Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Site Preparation Drives Long-Term Plant Community Dynamics in Restored Tallgrass Prairie: A Case Study in Southeastern South Dakota

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most tallgrass prairies have been destroyed or altered, making restoration an important component to their conservation. Our goal was to evaluate progress 12-years post-restoration at Spirit Mound Historic Prairie and determine whether the outcomes varied based on different land use and restoration histories across the site. We examined changes in plant diversity, richness, evenness, non-native species relative abundance, and community composition from 2004 to 2013. Areas with different restoration treatments and land-use histories showed divergent results. Seventy percent of the site, previously annual row crop, was reconstructed using herbicide application followed by native seeding (hereafter reconstruction). Areas that were previously grazed, 15 % of the site, were restored with only partial seeding and no herbicide treatment (hereafter rehabilitation). Species richness and diversity increased over 40 % in the reconstruction since 2004 and remained over 1.9 times higher in the reconstructed areas than rehabilitated areas. Diversity did not change in the rehabilitation, but richness increased 47 % since 2004. Evenness decreased 11–26 % over time in both areas. Non-native species relative abundance did not change from 2004 to 2013, and remained five times higher in the rehabilitation than the reconstruction. Native C4 grass and forb abundance increased over time in the reconstruction, whereas non-native C3 grasses remained dominant in the rehabilitation. These results showed that restoration outcomes were radically different 12-years post-restoration among areas with different prior land uses that were subjected to different restoration practices. Long-term assessments are important to accurately determine restoration progress and inform management decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brudvig LA (2011) The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? Am J Bot 98:549–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camill P, McKone MJ, Sturges ST, Severud WJ, Ellis E, Limmer J, Martin CB, Navratil RT, Purdie AJ, Sandel BS, Talukder S, Trout A (2004) Community- and ecosystem-level changes in a species-rich tallgrass prairie restoration. Ecol Appl 14:1680–1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cully AC, Cully JF Jr, Hiebert RD (2003) Invasion of exotic plant species in tallgrass prairie fragments. Conserv Biol 17:990–998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickson TL, Hopwood J, Wilsey BJ (2012) Do priority effects benefit invasive plants more than native plants? An experiment with six grassland species. Biol Invasions 12:2617–2621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillemuth FP (2012) Invasion of smooth brome into North American tall-grass prairies: impact on nature plant/herbivore species and mechanisms responsible for successful invasion. PhD dissertation, Louisiana State University

  • Engle DM, Bidwell TG (2001) Viewpoint: the response of central North American prairies to seasonal fire. J Range Manage 54:2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant TA, Flanders-Wanner B, Shaffer TL, Murphy RK, Knutsen GA (2009) An emerging crisis across northern prairie refuges: prevalence of invasive plants and a plan for adaptive management. Ecol Rest 27:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grman E, Bassett T, Brudvig LA (2013) Confronting contingency in restoration: management and site history determine outcomes of assembling prairies, but site characteristics and landscape context have little effect. J Appl Ecol 50:1234–1243

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulbert LC (1986) Fire effects on tallgrass prairie. PNNAPC 9:138–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarchow ME, Liebman M (2012) Nutrient enrichment reduces complementarity and increases priority effects in prairies managed for bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 36:381–389

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jarchow ME, Liebman M (2013) Nitrogen fertilization increases diversity and productivity of prairie communities used for bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy 5:281–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jonasson S (1988) Evaluation of the point intercept method for the estimation of plant biomass. Oikos 52:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettle DW, Rich PM, Kindscher K, Pittman GL, Fu P (2000) Land-use history in ecosystem restoration: a 40-year study in the prairie-forest ecotone. Rest Ecol 8:307–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kindscher K, Tieszen LL (1998) Floristic and soil organic matter changes after five and thirty-five years of native tallgrass prairie restoration. Rest Ecol 6:181–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson DL, Anderson PJ, Newton W (2001) Alien plant invasion in mixed-grass prairie: effects of vegetation type and anthropogenic disturbance. Ecol Appl 11:128–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson CS, Ford MA, Mitchley J (2004) The influence of seed addition and cutting regime on the success of grassland restoration on former arable land. Appl Veg Sci 7:259–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald NW, Scull BT, Abella SR (2007) Mid-spring burning reduces spotted knapweed and increases native grasses during a Michigan experimental grassland establishment. Rest Ecol 15:118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin LM, Wilsey BJ (2014) Native-species seed additions do not shift restored prairie plant communities from exotic to native states. Basic Appl Ecol 15:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCain KNS, Baer SG, Blair JM, Wilson GWT (2010) Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Rest Ecol 18:40–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCune B, Mefford MJ (2011) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 6. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach, Oregon, USA

  • Middleton EL, Bever JD, Schultz PA (2010) The effect of restoration methods on the quality of the restoration and resistance to invasion by exotics. Rest Ecol 18:181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller C (2010) Origin and erosion of Spirit Mound. Spirit Mound Trust News: 5. http://www.spiritmound.com/Newsletters/2010.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2016

  • Millikin A (2014) Assessment of tallgrass prairie vegetation at Spirit Mound 12 years post restoration. Master’s thesis, University of South Dakota

  • Packard S, Mutel CF (2005) Perspective. In: Packard S, Mutel CF (eds) The tallgrass restoration handbook for prairies, Savannas, and Woodlands. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Pokorny ML, Sheley RL, Zabinski CA, Engel RE, Svejcar TJ, Borkowski JJ (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Rest Ecol 13:448–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polley HW, Derner JD, Wilsey BJ (2005) Patterns of plant species diversity in remnant and restored tallgrass prairies. Rest Ecol 13:480–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Tallowin JB, Walker KJ, Warman EA, Masters G (2007) Enhancing diversity of species-poor grasslands: an experimental assessment of multiple constraints. J Appl Ecol 44:81–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reinking DL (2005) Fire regimes and avian responses in the central tallgrass prairie. Stud Avian Biol 30:116–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts DW (1986) Ordination on the basis of fuzzy set theory. Vegetatio 66:123–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe HI (2010) Tricks of the trade: techniques and opinions from 38 experts in tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 18:253–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson F, Knopf F (1994) Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson F, Knopf F, Ostlie W (2004) Great Plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildl Soc B 32:6–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluis WJ (2002) Patterns of species richness and composition in re-created grassland. Rest Ecol 10:677–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group (2004) The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson. http://www.ser.org. Accessed 1 Feb 2016

  • Tilman D (1997) Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P, Ritchie M, Siemann E (1997) The influence of functional diversity and composition on ecosystem processes. Science 277:1300–1302

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich E, Perkins L (2014) Bromus inermis and Elymus canadensis but not Poa pratensis demonstrate strong competitive effects and all benefit from priority. Plant Ecol 215:1269–1275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilsey BJ, Barber K, Martin LM (2015) Exotic grassland species have stronger priority effects than natives regardless of whether they are cultivated or wild genotypes. New Phytol 205:928–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JB, Wells TCE, Trueman IC, Jones G, Atkinson MD, Crawley JJ, Dodd ME, Silvertown JJ (1996) Are there assembly rules for plant species abundance? An investigation in relation to soil resources and successional trends. J Ecol 84:527–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright CK, Wimberly MC (2013) Recent land use change in the Western Corn Belt threatens grasslands and wetlands. PNAS 110:4134–4139

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks and the Spirit Mound Trust for site access, and Eric Vander Stouwe, Tim Cowman, James Heisinger, and Mark Wetmore for their cooperation, restoration management documentation, and shared knowledge. This research was funded by the Spirit Mound Trust, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, the Biology Department and Missouri River Institute at the University of South Dakota, and the Sierra Club.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, 57069, USA

    Alice R. Millikin, Meghann E. Jarchow, Rustan E. Krentz & Mark D. Dixon

  2. Richard A. Henson School of Science and Technology, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD, 21801, USA

    Karen L. Olmstead

Authors
  1. Alice R. Millikin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meghann E. Jarchow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen L. Olmstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rustan E. Krentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark D. Dixon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice R. Millikin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 107 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Millikin, A.R., Jarchow, M.E., Olmstead, K.L. et al. Site Preparation Drives Long-Term Plant Community Dynamics in Restored Tallgrass Prairie: A Case Study in Southeastern South Dakota. Environmental Management 58, 597–605 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0736-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0736-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation