, Volume 139, Issue 4, pp 617–629 | Cite as

Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration

  • S. G. BaerEmail author
  • J. M. Blair
  • S. L. Collins
  • A. K. Knapp
Community Ecology


Availability and heterogeneity of resources have a strong influence on plant community structure in undisturbed systems, as well as those recovering from disturbance. Less is known about the role of resource availability and heterogeneity in restored communities, although restoration provides a valuable opportunity to test our understanding of factors that influence plant community assembly. We altered soil nitrogen (N) availability and soil depth during a prairie restoration to determine if the availability and/or heterogeneity of soil resources influenced plant community composition in restored grassland communities. Plant community responses to three levels of N availability (ambient, enriched by fertilization, and reduced by carbon amendment) and two levels of soil depth (deep and shallow) were evaluated. In addition, we evaluated plant community responses to four whole plot heterogeneity treatments created from the six possible combinations of soil N availability and soil depth. The soil depth treatment had little influence on community structure during the first 3 years of restoration. Total diversity and richness declined over time under annual N enrichment, whereas diversity was maintained and richness increased over time in soil with reduced N availability. Non-native species establishment was lowest in reduced-N soil in the initial year, but their presence was negligible in all of the soil N treatments by the second year of restoration. Panicum virgatum, a native perennial C4 grass, was the dominant species in all soil N treatments by year three, but the magnitude of its dominance was lowest in the reduced-N soil and highest in enriched-N soil. Consequently, the relative cover of P. virgatum was strongly correlated with community dominance and inversely related to diversity. The differential growth response of P. virgatum to soil N availability led to a higher degree of community similarity to native prairie in the reduced-N treatment than in the enriched-N treatment. There were no differences in plant community structure among the four whole plot-level heterogeneity treatments, which all exhibited the same degree of similarity to native prairie. Diversity and community heterogeneity in the whole-plot treatments appeared to be regulated by the dominant species’ effect on light availability, rather than soil N heterogeneity per se. Our results indicate that a strong differential response of a dominant species to resource availability in a restored community can regulate community structure, diversity, and similarity to the native (or target) community, but the importance of resource heterogeneity in restoring diversity may be dampened in systems where a dominant species can successfully establish across a range of resource availability.


Diversity Grassland Nitrogen Tallgrass prairie 



Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (IBN9603118), with additional support from the Research Experience for Undergraduate program and the Long Term Ecological Research Program. We are grateful for the on-site assistance provided by T. Van Slyke, J. Larkins, and D. Mossman. Field and laboratory assistance were provided by A. Bonewitz, M. A. Callaham, K. Jarr, H. Kaizer, D. Kitchen, M. Norris, E. Nun, and M. Spooner. Statistical consultation was provided by D. E. Johnson. Lastly, we thank D.J. Gibson, J. Ehleringer, J. Zedler and an anonymous reviewer for their critical reviews of this manuscript. This is publication 04–253-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station.


  1. Abrams MD, Hulbert LC (1987) Effect of topographic position and fire on species composition in tallgrass prairie in northeast Kansas. Am Midl Nat 117:442–445Google Scholar
  2. Anderson DW, Coleman DC (1985) The dynamics of organic matter in grassland soils. J Soil Water Conserv 40:211–216Google Scholar
  3. Baer SG, Blair JM, Knapp AK (1999) Manipulation of soil resource heterogeneity in a tallgrass prairie restoration. In: Springer JT (ed) Proc N Am Prairie Conf 16:78–87Google Scholar
  4. Baer SG, Rice CW, Blair JM (2000) Assessment of soil quality in fields with short- and long term enrollment in the CRP. J Soil Water Conserv 55:142–146Google Scholar
  5. Baer SG, Kitchen DJ, Blair JM, Rice CW (2002) Changes in ecosystem structure and function along a chronosequence of restored grasslands. Ecol Appl 12:1688–1701Google Scholar
  6. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2003) Soil resources regulate diversity and productivity in newly established prairie. Ecology 84:724–735Google Scholar
  7. Bakker JP, Grootjans AP, Hermy M, Poschlod P (2000) How to define targets for ecological restoration? Introduction. Appl Veg Sci 3:3–6Google Scholar
  8. Binkley D, Matson P (1983) Ion exchange resin bag for assessing forest soil nitrogen availability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 47:1050–1052Google Scholar
  9. Blair JM (1997) Fire, N availability, and plant response in grasslands: a test of the transient maxima hypothesis. Ecology 78:2359–2368Google Scholar
  10. Blair JM, Seastedt TR, Rice CW, Ramundo RA (1998) Terrestrial nutrient cycling in tallgrass prairie. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 222–243Google Scholar
  11. Blumenthal DM, Jordan NR, Russelle MP (2003) Soil carbon addition controls weeds and facilitates prairie restoration. Ecol Appl 13:605–615Google Scholar
  12. Bradshaw AD (1987) Restoration: an acid test for ecology. In Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber JD (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 23–29Google Scholar
  13. Brown CS, Bugg RL (2001) Effects of established perennial grasses on introduction of native forbs in California. Restor Ecol 9:38–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke IC, Lauenroth WK, Riggle R, Brannen P, Madigan B, Beard S (1999) Spatial variability in soil properties in the shortgrass steppe: the relative importance of topography, grazing, microsite, and plant species in controlling spatial patterns. Ecosystems 2:422–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Caldwell MM, Pearcy RW (1994) Exploitation of environmental heterogeneity by plants. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Carson WP, Barrett GW (1988) Succession in old-field plant communities: effects of contrasting types of nutrient enrichment. Ecology 69:984–994Google Scholar
  17. Clarke WM, Bragg TB (1994) Movement of tallgrass prairie plant species from sod transplant into adjacent reestablished grassland. Prairie Nat 26:67–81Google Scholar
  18. Collins B, Wein GW (1998) Soil resource heterogeneity effects on early succession. Oikos 82:238–245Google Scholar
  19. Collins SL (1989) Experimental-analysis of patch dynamics and community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 85:57–66Google Scholar
  20. Collins SL (1992) Fire frequency and community heterogeneity in tallgrass prairie vegetation. Ecology 73:2001–2006Google Scholar
  21. Collins SL, Barber SC (1985) Effects of disturbance on diversity in mixed-grass prairie. Vegetatio 64:87–94.Google Scholar
  22. Collins SL, Glenn SM (1990) A hierarchical analysis of species abundance patterns in grassland vegetation. Am Nat 135:633–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Collins SL, Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Blair JM, Steinauer EM (1998) Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie. Science 280:745–747CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Copeland TE, Sluis W, Howe HF (2002) Fire season and dominance in an Illinois prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 10:315–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Corbett EA, Anderson RC, Rogers CS (1996) Prairie revegetation of a strip mine in Illinois: fifteen years after establishment. Restor Ecol 4:346–354Google Scholar
  26. Elliot ET (1986) Aggregate structure and carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus in native and cultivated soils. Soil Sci Am J 50:627–633Google Scholar
  27. Ewel JJ (1987) Restoration is the ultimate test of ecological theory. In Jordan WR, Giplin ME, Aber JD (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 31–33Google Scholar
  28. Fitter AH (1982) Influence of soil heterogeneity on the coexistence of grassland species. J Ecol 70:139–148Google Scholar
  29. Foster BL, Gross KL (1998) Species richness in a successional grassland: effects of nitrogen enrichment and plant litter. Ecology 79:2593–2602Google Scholar
  30. Freeman CC (1998) The flora of Konza Prairie: A historical review and contemporary patterns. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 69–80Google Scholar
  31. Gibson DJ (1988) The maintenance of plant and soil heterogeneity in dune grassland. J Ecol 76:497–508Google Scholar
  32. Gibson DJ, Hulbert LC (1987) Effects of fire, topography, and year-to-year climate variation on species composition in tallgrass prairie. Vegetatio 72:175–185Google Scholar
  33. Great Plains Flora Association (1986) Flora of the Great Plains. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.Google Scholar
  34. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 4:93–110Google Scholar
  36. Hook PB, Burke IC (2000) Biogeochemistry in a shortgrass landscape: control by topography, soil texture, and microclimate. Ecology 81:2686–2703Google Scholar
  37. Hook, PB, Burke IC, Lauenroth WK (1991) Heterogeneity of soil and plant N and C associated with individual plants and openings in North American shortgrass steppe. Plant Soil 138:247–256Google Scholar
  38. Howe HF (1994a) Managing species diversity in tallgrass prairie: assumptions and implications. Conserv Biol 8:691–704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Howe HF (1994b) Response of early and late-flowering plants to fire season in experimental prairies. Ecol Appl 4:121–133Google Scholar
  40. Howe HF (1995) Succession and fire season in experimental prairie plantings. Ecology 76:1917–1925Google Scholar
  41. Howe HF (1999) Dominance, diversity and grazing in tallgrass restoration. Ecol Restor 17:59–66Google Scholar
  42. Huston MA (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am Nat 113:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Inouye RS, Tilman D (1995) Convergence and divergence of old-field vegetation after 11 yr of nitrogen addition. Ecology 76:1872–1887Google Scholar
  44. Inouye RS, Huntly NJ, Tilman D, Tester JR, Stillwell M, Zinnel KC. (1987) Old-field succession on a Minnesota sand plain. Ecology 68:12–26Google Scholar
  45. Jackson LL (1999) Establishing tallgrass prairie on grazed permanent pasture in the upper mid-west. Restor Ecol 7:127–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Janssens F, Peeters A, Tallowin JRB, Bakker JP, Bekker RM, Fillat F, Oomes MJM (1998) Relationship between soil chemical factors and grassland diversity. Plant Soil 202:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jordan WR, Peters RL, Allen EB (1988) Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environ Manage 12:55–72Google Scholar
  48. Kindscher K, Tieszen LL (1998) Floristic and soil organic matter changes after five and twenty-five years of native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 6:181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Knapp AK, Seastedt TR (1986) Detritus accumulation limits productivity in tallgrass prairie. BioScience 36:662–668Google Scholar
  50. Knapp AK, Fahnestock JT, Hamburg SP, Statland LB, Seastedt TR, Schimel DS (1993) Landscape patterns in soil-plant water relations and primary production in tallgrass prairie. Ecology 74:549–560Google Scholar
  51. Knapp AK, Blair JM, Briggs JM, Collins SL, Hartnett DC, Johnson LC, Towne EG (1999) The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. BioScience 49:39–50Google Scholar
  52. Levin SA (1974) Dispersion and population interactions. Am Nat 106:207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Littell RC, Milliken GG, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS system for mixed models. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  54. Marrs RH (1993) Soil fertility and nature conservation in Europe: theoretical considerations and practical management solutions. Adv Ecol Res 24:242–300Google Scholar
  55. McLendon T, Redente EF (1992) Effects of nitrogen limitation on species replacement dynamics during early secondary succession on a semiarid sagebrush site. Oecologia 91:312–317Google Scholar
  56. Milchunas DG, Lauenroth WK (1995) Inertia in plant community structure: state changes after cessation of nutrient-enrichment stress. Ecol Appl 5:452–458Google Scholar
  57. Milliken GA, Johnson DE (1992) Analysis of messy data, Volume I: designed experiments. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. Morgan JP (1994) Soil Impoverishment: a little-known technique holds potential for establishing prairie. Restor Manage Notes 12:55-56Google Scholar
  59. Morghan KJR, Seastedt TR (1999) Effects of soil nitrogen reduction on nonnative plants in restored grasslands. Restor Ecol 7:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Paschke MW, McLendon T, Redente EF (2000) Nitrogen availability and old-field succession in a shortgrass steppe. Ecosystems 3:144–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pywell RF, Putwain PD (1996) Restoration for conservation gain. In Spellerberg IF (ed) Conservation biology. Longman, London, pp 203–221.Google Scholar
  63. Pywell RF, Webb NR, Putwain PD (1994) Soil fertility and its implications for the restoration of heathland on farmland in southern Britain. Biol Conserv 70:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Hopkins A, Walker KJ, Sparks TH, Burkes MJW, Peel S (2002) Restoration of species-rich grassland on arable land: assessing the limiting processes using a multi-site experiment. J Appl Ecol 39:294–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Redente M, Friedlander JE, McLendon T (1992) Response of early and later semiarid seral species to nitrogen and phosphorous gradients. Plant Soil 140:127–135Google Scholar
  66. Robertson GP, Huston MA, Evans FC, Tiedge JM (1988) Spatial variability in a successional plant community: patterns of nitrogen availability. Ecology 68:744–748Google Scholar
  67. Robertson GP, Crum JR, Ellis BG (1993) The spatial variability of soil resources following long-term disturbance. Oecologia 96:451–456Google Scholar
  68. Rover M, Kaiser E (1997) Spatial heterogeneity within the plough layer: low and moderate variability of soil properties. Soil Biol Biochem 31:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rusch G, Fernandez-Palacios JM (1995) The influence of spatial heterogeneity on regeneration by seed in a limestone grassland. J Veg Sci 6:417–426Google Scholar
  70. SAS (1999) SAS/STAT User’s Manual. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.Google Scholar
  71. Schramm P (1970) A practical restoration method for tall-grass prairie. In Schramm P (ed) Proceedings of a symposium on prairie and prairie restoration. Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, pp 63–65Google Scholar
  72. Schramm P (1990) Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. In Smith DD, Jacobs CA (eds) Proc N Am Prairie Conf 12:169–177Google Scholar
  73. Silvertown, J, Dodd ME, McConway K, Potts J, Crawley M (1994) Rainfall, biomass variation, and community composition in the Park Grass experiment. Ecology 75:2430–2437Google Scholar
  74. Steinauer EM, Collins SL (1995) Effects of urine deposition on small-scale patch structure in prairie vegetation. Ecology 76:1195–1205Google Scholar
  75. Stevens MHH, Carson WP (2002) Resource quantity, not resource heterogeneity, maintains plant diversity. Ecol Lett 5:420–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tilman D (1984) Plant dominance along an experimental nutrient gradient. Ecology 65:144–1453Google Scholar
  77. Tilman D (1987) Secondary succession and the pattern of plant dominance along experimental nitrogen gradients. Ecol Monogr 57:189–214Google Scholar
  78. Tilman D (1993) Species richness of experimental productivity gradients: How important is colonization limitation? Ecology 74:2179–2191Google Scholar
  79. Tilman D, Pacala S (1993) The maintenance of species richness in plant communities. In Ricklefs RE, Schluter D (eds) Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 13–25Google Scholar
  80. Towne G, Owensby C (1984) Long-term effects of annual burning at different dates in ungrazed tallgrass prairie. J Range Manage 37:392–397.Google Scholar
  81. Van Auken OW, Bush JK, Diamond DD (1994) Changes in growth of two C4 grasses (Schizachyrium scoparium and Paspalum plicatulum) in monoculture and mixture: influence of soil depth. Am J Bot 8:15–20.Google Scholar
  82. Vinton MA, Burke IC (1995) Interactions between individual plant species and soil nutrient status in short-grass steppe. Ecology 76:1116–1133Google Scholar
  83. Warkins TE, Howell EA (1983) Introduction of selected prairie forbs into an established tallgrass prairie restoration. In Brewer R (ed) Proc N Am Prairie Conf 8:147–151Google Scholar
  84. Wedin DA, Tilman D (1990) Species effects on nitrogen cycling: a test with perennial grasses. Oecologia 84:433–441Google Scholar
  85. Whittaker RH (1975) Communities and ecosystems. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilson SD, Shay JM (1990) Competition, fire, and nutrients in a mixed grass prairie. Ecology 71:1959–1967Google Scholar
  87. Wolda H (1981) Similarity indices, sample size and diversity. Oecologia 50:296–302Google Scholar
  88. Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol 70:439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zajicek JM, Sutton RK, Salac SS (1986) Direct seeding of selected forbs into an established grassland. HortScience 21:90–91Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. G. Baer
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • J. M. Blair
    • 1
  • S. L. Collins
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. K. Knapp
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of BiologyKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Mailcode 6509Department of Plant BiologyCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations