et al 2016;Garcia-Meza & Martorell 2016). In our study, restoration interventions consisting of revegetation and planting clusters of birch and willows facilitated birch and willow colonization by overcoming these limitations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The birch seedlings observed in 2010 indicate that seed production started a few years earlier, which fits with onset of flowering and seed set in birch at the age of 5–10 years (Atkinson ). Increasing propagule pressure increases recruitment until microsite saturation is achieved (Long et al ); thus, the high density of birch seedlings in 2015 implies a considerable local seed production in the preceding years. Density of birch seedlings in 2015 was twice that of willow seedlings, but as seedling density is generally highest near the clusters (A. L. Aradottir 2015, unpublished data), this may only reflect the fact that there were twice as many transects through birch as willow clusters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colonization of woodland species during restoration: seed or safe site limitation?

Aradóttir

Halldórsson²

2017

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A strategy of assisted natural regeneration uses selective restoration interventions to remove potential barriers to passive natural regeneration and succession toward target ecosystems. In woodland restoration, this may involve the planting of woodland clusters that serve as seed sources for further colonization and/or site amelioration to enhance colonization and growth of the target species. We tested the importance of seed and safe site limitations for the colonization of birch and willows in experimental treatments representing a matrix of revegetation (+/−) and planted birch and willow clusters (+/−) on an eroded area in South Iceland. The revegetation was initiated in the fall of 1999 and clusters of birch and willows planted in 2002. Density of birch and willow seedlings and their distribution among microsites was surveyed in 2005, 2006, 2010, and 2015. Willow seedlings were first noted in 2006 but birch seedlings in 2010. In 2015, seedling density in revegetated plots with planted clusters was over 20 times greater than that of revegetated plots without clusters, indicating a strong seed limitation. No seedlings were found in plots that had not been revegetated, showing very strong microsite limitation. However, revegetation increased the cover of biological soil crust and other microsites favorable for seedling establishment. The results demonstrate that both seed and safe site limit the colonization of birch and willows, key species in woodland restoration, and highlight the importance of identifying barriers to spontaneous succession before selecting restoration strategies.

show abstract

“…Germain et al . ; Grman & Brudvig ; Long, Foster & Kindscher ). Importantly, the resulting variation that we perceive will depend on the metric by which restoration is evaluated.…”

Section: Hierarchies Of Predictabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting variation to advance predictive restoration science

Brudvig

Barak

Bauer

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

170

213

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Ecological restoration is a global priority that holds great potential for benefiting natural ecosystems, but restoration outcomes are notoriously unpredictable. Resolving this unpredictability represents a major, but critical challenge to the science of restoration ecology. 2. In an effort to move restoration ecology toward a more predictive science, we consider the key issue of variability. Typically, restoration outcomes vary relative to goals (i.e. reference or desired future conditions) and with respect to the outcomes of other restoration efforts. The field of restoration ecology has largely considered only this first type of variation, often focusing on an oversimplified success vs. failure dichotomy. The causes of variation, particularly among restoration efforts, remain poorly understood for most systems. 3. Variation associated with restoration outcomes is a consequence of how, where and when restoration is conducted; variation is also influenced by how the outcome of restoration is measured. We propose that variation should decrease with the number of factors constraining restoration and increase with the specificity of the goal. When factors (e.g. harsh environmental conditions, limited species reintroductions) preclude most species, little variation will exist among restorations, particularly when goals are associated with metrics such as physical structure, where species may be broadly interchangeable. Conversely, when few constraints to species membership exist, substantial variation may result and this will be most pronounced when restoration is assessed by metrics such as taxonomic composition. 4. Synthesis and applications. The variability we observe during restoration results from both restoration context (how, where and when restoration is conducted) and how we evaluate restoration outcomes. To advance the predictive capacity of restoration, we outline a research agenda that considers metrics of restoration outcomes, the drivers of variation among existing restoration efforts, experiments to quantify and understand variation in restoration outcomes, and the development of models to organise, interpret and forecast restoration outcomes.

show abstract

Seed and microsite limitations mediate stochastic recruitment in a low-diversity prairie restoration

Cited by 17 publications

References 36 publications

Are two strategies better than one? Manipulation of seed density and soil community in an experimental prairie restoration

Are two strategies better than one? Manipulation of seed density and soil community in an experimental prairie restoration

Colonization of woodland species during restoration: seed or safe site limitation?

Interpreting variation to advance predictive restoration science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About