Plant Ecology

, Volume 176, Issue 1, pp 87–99 | Cite as

Importance of soil moisture and its interaction with competition and clipping for two montane meadow grasses

  • Jennifer S. Kluse
  • Barbara H. Allen Diaz
Article

Abstract

Meadow classification studies have demonstrated the importance of water table fluctuation patterns in determining plant community composition in the western United States. However, a mechanism causing an overall increase in Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis populations and local declines in Deschampsia cespitosa populations in western montane meadows over the past century has not been defined. In order to better understand plant species interactions in these often highly grazed systems, we observed aboveground responses of Poa and Deschampsia to changes in species composition, soil moisture gradients, and clipping in the field. As well, we conducted a factorial greenhouse experiment, varying plant density, water availability, and clipping. While Poa is adapted to dry meadows and Deschampsia to wet meadows, their ranges overlap in wet conditions where soil moisture averages 50% in the early growing season. Deschampsia appears to be excluded from dry meadows where Poa is prevalent and soil moisture is closer to 30% water content in the early growing season. Our greenhouse experiment revealed that Deschampsia’s competitive ability decreases, while Poa’s increases, at soil moistures of 19%. However in more mesic conditions (50% soil moisture), each species aboveground biomass, tillering, and inflorescence weight was adherent to soil moisture conditions, and species interactions were less important. Our early growing season clipping treatments significantly reduced biomass of both grasses, but did not appear to favor one species over the other. This work points to the importance of soil water content in determining the performance of each plant species and the level of species interactions in montane meadows.

Keywords

Competition Deschampsia cespitosa Grazing Meadow Poa pratensis Water 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen-Diaz, B.H. 1991Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows [California, USA]American Midland Naturalist1263043Google Scholar
  2. Atkin, O.K., Botman, B., Lambers, H. 1996The causes of inherently slow growth in alpine plants: An analysis based on the underlying carbon economies of alpine and lowland Poa speciesFunctional Ecology10698707Google Scholar
  3. Belsky, A.J., Matzke, A., Uselman, S. 1999Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United StatesJournal of Soil and Water Conservation54419431Google Scholar
  4. Briske, D.D. 1991

    Developmental morphology and physiology of grasses

    Heitschmidt, R.K.Stuth, J.W. eds. Grazing Management: An Ecological Perspective.Timber PressPortland, Oregon, USA85108
    Google Scholar
  5. Castelli, R.M., Chambers, J.C., Tausch, R.J. 2000Soil-plant relations along a soil-water gradient in great basin riparian meadowsWetlands20251266Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, J.C. 1995Disturbance, life history strategies, and seed fates in alpine herbfield communitiesAmerican Journal of Botany82421433Google Scholar
  7. Chambers, J.C. 1999Central Nevada riparian areas: physical and chemical properties of meadow soilsJournal of Range Management529299Google Scholar
  8. Chesson, P., Huntly, N. 1997The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communitiesAmerican Naturalist150519553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook, C.W.Stubbendieck, J.L. eds. 1986Range research: basic problems and techniquesSociety for Range ManagementDenver, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Crawley, M.J. 1987

    What makes a community invasible?

    Gray, A.J.Crawley, M.J.Edwards, P.J. eds. Colonization, Succession and Stability.Blackwell ScientificOxford, UK429453
    Google Scholar
  11. Creese, R.G., Underwood, A.J. 1982Analysis of inter-and in- tra-specific competition amongst intertidal limpets with different methods of feedingOecologia53337346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronquist, A., Holmgren, A.H., Holmgren, N.H. 1977Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain WestAcademic PressNew York, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cross, R.E., Stiven, A.E. 1999Size-dependent interactions in salt marsh fish (Fundulus heteroclitus Linnaeus). and shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio Holthuis)Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology242179199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Damhoureyeh, S.A., Hartnett, D.C. 1997Effects of bison and cattle on the growth, reproduction, and abundances of five tallgrass prairie forbsAmerican Journal of Botany8417191728Google Scholar
  15. D’Antonio, C.M., Dudley T., L., Mack, M.C. 1999

    Disturbance and biological invasions: direct effects and feedbacks

    Walker, L.R. eds. Ecosystems of the World 16: Ecosystems of Disturbed Ground.ElsevierNew York, New York, USA413452
    Google Scholar
  16. del Moral, R. 1983Competitive effects on the structure of subalpine meadow communitiesCanadian Journal of Botany6314441452Google Scholar
  17. Dull, R.A. 1999Palynological evidence for 19th century grazing- induced vegetation change in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USAJournal of Biogeography26899912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyksterhuis, E.J. 1949Condition and management of rangeland based on quantitative ecologyJournal of Range Management2104115Google Scholar
  19. Etter, A.G. 1951How Kentucky bluegrass growsAnnals of Missouri Botanical Garden38293375Google Scholar
  20. Gibbens, R.P., H.F., Heady. 1964The influence of modern man on the vegetation of the Yosemite Valley. Manual 36California Agricultural Experimental Station, University of CaliforniaBerkeley, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Grevilliot, F., Krebs, L., Muller, S. 1998Comparative importance and interference of hydrological conditions and soil nutrient gradients in floristic biodiversity in flood meadowsBiodiversity and Conservation714951520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halpern, C.B. 1986Montane meadow plant associations of Sequoia National Park, CaliforniaMadrono33123Google Scholar
  23. Hanes, R.O. 1994Soil survey, Tahoe National Forest area, CaliforniaNational Cooperative Soil SurveyWashington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Heady H.F. and Zinke P.J. (1978). Vegetational changes in Yosemite Valley. Occasional Paper 5, National Parks Service, USAGoogle Scholar
  25. Hickman, J.C. eds. 1993The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of CaliforniaUniversity of California PressBerkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs, R.J., Huenneke, L.F. 1992Disturbance, diversity, and invasion: Implications for conservationConservation Biology6324337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, C.M., Needham, P.R. 1964Ionic composition of Sage- hen Creek, California, following an adjacent fireEcology47636639Google Scholar
  28. Kattelmann R. and Embury M. (1996). Riparian areas and wetlands, Chapter 5. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. III. Assessment Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Kauffman, J.B., Krueger, W.C. 1984Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications.a reviewJournal of Range Management37430438Google Scholar
  30. Kauffman, J.B., Krueger, W.C., Vara, M. 1983Effects of late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communitiesJournal of Range Management36685691Google Scholar
  31. Kauffman J., B., Krueger, W.C., Vara, M. 1983Impacts of cattle on streambanks in north-eastern OregonJournal of Range Management36683685Google Scholar
  32. Knapp, R.A., Mathews, K.R. 1996Livestock grazing, golden trout, and streams in the Golden Trout Wilderness, California: Impacts and management implicationsNorth American Journal of Fisheries Management16805820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, D.W., Chambers, J.C. 2002Restoration of riparian meadows degraded by livestock grazing: above-and below- ground responsesPlant Ecology1637791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, D.W., Chambers, J.C. 2001aEffects of water table, clipping, and species interactions on Carex nebrascensis and Poa pratensis in riparian meadowsWetlands21422430Google Scholar
  35. Martin, D.W., Chambers, J.C. 2001bRestoring degraded riparian meadows: biomass and species responsesJournal of Range Management54284291Google Scholar
  36. McCurdy G. (2000). Sagehen Creek Field Station weather data (http://www. wrcc.dri.edu/weather/sagh.html). Desert Research Institute, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Menke J.W., Davis C. and Beesley P. (1996). Rangeland assessment, Chapter 22. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystems Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. III. Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Davis, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Odion, D.C., Dudley, T.L., D’, Antonio.C.M. 1988

    Cattle grazing in southeastern Sierran meadows: ecosystem change and prospects for recovery

    Hall, C.A.Doyle-Jones, U. eds. The Mary DeDecker Symposium: Plant Biology of Eastern California.University of CaliforniaLos Angeles White Mountain Research Station, California, USA277292
    Google Scholar
  39. Pond, F.W. 1961Effect of three intensities of clipping on the density and production of meadow vegetationJournal of Range Management143438Google Scholar
  40. Rahman, M.S., Rutter, A.J. 1980A comparison of the ecology of Deschampsia cespitosa and Dactylis glomerata in relation to the water factor. II. Controlled experiments in glasshouse conditionsJournal of Ecology68476491Google Scholar
  41. Ratliff R.D. (1982). A meadow classification for the Sierra Nevada, California. General Technical Report PSW-60, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Ratliff R.D. (1985). Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Technical Report 84, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Ratliff R.D. and Harding E.E. (1993). Soil acidity, temperature, and water relationships of four clovers in Sierra Nevada meadows. Research Note PSW-RN-413, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Albany, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Sampson A.W., Chase A. and Hedrick D.W. (1951). California grasslands and range forage grasses. Bulletin 724, California Agriculture Experimental Station, University of California, Berkeley, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. SAS.1985SAS User’s Guide. Version 5.0SAS InstituteCary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. Schery, R.W. 1965The migration of a plantNatural History744045Google Scholar
  47. Schmitt, R.J. 1985Competitive interactions of two mobile prey species in a patchy environmentEcology66950958Google Scholar
  48. Selvin, S. 1995Practical Biostatistical MethodsDuxbury PressBelmont, California, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Silvertown, J.W., Lovett-Doust, J. 1993Introduction to Plant Population Biology3Blackwell Science Ltd.Boston, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  50. Stewart G. (1939). Reseeding range lands of the Intermountain Region. Report 1823, USDA Forest Service, USAGoogle Scholar
  51. Stohlgren, T.J., DeBenedetti, S.H., Parsons, D.J. 1989Effects of herbage removal on productivity of selected high-Sierra [USA]. meadow community typesEnvironmental Management13485492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Theodose, T.A., Bowman, W.D. 1997The influence of interspecific competition on the distribution of an alpine graminoid: evidence for the importance of plant competition in an extreme environmentOikos79101114Google Scholar
  53. Tilman, D. 1988Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant CommunitiesPrinceton University PressPrinceton, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Underwood, A.J. 1986

    The analysis of competition by field experiments

    Kikkawa, J.Anderson, D.J. eds. Community Ecology: Pattern and Process.Blackwell Scientific PublicationsBoston, Massachusetts, USA241268
    Google Scholar
  55. Underwood, A.J. 1997Experiments in Ecology: Their Logical Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of VarianceCambridge University PressNew York, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  56. USDA,  1994Region 2 Rangeland Analysis and Management Training GuideUSDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain RegionDenver, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Volland L.A. (1978). Trends in standing crop and species composition of a rested Kentucky bluegrass meadow over an 11-year period. In: Proceedings of the First International Rangelands Congress. Society of Range Management, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 526-529Google Scholar
  58. Volland L.A. (1985). Plant associations of the central Oregon pumice zone. R6-ECOL-104-(1985). Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. Wasser C.H. (1982). Ecology and culture of selected species useful in revegetating disturbed lands in the west. FWS/OBS-82/56, Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  60. Weaver, J.E. 1954North American PrairieJohnsen Publishing Co.Lincoln, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  61. WeaverT., , Gustafson, D., Lichthardt, J. 2001Exotic plants in early and late seral vegetation of fifteen northern Rocky Mountain environments HTSWestern North American Naturalist61417427Google Scholar
  62. Winer, B.J., Brown, D.R., Michels, K.M. 1991Statistical Principles in Experimental DesignMcGraw-HillNew York, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. Woodmansee, R.G. 1978Additions and losses of nitrogen in grassland ecosystemsBioscience28448453Google Scholar
  64. Zar, J.H. 1999Biostatistical Analysis4Prentice HallUpper Saddle River, New Jersey, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer S. Kluse
    • 1
  • Barbara H. Allen Diaz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Rangeland ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Science, Policy and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations