Plant Ecology

, 212:1699 | Cite as

The roles of exotic grasses and forbs when restoring native species to highly invaded southern California annual grassland

Article

Abstract

Many semi-arid shrublands in the western US have experienced invasion by a suite of exotic grasses and forbs that have altered community structure and function. The effect of the exotic grasses in this area has been studied, but little is known about how exotic forbs influence the plant community. A 3-year experiment in southern California coastal sage scrub (CSS) now dominated by exotic grasses was done to investigate the influence of both exotic grasses (mainly Bromus spp.) and exotic forbs (mainly Erodium spp.) on a restoration seeding (9 species, including grasses, forbs, and shrubs). Experimental plots were weeded to remove one, both, or neither group of exotic species and seeded at a high rate with a mix of native species. Abundance of all species varied with precipitation levels, but seeded species established best when both groups of exotic species were removed. The removal of exotic grasses resulted in an increase in exotic and native forb cover, while removal of exotic forbs led to an increase in exotic grass cover and, at least in one year, a decrease in native forb cover. In former CSS now converted to exotic annual grassland, a competitive hierarchy between exotic grasses and forbs may prevent native forbs from more fully occupying the habitat when either group of exotics is removed. This apparent competitive hierarchy may interact with yearly variation in precipitation levels to limit restoration seedings of CSS/exotic grassland communities. Therefore, management of CSS and exotic grassland in southern California and similar areas must consider control of both exotic grasses and forbs when restoration is attempted.

Keywords

Bromus California annual grassland Coastal sage scrub Erodium Grassland restoration Removal experiment 

References

  1. Allen EB, Forman RTT (1976) Plant species removals and old-field community structure and stability. Ecology 57:1233–1243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen EB, Padgett PE, Bytnerowicz E, Minnich R (1998) Nitrogen deposition effects on coastal sage vegetation of southern California. USDA For Serv Gen Tech Report. PSW-GTR-166Google Scholar
  3. Allen EB, Cox RD, Tennant T, Kee SN, Deutschman D (2005) Landscape restoration in southern California forblands: response of abandoned farmland to invasive annual grass control. Israel J Plant Sci 53:237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowler PA (2000) Ecological restoration of coastal sage scrub and its potential role in habitat conservation plans. Environ Manage 26(Supp 1):S85–S96PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks ML (2000) Competition between alien annual grasses and native annual plants in the Mojave desert. Am Midl Nat 144:92–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bush JK, Van Auken OW (1989) Soil resource levels and competition between a woody and herbaceous species. Bull Torrey Bot Club 116:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chesson PL (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:343–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cione NK, Padgett PE, Allen EB (2002) Restoration of a native shrubland impacted by exotic grasses, frequent fire, and nitrogen deposition in southern California. Restor Ecol 10:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cox RD, Allen EB (2008) Stability of exotic annual grasses following restoration efforts in southern California coastal sage scrub. J Appl Ecol 45:495–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox RD, Anderson VJ (2004) Increasing native diversity of cheatgrass-dominated rangeland through assisted succession. J Range Manage. 57:203–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Antonio CM, Vitousek PM (1992) Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 23:63–87Google Scholar
  12. Diaz S, Symstad AJ, Chapin FS III, Wardle DA, Huenneke LF (2003) Functional diversity revealed by removal experiments. Trends Ecol Evol 18:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DiTomaso JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dormann CF, Brooker RW (2002) Facilitation and competition in the high Arctic: the importance of the experimental approach. Acta Oecol 23:297–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eliason SA, Allen EB (1997) Exotic grass competition in suppressing native shrubland re-establishment. Restor Ecol 5:245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillespie IG, Allen EB (2004) Fire and competition in a southern California grassland: impacts on the rare forb Erodium macrophyllum. J Appl Ecol 41:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gillespie IG, Allen EB (2008) Restoring the rare forb Erodium macrophyllum to exotic grassland in southern California. Endanger Species Res. 5:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hendry GW (1931) The adobe brick as a historical source. Agri Hist 5:110–127Google Scholar
  19. Hendry GW, Kelly MP (1925) The plant content of adobe bricks. Calif Hist Soc Q 4:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hickman JC (1993) The jepson manual: higher plants of California. UC Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  21. Jurjavcic NL, Harrison S, Wolf AT (2002) Abiotic stress, competition, and the distribution of the native annual grass Vulpia microstachys in a mosaic environment. Oecologia 130:555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keeley JE, Fotheringham CJ, Baer-Keeley M (2005) Determinants of postfire recovery and succession in Mediterranean-climate shrublands of California. Ecol Appl 15:1515–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laycock WA (1991) Stable states and thresholds of range condition on north American rangelands: a viewpoint. J Range Manage 44:427–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenz TI, Moyle-Croft JL, Facelli JM (2003) Direct and indirect effects of exotic annual grasses on species composition of a south Australia grassland. Austral Ecol 28:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Litav M, Kupernik G, Orshan G (1963) The role of competition as a factor in determining the distribution of dwarf shrub communities in the Mediterranean territory of Israel. J Ecol 51:467–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lundberg P, Ranta E, Kaitala V (2000) Species loss leads to community closure. Ecol Lett 3:456–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lyons KG, Schwartz MW (2001) Rare species loss alters ecosystem function—invasion resistance. Ecol Lett 4:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mack RN (1981) Invasion of Bromus tectorum into western North America: an ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosyst 7:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mack MC, D’Antonio CM (1998) Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 13:195–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mensing S, Byrne R (1998) Pre-mission invasion of Erodium cicutarium in California. J Biogeogr 25:757–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Minnich RA (2008) California’s fading wildflowers: lost legacy and biological invasions. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Minnich RA, Dezzani RJ (1998) Historical decline of coastal sage scrub in the riverside-Perris plain, California. West Birds. 29:366–391Google Scholar
  33. Nelson JR, Wilson AM, Goebel CJ (1970) Factors influencing broadcast seeding in bunchgrass range. J Range Manage 23:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SAS Institute (2006) JMP statistics and graphics guide. Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  35. Schultz AM, Launchbaugh JL, Biswell HH (1955) Relationship between grass density and brush seedling survival. Ecology 33:226–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stylinski CD, Allen EB (1999) Lack of native species recovery following severe exotic disturbance in southern Californian shrublands. J Appl Ecol 36:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suding KN, Collins SL, Gough L, Clark C, Cleland EE, Gross KL, Milchunas DG, Pennings S (2005) Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization. P Natl Acad Sci USA 102:4378–4392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Symstad AJ, Tilman D (2001) Diversity loss, recruitment limitation, and ecosystem functioning: lessons learned from a removal experiment. Oikos 92:424–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wardle DA, Bonner KI, Barker GM, Yeates GW, Nicholson KS, Bardgett RD, Watson RN, Ghani A (1999) Plant removals in perennial grassland: vegetation dynamics, decomposers, soil biodiversity, and ecosystem properties. Ecol Monogr 69:535–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Westman WE (1981) Diversity relations and succession in California coastal sage scrub. Ecology 62:170–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson SD, Bakker JD, Christian JM, Li X, Ambrose LG, Waddington J (2004) Semiarid old-field restoration: Is neighbor control needed? Ecol Appl 14:476–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Botany and Plant Sciences and Center for Conservation BiologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural Resources ManagementTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations