Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 197, Issue 1, pp 139–151 | Cite as

Restoring plant species diversity and community composition in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem

  • Daniel C. Laughlin
  • Jonathan D. Bakker
  • Mark L. Daniels
  • Margaret M. Moore
  • Cheryl A. Casey
  • Judith D. Springer
Article

Abstract

Monitoring of ecological restoration treatments often focuses on changes in community structure and function. We suggest that long-term changes in community composition also need to be explicitly considered when evaluating the success of restoration treatments. In 1992, we initiated an experiment in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem to evaluate responses to restoration treatments: (a) thinning the overstory vegetation (‘thinning’), (b) thinning plus forest floor manipulation with periodic prescribed burning (‘composite’), and (c) untreated ‘control.’ Treatments were further stratified by forest patch type: presettlement tree clumps (trees that established prior to the onset of fire exclusion in 1876), patches of retained postsettlement trees, patches where all postsettlement trees were removed, and remnant grass openings. Species richness did not differ among treatments for 10 years, but was highest in the composite treatment in 11th and 12th year after initial treatment. Community composition diverged among treatments 5 years after initial treatment, and compositional changes were greatest in the composite treatment. Species richness and composition differed among patch types prior to treatment. Remnant grass patches were the most diverse and presettlement patches were the least diverse. Following treatment, species richness in the postsettlement removed and retained patches, gradually approached levels found in remnant grass patches. Compositional differences among patch types changed a little by 2005. Species richness at the 2 m2 scale increased only where the overstory was thinned and the understory was burned. However, these changes may not be detectable for many years, and can vary temporally in response to events such as severe droughts. Nonnative species establishment may be reduced by scheduling longer burn intervals or by refraining from burning where fuel loads are not hazardous, though these options may hinder goals of increasing diversity. Restoring species diversity and community composition continues to be more difficult than restoring ecosystem structure and function.

Key-words

Long-term studies Permutational MANOVA Pinus ponderosa Prescribed fire Species richness Thinning Understory 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff and students of the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University (NAU). Particular thanks go to W. W. Covington, P. Z. Fulé, J. P. Roccaforte, J. Barber, L. Labate, M. Stoddard, L. Machina, and S. Curran. Thanks to the USDA Forest Service Coconino National Forest, especially for assistance with prescribed burns, and the Rocky Mountain Research Station, especially C. Edminster, for helping establish the experiment. Funding was provided by a National Science Foundation grant (DEB-9322706), McIntire-Stennis appropriations to the NAU School of Forestry, and the Ecological Restoration Institute. Funding for remeasurement and analysis in 2004 was provided by the USDA Forest Service, #03-DG-11031600–088.

References

  1. Allen CD, Savage M, Falk DA, Suckling KF, Swetnam TW, Schulke T, Stacey PB, Morgan P, Hoffman M, Klingel JT (2002) Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecol Appl 12:1418–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avery CC, Larson FR, Schubert GH (1976) Fifty-year records of virgin stand development in southwestern ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-22. 71 pGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker JD (2005) Long-term vegetation dynamics of ponderosa pine forests PhD Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, FlagstaffGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker JD, Moore MM (2007) Controls on vegetation structure in southwestern ponderosa pine forests, 1941 and 2004. Ecology 88:2305–2319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyle SI, Hart SC, Kaye JP, Waldrop MP (2005) Restoration and canopy type influence soil microflora in a ponderosa pine forest. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1627–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breshears DD, Cobb NS, Rich PM, Price KP, Allen CD, Balice RG, Romme WH, Kastens JH, Floyd ML, Belnap J, Anderson JJ, Myers OB, Meyer CW (2005) Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:15144–15148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christian JM, Wilson SD (1999) Long-term ecosystem impacts of an introduced grass in the northern Great Plains. Ecology 80:2397–2407Google Scholar
  9. Cortina J, Maestre FT, Vallejo R, Baeza MJ, Valdecantos A, Pérez-Devesa M (2006) Ecosystem structure, function, and restoration success: are they related? J Nat Conserv 14:152–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Covington WW, Moore MM (1994) Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: changes since Euro-American settlement. J For 92:39–47Google Scholar
  11. Covington WW, Fulé PZ, Moore MM, Hart SC, Kolb TE, Mast JN, Sackett SS, Wagner MR (1997) Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest. J For 95:23–29Google Scholar
  12. Crawford JA, Wahren C-HA, Kyle S, Moir WH (2001) Responses of exotic plant species to fires in Pinus ponderosa forests in northern Arizona. J Veg Sci 12:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dietrich JH (1980) Chimney Spring forest fire history. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-220Google Scholar
  14. Dodson EK, Fiedler CE (2006) Impacts of restoration treatments on alien plant invasion in Pinus ponderosa forests, Montana, USA. J Appl Ecol 43:887–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  16. Faith DP, Minchin PR, Belbin L (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetation 69:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feeney SR, Kolb TE, Wagner MR, Covington WW (1998) Influence of thinning and burning restoration treatments on presettlement ponderosa pines at the Gus Pearson Natural Area. Can J For Res 28:1295–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM (2004) Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. J Appl Ecol 41:604–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fulé PZ, Covington WW, Moore MM (1997) Determining reference conditions for ecosystem management of southwestern ponderosa pine forests. Ecol Appl 7:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fulé PZ, Laughlin DC, Covington WW (2005) Pine-oak forest dynamics five years after ecological restoration treatments, Arizona, USA. For Ecol Manage 218:129–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fulé PZ, Laughlin DC (2007) Wildland fire effects on forest structure over an altitudinal gradient, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. J Appl Ecol 44:136–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaines EM, Kallander HR, Wagner JE (1958) Controlled burning in southwestern ponderosa pine: results from the Blue Mountain plots, Fort Apache Indian Reservation. J For 56:323–327Google Scholar
  23. Griffis KL, Crawford JA, Wagner MR, Moir WH (2001) Understory response to management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. For Ecol Manage 146:239–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grime JP (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 111:1169–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Huston M (1979) A general hypothesis of species diversity. Am Nat 113:81–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones TA (1998) Viewpoint: the present status and future prospects of squirreltail research. J Range Manage 51:326–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaye JP, Hart SC (1998) Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecol Appl 8:1052–1060Google Scholar
  29. Keddy P (2005) Putting the plants back into plant ecology: six pragmatic models for understanding diversity and conserving plant diversity. Ann Bot 96:177–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keddy PA, Smith L, Campbell DR, Clark M, Montz G (2006) Patterns of herbaceous plant diversity in southeastern Louisiana pine savannas. Appl Veg Sci 9:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keeley JE, Rundel PH (2005) Fire and the Miocene expansion of C4 grasslands. Ecol Lett 8:683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keeley JE (2006) Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the western United States. Conserv Biol 20:375–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerns BK, Moore MM, Timpson ME, Hart SC (2003) Soil properties associated with vegetation patches in a Pinus ponderosa-bunchgrass mosaic. West N Am Nat 63:452–462Google Scholar
  34. Kolb TE, Holmberg KM, Wagner MR, Stone JE (1998) Regulation of ponderosa pine foliar physiology and insect resistance mechanisms by basal area treatment. Tree Physiol 18:375–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Korb JE, Springer JD, Powers SR, Moore MM (2005) Soil seed banks in Pinus ponderosa forests in Arizona: clues to site history and restoration potential. Appl Veg Sci 8:103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Laughlin DC, Bakker JD, Stoddard MT, Daniels ML, Springer JD, Gildar CN, Green AM, Covington WW (2004) Toward reference conditions: wildfire effects on flora in an old-growth ponderosa pine forest. For Ecol Manage 199:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Laughlin DC, Bakker JD, Fule PZ (2005) Understorey plant community structure in lower montane and subalpine forests, Grand Canyon National Park, USA. J Biogeogr 32:2083–2102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laughlin DC, Moore MM, Bakker JD, Casey CA, Springer JD, Fulé PZ, Covington WW (2006) Assessing targets for restoration of herbaceous vegetation in ponderosa pine forests. Restor Ecol 14:548–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology, 2nd edn. Developments in environmental modelling 20. Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 853 pGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindborg R, Eriksson O (2004) Effects of restoration on plant species richness and composition in scandinavian semi-natural grasslands. Restor Ecol 12:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lockwood JL, Pimm SL (1999) When does restoration succeed? In: Weiher E, Keddy P (eds) Ecological assembly rules: perspectives, advances, retreats. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. MacDougall AS, Turkington R (2005) Are invasive species the drivers or passengers of change in degraded ecosystems? Ecology 86:42–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mast JN, Fulé PZ, Moore MM, Covington WW, Waltz AEM (1999) Restoration of presettlement age structure of an Arizona ponderosa pine forest. Ecol Appl 9:228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McArdle BH, Anderson MJ (2001) Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297Google Scholar
  45. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR. 300 pGoogle Scholar
  46. McLaughlin SP (1978) Overstory attributes, light, throughfall, and the interpretation of overstory–understory relationships. For Sci 24:550–553Google Scholar
  47. Milchunas DG (2006) Responses of plant communities to grazing in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA, RMRS-GTR-169Google Scholar
  48. Moore MM, Deiter DA (1992) Stand density index as a predictor of forage production in northern Arizona pine forests. J Range Manage 45:267–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore MM, Casey CA, Bakker JD, Springer JD, Fulé PZ, Covington WW, Laughlin DC (2006) Herbaceous vegetation responses (1992–2004) to restoration treatments in a ponderosa pine forest. Rangeland Ecol Manage 59:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] (2005) Accessed 25 January, 2005 (http://www.noaa.gov)
  51. Naumburg E, DeWald LE (1999) Relationships between Pinus ponderosa forest structure, light characteristics, and understory graminoid species presence and abundance. For Ecol Manage 124:205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Naumburg E, DeWald LE, Kolb TE (2001) Shade responses of five grasses native to southwestern Pinus ponderosa forests. Can J Bot 79:1001–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Olberding SD (2000) Fort Valley: the beginnings of forest research. Forest History Today, Spring, 9–15Google Scholar
  54. Riegel GM, Miller RF, Krueger WC (1995) The effects of aboveground and belowground competition on understory species composition in a Pinus ponderosa forest. For Sci 41:864–889Google Scholar
  55. SAS Institute, Inc. (2004) JMP-IN ver 5.1.2. Statistical analysis software. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwartz MW, Brigham CA, Hoeksma JD, Lyons KG, Mills MH, van Mantgem PJ (2000) Linking biodiversity to ecosystem function: implications for conservation ecology. Oecologia 122:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Skov KR, Kolb TE, Wallin KF (2004) Tree size and drought affect ponderosa pine physiological response to thinning and burning treatments. For Sci 50:81–91Google Scholar
  58. Smith DM, Larson BC, Kelty MJ, Ashto PMS (1997) The practice of silviculture: applied forest ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Springer JD, Laughlin DC (2004) Seeding with natives increases species richness in a dry ponderosa pine forest (Arizona). Ecol Restor 22:220–221Google Scholar
  60. Tilman D (1982) Resource competition and community structure. Monographs in Population Biology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  61. Tilman D (1989) Ecological experimentation: strengths and conceptual problems. In: Likens GE (eds), Long-term studies in ecology: approaches and alternatives. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Tilman D, Knops J, Wedin D, Reich P (2002) Plant diversity and composition: effects on productivity and nutrient dynamics of experimental grasslands. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti I (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  63. USDA, NRCS [United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service] (2006) The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 5 September 2006). National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874–4490 USA
  64. Vose JM, White AS (1991) Biomass response mechanisms of understory species the first year after prescribed burning in an Arizona ponderosa-pine community. For Ecol Manage 40:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Whelan RJ (1995) The ecology of fire. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Whitlock MC (2005) Combining probability from independent tests: the weighted Z-method is superior to Fisher’s approach. J Evol Biol 18:1368–1373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wolfson BAS, Kolb TE, Sieg CH, Clancy KM (2005) Effects of post-fire conditions on germination and seedling success of diffuse knapweed in northern Arizona. For Ecol Manage 216:342–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel C. Laughlin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jonathan D. Bakker
    • 3
  • Mark L. Daniels
    • 1
  • Margaret M. Moore
    • 2
  • Cheryl A. Casey
    • 4
  • Judith D. Springer
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecological Restoration InstituteNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  2. 2.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA
  3. 3.College of Forest ResourcesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.Yavapai CollegePrescottUSA

Personalised recommendations