Advertisement

Plant Ecology

, Volume 213, Issue 11, pp 1729–1737 | Cite as

Mechanism of facilitation by sedge and cotton-grass tussocks on seedling establishment in a post-mined peatland

Article

Abstract

In stressful and disturbed ecosystems, seedling establishment may be facilitated by early colonizing plants. We examined the mechanism of such facilitation by tussock-forming species (Carex middendorffii and Eriophorum vaginatum), focusing on the independent and interactive effects of tussock litter and tussock mound substrate. Shading by litter on tussock mounds provides a stable but dryer substrate that may negatively affect early colonizers, owing to the co-occurrence of light deficiency and limited water availability, but positively affect late colonizers by subsequent amelioration of water availability. We used seed sowing and seedling transplant experiments with un-manipulated tussocks and manipulated shading × tussock mounds to examine seedling emergence, survival, and the biomass of early (Moliniopsis japonica) and late (Lobelia sessilifolia) colonizers in a post-mined peatland in northern Japan. Carex and Eriophorum tussocks facilitated seedling emergence and the growth of M. japonica and L. sessilifolia. Manipulation experiments indicated that the major positive effect was in providing stable substrates for seeds and seedlings. While the survival and growth of both colonizers were unaffected by shading alone and were negatively affected by tussock mounds alone, shading on tussock mounds decreased both the survival and growth in M. japonica but increased it in L. sessilifolia. Overall, tussock mounds with litter shading accelerated seedling establishment, especially that of late colonizers, in post-mined peatland. Our results indicate that the importance of facilitation mechanisms, for early successional plant composition that result from independent and interactive processes that co-occur as environmental conditions change.

Keywords

Carex middendorffii Early and late colonizers Eriophorum vaginatum Interactive factors Litter Species specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Munemitsu Akasaka and Takashi Y. Ida for their comments on the manuscript, and we also thank Tatsuya I. Saito for his support in the field. Thanks are due to the Ministry of the Environment of Japan for permission to conduct this research. This study was partly supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the Global Center of Excellence Program at Hokkaido University. We also thank Katja Schiffers and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

References

  1. Baumeister D, Callaway RM (2006) Facilitation by Pinus flexilis during succession: a hierarchy of mechanisms benefits other plant species. Ecology 87:1816–1830. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2006)87[1816:FBPFDS]2.0.CO;2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertness MD, Callaway R (1994) Positive interactions in communities. Trends Ecol Evol 9:191–193. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(94)90088-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boulant N, Navas ML, Corcket E, Lepart J (2008) Habitat amelioration and associational defense as main facilitative mechanisms in Mediterranean grasslands grazed by domestic livestock. Ecoscience 15:407–415. doi: 10.2980/15-3-3126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brooker RW, Callaghan TV (1998) The balance between positive and negative plant interactions and its relationship to environmental gradients: a model. Oikos 81:196–207. doi: 10.2307/3546481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruno JF, Stachowicz JJ, Bertness MD (2003) Inclusion of facilitation into ecological theory. Trends Ecol Evol 18:119–125. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00045-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell DR, Lavoie C, Rochefort L (2002) Wind erosion and surface stability in abandoned milled peatlands. Can J Soil Sci 82:85–95. doi: 10.4141/S00-089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chambers JC, MacMahon JA (1994) A day in the life of a seed: movements and fates of seeds and their implications for natural and managed systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 25:263–292. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.25.1.263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chambers JC, MacMahon JA, Haefner JH (1991) Seed entrapment in alpine ecosystems: effects of soil particle size and diaspore morphology. Ecology 72:1668–1677. doi: 10.2307/1940966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crain CM, Bertness MD (2005) Community impacts of a tussock sedge: is ecosystem engineering important in benign habitats? Ecology 86:2695–2704. doi: 10.1890/04-1517 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dittmar LA, Neely RN (1999) Wetland seed bank response to sedimentation varying in loading rate and texture. Wetlands 19:341–351. doi: 10.1007/BF03161765 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Egawa C, Tsuyuzaki S (2011) Seedling establishment of late colonizer is facilitated by seedlings and overstory of early colonizer in a post-mined peatland. Plant Ecol 212:369–381. doi: 10.1007/s11258-010-9828-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egawa C, Koyama A, Tsuyuzaki S (2009) Relationships between the developments of seedbank, standing vegetation and litter in a post-mined peatland. Plant Ecol 203:217–228. doi: 10.1007/s11258-008-9536-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foulds SA, Warburton J (2007) Wind erosion of blanket peat during a short period of surface desiccation (North Pennines, Northern England). Earth Surf Proc Land 32:481–488. doi: 10.1002/esp.1422 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Girard M, Lavoie C, Theriault M (2002) The regeneration of a highly disturbed ecosystem: a mined peatland in southern Quebec. Ecosystems 5:274–288. doi: 10.1007/s10021-001-0071-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay of facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975. doi: 10.2307/2265937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holmgren M, Gomez-Aparicio L, Quero JL, Valladares F (2012) Non-linear effects of drought under shade: reconciling physiological and ecological models in plant communities. Oecologia 169:293–305. doi: 10.1007/s00442-011-2196-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hotes S, Poschlod P, Takahashi H (2006) Effects of volcanic activity on mire development: case studies from Hokkaido, northern Japan. Holocene 16:561–573. doi: 10.1191/0959683606hl952rp CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isselstein J, Tallowin JRB, Smith REN (2002) Factors affecting seed germination and seedling establishment of fen-meadow species. Restor Ecol 10:173–184. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-100X.2002.00045.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitzberger T, Steinaker DF, Veblen TT (2000) Effects of climatic variability on facilitation of tree establishment in northern Patagonia. Ecology 81:1914–1924. doi: 10.2307/177281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koyama A, Tsuyuzaki S (2010) Effects of sedge and cottongrass tussocks on plant establishment patterns in a mined peatland, northern Japan. Wetl Ecol Manag 18:135–148. doi: 10.1007/s11273-009-9154-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koyama A, Tsuyuzaki S (2012) Facilitation by tussock-forming species on seedling establishment collapses in an extreme drought year in a post-mined Sphagnum peatland. J Veg Sci. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2012.01474.x Google Scholar
  22. Lavoie C, Marcoux K, Saint-Louis A, Price JS (2005) The dynamics of a cotton-grass (Eriophorum vaginatum L.) cover expansion in a vacuum-mined peatland, southern Quebec, Canada. Wetlands 25:64–75. doi: 10.1672/0277-5212(2005)025[0064:TDOACE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine JM (2000) Complex interactions in a streamside plant community. Ecology 81:3431–3444. doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(2000)081[3431:CIIASP]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Money RP, Wheeler BD (1999) Some critical questions concerning the restorability of damaged raised bogs. Appl Veg Sci 2:107–116. doi: 10.2307/1478887 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nishimura A, Tsuyuzaki S, Haraguchi A (2009) A chronosequence approach for detecting revegetation patterns after Sphagnum-peat mining, northern Japan. Ecol Res 24:237–246. doi: 10.1007/s11284-008-0499-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paquet JM, Caron J, Banton O (1993) In situ determination of the water desorption characteristics of peat substrates. Can J Soil Sci 73:329–339. doi: 10.4141/cjss93-035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poulin M, Rochefort L, Quinty F, Lavoie C (2005) Spontaneous revegetation of mined peatlands in eastern Canada. Can J Bot 83:539–557. doi: 10.1139/b05-025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Price J (1997) Soil moisture, water tension, and water table relationships in a managed cutover bog. J Hydrol 202:21–32. doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00037-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Price J, Rochefort L, Quinty F (1998) Energy and moisture considerations on cutover peatlands: surface microtopography, mulch cover and Sphagnum regeneration. Ecol Eng 10:293–312. doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(98)00046-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prider JN, Facelli JM (2004) Interactive effects of drought and shade on three arid zone chenopod shrubs with contrasting distributions in relation to tree canopies. Funct Ecol 18:67–76. doi: 10.1046/j.0269-8463.2004.00810.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riginos C, Milton SJ, Wiegand T (2005) Context-dependent interactions between adult shrubs and seedlings in a semi-arid shrubland. J Veg Sci 16:331–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2005.tb02371.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruprecht E, Szabó A (2012) Grass litter is a natural seed trap in long-term undisturbed grassland. J Veg Sci 23:495–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2011.01376.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saccone P, Delzon S, Pagès JP, Brun JP, Michalet R (2009) The role of biotic interactions in altering tree seedling responses to an extreme climatic event. J Veg Sci 20:403–414. doi: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2009.01012.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schipper LA, Clarkson BR, Vojvodic-Vukovic M, Webster R (2002) Restoring cut-over restiad peat bogs: a factorial experiment of nutrients, seed and cultivation. Ecol Eng 19:29–40. doi: 10.1016/S0925-8574(02)00013-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Seifan M, Tielbörger K, Kadmon R (2010) Direct and indirect interactions among plants explain counterintuitive positive drought effects on an eastern Mediterranean shrub species. Oikos 119:1601–1609. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18206.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Semchenko M, Lepik M, Götzenberger L, Zobel K (2012) Positive effect of shade on plant growth: amelioration of stress or active regulation of growth rate? J Ecol 100:459–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2011.01936.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tielbörger K, Kadmon R (2000) Temporal environmental variation tips the balance between facilitation and interference in desert plants. Ecology 81:1544–1553. doi: 10.2307/177305 Google Scholar
  38. Tuittila ES, Rita H, Vasander H, Laine J (2000) Vegetation patterns around Eriophorum vaginatum L. tussocks in a cut-away peatland in southern Finland. Can J Bot 78:47–58. doi: 10.1139/cjb-78-1-47 Google Scholar
  39. Valladares F, Zaragoza-Castells J, Sánchez-Gómez D, Matesanz S, Alonso B, Portsmuth A, Delgado A, Atkin OK (2008) Is shade beneficial for Mediterranean shrubs experiencing periods of extreme drought and late-winter frosts? Ann Bot 102:923–933. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn182 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Environmental Earth ScienceHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Agricultural and Life SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations