Environmental Management

, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 252–265 | Cite as

Convergent and Contingent Community Responses to Grass Source and Dominance During Prairie Restoration Across a Longitudinal Gradient

Article

Abstract

Restoring prairie on formerly cultivated land begins by selecting propagule seed sources and the diversity of species to reintroduce. This study examined the effects of dominant grass propagule source (cultivar vs. non-cultivar) and sown propagule diversity (grass:forb sowing ratio) on plant community structure. Two field experiments were established in Kansas and Illinois consisting of identical split plot designs. Dominant grass source was assigned as the whole-plot factor, and sown dominance of grasses (five levels of seeded grass dominance) as the subplot factor. Species density, cover, and diversity were quantified for 5 years. The effect of dominant grass source on the cover of focal grasses, sown species, and volunteer species was contingent upon location, with variation between dominant grass sources observed exclusively in Kansas. Species density and diversity showed regionally convergent patterns in response to dominant grass source. Contrary to our hypotheses, total species density and diversity were not lower in the presence of grass cultivars, the grass source we had predicted would be more competitive. Sown grass dominance effects on the cover of the focal grass species were contingent upon location resulting from establishment corresponding better to the assigned treatments in Illinois. All other cover groups showed regionally convergent patterns, with lower cover of volunteers and higher cover of sown forbs, diversity, and species density in the lowest sown grass dominance treatment in both sites. Thus, decisions regarding the diversity of propagules to reintroduce had more consequence for plant community structure than cultivar or non-cultivar source of dominant grasses.

Keywords

Restoration Grassland Ecotype Seed source 

Supplementary material

267_2013_209_MOESM1_ESM.docx (403 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 403 kb)

References

  1. Baer SG, Gibson DJ, Benscoter AM, Reed LK, Campbell RE, Klopf RP, Willand JE, Wodika BR. (2013) No effect of seed source on multiple aspects of ecosystem functioning during ecological restoration: cultivars compared to local ecotypes of dominant grasses. Evol Appl. doi:10.1111/eva.12124
  2. Baer SG, Blair JM, Collins SL, Knapp AK (2004) Plant community responses to resource availability and heterogeneity during restoration. Oecologia 139:617–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Betz RF (1986) One decade of research in prairie restoration at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), Batavia, Illinois. In Clambey GK and Pemble RH (eds) The prairie: past, present, and future. Proceedings of Ninth North American Prairie Conference, Moorhead State University, Morehead, MN. Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies, Fargo, North Dakota, pp 179–185Google Scholar
  4. Blumenthal DM, Jordan NR, Russelle MP (2003) Soil carbon addition controls weeds and facilitates prairie restoration. Ecol Appl 13:605–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford MA, Wood SA, Maestre FT, Reynolds JF, Warren RJ II (2012) Contingency in ecosystem but not plant community response to multiple global change factors. N Phytol 196:462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw AD (1987) Restoration: an acid test for ecology. In: Jordan W, Gilpin M, Aber J (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–30Google Scholar
  8. Broadhurst LM, Lowe A, Coates DJ, Cunningham SA, McDonald M, Vesk PA, Yates C (2008) Seed supply for broadscale restoration: maximizing evolutionary potential. Evol Appl 1:587–597Google Scholar
  9. Carter DL, Blair JM (2012a) Recovery of native plant community characteristics on a chronosequence of restored prairies seeded into pastures in west-central Iowa. Restor Ecol 20:170–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter DL, Blair JM (2012b) High richness and dense seeding enhance grassland restoration establishment, but have little effect on drought response. Ecol Appl 22:1308–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clausen J and Hiesey WM (1958) Experimental studies on the nature of species. IV. Genetic structure of ecological races. Publication #615, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. Cottam G (1987) Community dynamics on an artificial prairie. In: Jordan WR III, Gilpin ME, Aber JD (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 257–270Google Scholar
  13. Dickson TL, Busby WH (2009) Forb species establishment increases with decreased grass seeding density and with increased forb seeding density in a Northeast Kansas, USA, experimental prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 17:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doherty JM, Callaway JC, Zedler JB (2011) Diversity-function relationships changed in a long-term restoration experiment. Ecol Appl 21:2143–2155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dyer AR, Rice KJ (1997) Evidence of spatial genetic structure in a California bunchgrass population. Oecologia 112:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erickson B, Navarrete-Tindall NE (2004) Missouri native ecotype program: increasing local-source native seed. Nat Areas J 24:15–22Google Scholar
  17. Falk DA (1990) Integrated strategies for conserving plant genetic diversity. Ann Mo Bot Gard 77:38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fattorini M, Halle S (2004) The dynamic environmental filter model: how do filtering effects change in assembling communities after disturbance? In: Temperton VM, Hobbs RJ, Nuttle T, Halle S (eds) Assembly rules and restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, pp 96–114Google Scholar
  19. Fehr WR (1987) Principles of cultivar development: theory and technique. Macmillan Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 Press, New York, pp 69–80Google Scholar
  21. Gibson DJ, Allstadt AJ, Baer SG, Geisler M (2012) Effects of foundation species genotypic diversity on subordinate species richness in an assembling community. Oikos 121:496–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibson DJ, Baer SG, Klopf RP, Reed LK, Wodika BR, Willand JE (2013) Limited effects of dominant species population source on community composition during community assembly. J Veg Sci 24:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gordon DR, Rice KJ (1998) Patterns of differentiation in wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana): implications for restoration efforts. Restor Ecol 6:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gustafson DJ, Gibson DJ, Nickrent DL (2004) Conservation genetics of two co-dominant grass species in an endangered grassland ecosystem. J Appl Ecol 41:389–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansen MJ and Gibson DJ (2013) Use of multiple criteria in an ecological assessment of a prairie restoration chronosequence. Appl Veg Sci, in press doi:10.1111/avsc.12051
  26. Harris JA, Hobbs RJ, Higgs E, Aronson J (2006) Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restor Ecol 14:170–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hayden BP (1998) Regional climate and the distribution of tallgrass prairie. In: Knapp AK, Briggs JM, Hartnett DC, Collins SL (eds) Grassland dynamics: long-term ecological research in tallgrass prairie. Oxford Press, New York, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  28. Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc 10:19Google Scholar
  29. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 4:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (2004) Ecological filters, thresholds, and gradients in resistance to ecosystem reassembly. In: Temperton VM, Hobbs RJ, Nuttle T, Halle S (eds) Assembly rules and restoration ecology. Island Press, Washington, pp 72–95Google Scholar
  31. Hufford KM, Mazer SJ (2003) Plant ecotypes: genetic differentiation in the age of ecological restoration. Trends Ecol Evol 18:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huxman TE, Smith MD, Fay PA et al (2004) Convergence across biomes to a common rain-use efficiency. Science 429:651–654Google Scholar
  33. Jackson ST, Hobbs RJ (2009) Ecological restoration in the light of ecological history. Science 325:567–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keddy PA (1992) Assembly response and rules—2 goals for predictive community ecology. J Veg Sci 3:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller M, Kollman J, Edwards PJ (2000) Genetic introgression from distant provenances reduces fitness in local weed populations. J Appl Ecol 37:647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kindscher K, Frazer A (2000) Planting forbs first provides greater species diversity in tallgrass prairie restorations (Kansas). Ecol Restor 18:115–116Google Scholar
  37. Klopf RK, Baer SG (2011) Root dynamics of cultivar and non-cultivar population sources of two dominant grasses during initial establishment of tallgrass prairie. Restor Ecol 19:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lambert AM, Baer SG, Gibson DJ (2011) Intraspecific variation in ecophysiology of three dominant prairie grasses used in restoration: cultivar versus non-cultivar population sources. Restor Ecol 19:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laurenroth WK, Burke IC, Gutmann MP (1999) The structure and function of ecosystems in the central North American grassland region. Gt Plains Res 9:223–259Google Scholar
  40. Lawton JH (1999) Are there general laws in ecology? Oikos 84:177–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lesica P, Allendorf FW (1999) Ecological genetics and the restoration of plant communities: mix or match? Restor Ecol 7:42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  43. MacDougall AS, Wilson SD, Bakker JD (2008) Climatic variability alters the outcome of long-term community assembly. J Ecol 96:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Manning R (1995) Grassland: the history, biology, politics, and promise of the American Prairie. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. McCain KNS, Baer SG, Blair JM, Wilson GWT (2010) Dominant grasses suppress local diversity in restored tallgrass prairie. Restor Ecol 18:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McKay JK, Christian CE, Harrison S, Rice KJ (2005) “How local is local?—a review of practical and conceptual issues in the genetics of restoration. Restor Ecol 13:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Milliken, GA and Johnson DE (1992) Analysis of messy data. Vol 1: designed experiments. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Montalvo AM, Williams SL, Rice KJ, Buchmann SL, Cory C, Handel SN, Nabhan GP, Primack R, Robichaux RH (1997) Restoration biology: a population biology perspective. Restor Ecol 5:277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Climatic Data Center. Asheville, NC, USA. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/. Accessed 21 Oct 2012
  50. Paradeis BL, DeKeyser ES, Kirby DR (2010) Evaluation of restored and native pothole region plant communities following an environmental gradient. Nat Areas J 30:294–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piper JK, Schmidt ES, Janzen AJ (2007) Effects of species richness on resident and target species components in a prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 15:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Polley HW, Derner JD, Wilsey BJ (2005) Patterns of plant species diversity in remnant and restored tallgrass prairies. Restor Ecol 13:480–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rice KJ, Emery NC (2003) Managing microevolution: restoration in the face of global change. Front Ecol Environ 1:469–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rowe HI (2010) Tricks of the trade: techniques and opinions from 38 experts in tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor Ecol 18:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Samson FB, Knopf FL, Ostlie WR (2004) Great plains ecosystems: past, present, and future. Wildl Soc Bull 32:6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skeel VA, Gibson DJ (1996) Physiological performance of Andropogon gerardii, Panicum virgatum, and Sorghastrum nutans on reclaimed mine spoil. Restor Ecol 4:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sluis WJ (2002) Patterns of species richness and composition in re-created grassland. Restor Ecol 10:677–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith MD, Wilcox JC, Kelly T, Knapp AK (2004) Dominance not richness determines invasibility of tallgrass prairie. Oikos 106:253–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taft JB, Hauser C, Robertson KR (2006) Estimating floristic integrity in tallgrass prairie. Biol Conserv 131:42–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Templeton AR (1986) Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. In: Soule M (ed) Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, pp 105–116Google Scholar
  61. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1995) Grass varieties in the United States. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  62. Weber S (1999) Designing seed mixes for prairie restorations: revisiting the formula. Ecol Restor 17:196–201Google Scholar
  63. Wilsey BJ (2010) Productivity and subordinate species response to dominant grass species and seed source during restoration. Restor Ecol 18:628–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan P. Klopf
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sara G. Baer
    • 1
  • David J. Gibson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Biology and Center for EcologySouthern Illinois UniversityCarbondaleUSA
  2. 2.RoanokeUSA

Personalised recommendations