Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 219, Issue 8, pp 901–911 | Cite as

Degraded soil increases the performance of a dominant grass, Andropogon gerardii (Big bluestem)

Article
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Dominant grasses can suppress subordinate species in grassland restorations. Examining factors that influence performance of a dominant grass when interacting with subordinate forbs may provide insights for maintaining plant community diversity. The objective of our study was to determine how soils of different restoration ages and functionally different forbs influence the performance (using biomass and tillering rate as proxies) of a dominant grass: Andropogon gerardii. Sites included a cultivated field and two restored prairies (4 or 16 years after restoration) at Konza Prairie (NE Kansas). We hypothesized A. gerardii performance would be greater in more degraded soils and when interacting with legumes. Soil structure, nutrient status, and microbial biomass were measured in soil that was used to conduct the plant interaction study. Andropogon gerardii performance was measured during an 18-week greenhouse experiment using the relative yield index calculated from net absolute tillering rate and final biomass measurements in three soil restoration age treatments combined with four interacting forb treatments. Restoration improved soil structure, reduced plant-available nutrients, and increased microbial biomass. Relative yield index values of A. gerardii were greater with non-legumes than legumes. Andropogon gerardii performed best in degraded soils, which may explain the difficulty in restoring tallgrass prairie diversity in long-term cultivated soil. Results from this study suggest practices that promote soil aggregation and fungal biomass, coupled with including a high abundance of legumes in seed mixes could reduce dominance of A. gerardii and likely increase plant diversity in tallgrass prairie restorations.

Keywords

Microbial biomass Nitrogen Phosphorus Plant–soil interactions Phospholipid fatty acids Prairie Restoration Soil structure 

Abbreviations

N

Nitrogen

P

Phosphorus

PLFA

Phospholipid fatty acid

RY

Relative yield

Notes

Acknowledgements

Patrick Harris and Tianjiao Adams assisted with fieldwork. Amanda Rothert assisted with lab work. John Miller managed greenhouse conditions. Funding for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation through the Konza Prairie Long-Term Ecological Research Program (DEB 1440484).

References

  1. Ashton IW, Miller AE, Bowman WD, Suding KN (2010) Niche complementarity due to plasticity in resource use: plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 91:3252–3260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach EM, Baer SG, Meyer CK, Six J (2010) Soil texture affects soil microbial and structural recovery during grassland restoration. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2182–2191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baer SG (2016) Nutrients as determinants and endpoints in ecological restoration. In: Palmer MA, Zedler J, Falk D (eds) Foundations of restoration ecology, 2nd edn. Island Press, pp 333–364Google Scholar
  4. Baer SG, Kitchen DJ, Blair JM, Rice CW (2002) Changes in ecosystem structure and function along a Chronosequence of restored grasslands. Ecol Appl 12:1688–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baer SG, Meyer CK, Bach EM, Klopf RP, Six J (2010) Contrasting ecosystem recovery on two soil textures: implications for carbon mitigation and grassland conservation. Ecosphere, 1, article 5Google Scholar
  7. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL (2016) Environmental heterogeneity has a weak effect on diversity during community assembly in tallgrass prairie. Ecol Monogr 86:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 6:1–48Google Scholar
  9. Bever JD (1994) Feeback between plants and their soil communities in an old field community. Ecology 75:1965–1977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bever JD (2003) Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: conceptual frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytol 157:465–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bligh EG, Dyer WJ (1959) A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Can J Biochem Phys 37:911–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bossio DA, Scow KM, Gunapala N, Graham KJ (1998) Determinants of soil microbial communities: effects of agricultural management, season, and soil type on phospholipid fatty acid profiles. Microb Ecol 36:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradshaw AD (2004) The role of nutrients and the importance of functioning in the assembly of ecosystems. In: Templeton VM, Hobbs R, Nuttle TH, Halle S (eds) Assembly rules and restoration ecology: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp 325–340Google Scholar
  14. Camill P, McKone MJ, Sturges ST, Severud WJ, Ellis E, Limmer J, Martin CB, Navratil RT, Rurdie AJ, Sandel BS, Talukder S, Trout A (2004) Community- and ecosystem-level changes in a species-rich tallgrass prairie restoration. Ecol Appl 14:1680–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O’Connor MI, Gonzalez A (2011) The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. Am J Bot 98:572–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Casper BB, Castelli JP (2007) Evaluating plant–soil feedback together with competition in a serpentine grassland. Ecol Lett 10:394–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Castelli JP, Casper BB (2003) Intraspecific AM fungal variation contributes to plant-fungal feedback in a serpentine grassland. Ecology 84:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Wit CT (1960) On competition. Verslagen Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen 66:1–82Google Scholar
  19. DeGrood SH, Claassen VP, Scow KM (2005) Microbial community composition on native and drastically disturbed serpentine soils. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1427–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du Z-L, Zhao J-K, Wang Y-D, Zhang QZ (2017) Biochar addition drives soil aggregation and carbon sequestration in aggregate fractions from an intensive agricultural system. J Soil Sediments 17:581–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ehrenfeld JG, Ravit B, Elgersma K (2005) Feedback in the plant-soil system. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:75–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson DJ, Connolly J, Hartnett DC, Weidenhamer JD (1999) Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J Ecol 87:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hansen MJ, Gibson DJ (2014) Use of multiple criteria in an ecological assessment of a prairie restoration chronosequence. Appl Veg Sci 17:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hooper DU, Vitousek PM (1998) Effects of plant composition and diversity on nutrient cycling. Ecol Monogr 68:121–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jastrow JD (1996) Soil aggregate formation and the accrual of particulate and mineral-associated organic matter. Soil Biol Biochem 28:665–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jastrow JD, Miller RM, Lussenhop J (1998) Contributions of interacting biological mechanisms to soil aggregate stabilization in restored prairie. Soil Biol Biochem 30:905–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jien S-H, Wand C-S (2013) Effects of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a highly weathered soil. CATENA 110:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kabir Z (2005) Tillage or no-tillage: impact on mycorrhizae. Can J Plant Sci 85:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klopf RP, Baer SG, Bach EM, Six J (2017) Restoration and management for plant diversity enhances the rate of belowground ecosystem recovery. Ecol Appl 27:355–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB (2016) lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-33. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest
  31. Lenth RV (2016) Least-squares means: the R Package lsmeans. J Stat Softw 69:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Li Y, Gao Z, Tang L (2016) Soil-plant characteristics in an age sequence Corolina varia L. plantations along embankments. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 16:187–199Google Scholar
  33. Li W, Li J, Liu S, Zhang R, Qi W, Zhang R, Knops JMH, Lu J (2017) Magnitude of species diversity effect on aboveground plant biomass increases through successional time of abandoned farmlands on the eastern Tibetan Plateau of China. Land Degrad Dev 28:370–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCain KNS, Baer SG, Blair JM, Wilson GWT (2010) Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Restor Ecol 18:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCain KNS, Wilson GWT, Blair JM (2011) Mycorrhizal suppression alters plant productivity and forb establishment in a grass-dominated prairie restoration. Plant Ecol 212:1675–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKinley VL, Peacock AD, White DC (2005) Microbial community PLFA and PHB responses to ecosystem restoration in tallgrass prairie soils. Soil Biol Biochem 37(10):1946–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller RM, Jastrow JD (2000) Mycorrhizal fungi influence soil structure. In: Kapulnik Y, Douds DD (eds) Arbuscular mycorrhizas: molecular biology and physiology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Myers JA, Harms KE (2011) Seed arrival and ecological filters interact to assemble high-diversity plant communities. Ecology 92:676–686CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Earth System Research Laboratory Physical Sciences Division. Data from 2003–2013. Available from: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/cdo/269908.csv
  40. Olsson PA, Bååth E, Jakobsen I, Söderström B (1995) The use of phospholipid and neutral lipid fatty acids to estimate biomass of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in soil. Mycol Res 99(5):623–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rayment GE (2010) Soil chemical methods—Australasia pages, pp 174–179Google Scholar
  42. Rosenzweig S, Carson M, Blair J (2016) Changes in soil properties, microbial biomass, and fluxes of C and N in soil following post-agricultural grassland restoration. Appl Soil Ecol 100:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Samson FB, Knopf FL, Ostlie WR (2004) Great plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildl Soc Bull 32:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scott DA, Baer SG, Blair JM (2017) Recovery and relative influence of root, microbial, and structural properties of soil on physically sequestered carbon stocks in restored grassland. Soil Sci Soc Am J 81:50–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Six J, Paustian K, Elliott ET, Combrink C (2000) Soil structure and organic matter: I. Distribution of aggregate-size classes and aggregate-associated carbon. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sluis WJ (2002) Patterns of species richness and composition in re-created grassland. Restor Ecol 10:677–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Temperton VM, Mwangi PM, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Buchmann N (2007) Positive interactions between nitrogen-fixing legumes and four different neighbouring species in a biodiversity experiment. Oecologia 151:190–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. The R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2014) R version 3.0.1 (2013-05-16) “Good Sport”. Platform: x86_64-apple-darwin10.8.0 (64-bit)Google Scholar
  49. Thomas H (1980) Terminology and definitions in studies of grassland plants. Grass Forage Sci 35:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thomas RS, Franson RL, Bethlenfalvay GJ (1993) Separation of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus and root effects on soil aggregation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tilman D, Reich PB, Knops J, Wedin D, Mielke T, Lehman C (2001) Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294:843–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Tilman D, Reich PB, Isbell F (2012) Biodiversity impacts ecosystem productivity as much as resources, disturbance, or herbivory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:10394–10397CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles JM (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (2014) The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 9 June 2014). National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC 27401-4901 USA
  55. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Cooperative Soil Survey. Reading Series [Internet]. MLRA soil survey regional office responsible: Denver(CO); [2008 October, cited 2014 April 28]. Available from: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/R/READING.html
  56. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed [2014 April 28]
  57. van Bavel CHM (1950) Mean weight-diameter of soil aggregates as a statistical index of soil aggregation. Soil Science Society Proceedings. Journal paper J 1681 of the Iowa Agriculture Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
  58. Veen GF, Freschet GT, Ordonez A, Wardle DA (2015) Litter quality and environmental controls of home-field advantage effects on litter decomposition. Oikos 124:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waesch G, Becker T (2009) Plant diversity differs between young and old mesic meadows in a central European low mountain region. Agric Ecosyst Environ 129:457–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wang CT, Long RJ, Wang QL, Jing ZC, Shi JJ (2009) Changes in plant diversity, biomass and soil C, in alpine meadows in different degradation stages in the headwaters region of Three Rivers, China. Land Degrad Dev 20:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wedin D, Tilman D (1993) Competition among grasses along a nitrogen gradient: initial Conditions and mechanisms of competition. Ecol Monogr 63:199–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weigelt A, Jolliffe P (2003) Indices of plant competition. J Ecol 91:707–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Welden CW, Slauson WL (1986) The intensity of competition versus its importance: an overlooked distinction and some implications. Q Rev Biol 61:23–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. White R, Murray S, Rohweder M (2000) Pilot analysis of global ecosystems: grassland ecosystem technical report. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams RJ, Hallgren SW, Wilson GWT (2012) Frequency of prescribed burning in an upland oak forest determines soil and litter properties and alters the soil microbial community. For Ecol Manag 265:241–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilsey B, Stirling G (2007) Species richness and evenness respond in a different manner to propagule density in developing prairie microcosm communities. Plant Ecol 190:259–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson GWT, Hartnett DC (1998) Interspecific variation in plant responses to mycorrhizal colonization in tallgrass prairie. Am J Bot 85:1732–1738CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Biology and Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations