Advertisement

Community Ecology

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 205–216 | Cite as

The creation of diverse prairie-like communities

  • J. K. PiperEmail author
  • S. L. Pimm
Article

Abstract

We tested the prediction that we are more likely to create persistent, species-rich plant communities by increasing the number of species sown and allowing communities to assemble over six or seven growing seasons. Treatments consisted of four initial seed mixtures comprising 4, 8, 12 and 16 species that represent four functional groups (C3 graminoids, C4 grasses, N-fixing species, and late-flowering composites) that predominate within North American prairies. Once seeded, half of the plots were left alone to develop without subsequent reseeding. To provide multiple opportunities for establishment, we reseeded the remaining plots with any target species that failed to establish after two growing seasons. There were two 16 x 16 m (256 m2) replicates per treatment established in 1994 and 1996 on former agricultural land. Annually, we measured total species richness and evenness, total cover, and establishment success defined as target species richness and total percentage cover by target species, collectively. In some instances, significant treatment x year interactions indicated that treatment effects on variables varied among years. Both richness and rate of establishment of target communities were higher in the more species-rich mixtures. Moreover, richness of resident species in the plots declined with increasing target species richness. Reseeding had no measurable effect on any of the variables, nor on the eventual establishment of target communities or individual target species. Our results, indicating that establishment of species-rich plant communities can be enhanced by starting with larger numbers of species at the outset, have implications for projects in which community biodiversity creation and maintenance are key goals.

Keywords

Community construction Grassland biodiversity Prairie Restoration Species richness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the many interns, students, and staff of The Land Institute, Bethel College, and the University of Tennessee, especially Debra Crockett, Andrea Leach, Katie Goslee, Robin Mittenthal, Tina Ray, and David Van Tassel, who assisted with plot establishment and data collection. Martin Bender supplied precipitation data; Robert Bugg, Kelly Kindscher, and several anonymous reviewers commented on earlier drafts. The Land Institute provided summer support. This study was funded in part by a grant from the Eppley Foundation for Research to Jon K. Piper.

References

  1. Barkworth, M. E. and D. R. Dewey. 1985. Genomically based genera in the perennial Triticeae of North America: identification and membership. Amer. J. Bot. 72:767–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Betz, R. F., R. J. Lootens and M. K. Becker. 1999. Two decades of prairie restoration at Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois. In: C. Warwick (ed.), Proceedings of the 15th North American Prairie Conference. Natural Areas Association, Bend, Oregon, pp. 20–30.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C. S. and R. L. Bugg. 2001. Effects of established perennial grasses on introduction of native forbs in California. Restoration Ecol. 9:38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Case, T. J. 1990. Invasion resistance arises in strongly interacting species-rich model competition communities. Proc. National Acad. Sci. 87:9610–9614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Case, T. J. 1991. Invasion resistance, species build-up and community collapse in metapopulation models with interspecies competition. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 42:239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connell, J. H. and R. O. Slatyer. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am. Nat. 111:1119–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daubenmire, R. 1959. A canopy-coverage method of vegetational analysis. Northwest Sci. 33:43–64.Google Scholar
  8. Drake, J. A. 1990. Communities as assembled structures: do rules govern pattern? Trends Ecol. Evol. 5:159–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake, J. A. 1991. Community assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental species ensemble. Am. Nat. 131:1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drake, J. A., T. E. Flum, G. J. Witteman, T. Voskuil, A. M. Hoylman, C. Creson, D. A. Kenney, G. R. Huxel, C. S. LaRue and J. R. Duncan. 1993. The construction and assembly of an ecological landscape. J. Anim. Ecol. 62:117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evers, G. W. 1983. Weed control on warm season perennial grass pastures with clovers. Crop Sci. 23:170–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Univ. Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  13. Holt, R. D., G. R. Robinson and M. S. Gaines. 1995. Vegetation dynamics in an experimentally fragmented landscape. Ecology 76:1610–1624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huston, M. A. 1997. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia 110:449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jordan, W. R., III, M. E. Gilpin and J. D. Aber. 1987. Restoration ecology: ecological restoration as a tool for basic research. In: W. R. Jordan, III, M. E. Gilpin and J. D. Aber (eds.), Restoration Ecology: a Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  16. Kindscher, K. and P. V. Wells. 1995. Prairie plant guilds: amultivariate analysis of prairie species based on ecological and morphological traits. Vegetatio 117:29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liebman, M. and E. Dyck. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Applic. 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lockwood, J. L. and S. L. Pimm. 1999. When does restoration succeed? In: E. Weiher and P. Keddy (eds,), Ecological Assembly Rules. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, pp 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munro, J. W. 1991. Wetland restoration in the mitigation context. Restoration & Management Notes 9:80–86.Google Scholar
  20. Naeem, S., L. J. Thompson, S. P. Lawlor, J. H. Lawton and R. M. Woodfin. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. 1988. Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central Region. Revised ed. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin Number 499.Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, M. W. and T. A. Maurer. 1997. Does diversity beget diversity? A case study of crops and weeds. J. Veg. Sci. 8:235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Palmer, M. W. and K. A. Chandler-Ezell. 2001. Effects of initial plant species richness in microcosms: preliminary results. Community Ecol. 2:41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pickett, S. T. A. 1982. Population patterns through twenty years of oldfield succession. Vegetatio 49:45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piper, J. K. 1995. Composition of prairie plant communities on productive versus unproductive sites in wet and dry years. Can. J. Bot. 73:1635–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Piper, J. K. and P. A. Kulakow. 1994. Seed yield and biomass allocation in Sorghum bicolor and F1 and backcross generations of S. bicolor X S. halepense hybrids. Can. J. Bot. 72:468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Post, W. M. and S. L. Pimm. 1983. Community assembly and food web stability. Math. Biosci. 64:169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robinson, J. V. and J. E. Dickerson, Jr. 1987. Does invasion sequence affect community structure?. Ecology 68:587–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roberts, A. and K. Tregonning. 1981. The robustness of natural systems. Nature 288:265–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Samson, F. B. and F. L. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44:418–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schramm, P. 1992. Prairie restoration: a twenty-five year perspective on establishment and management. In: D. D. Smith and C. A. Jacobs (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth North American Prairie Conference. Univ. Northern Iowa. Cedar Falls. Iowa. pp. 169–177.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, T. M., H. H. Shugart and F. I. Woodward. 1997. Plan T Functional Types: Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.Google Scholar
  33. SPSS. 2000. SYSTAT 10 for Windows. SPSS Inc., Chicago, III.Google Scholar
  34. Technicon Industrial Systems. 1977. Individual/simultaneous determination of N and/or P in BD acid digestion. In: Industrial methods. No. 334–374 W/B. Technicon Industrial Systems, Tarrytown, N. Y.Google Scholar
  35. Tilman, D. 1994. Competition and biodiversity in spatially structured habitats. Ecology 75:2–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tilman, D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tilman, D., D. Wedin and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tregonning, K. and A. Roberts. 1978. Ecosystem-like behaviour of a random interaction model. Part I. Bull. Math. Biol. 40:513–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tregonning, K. and A. Roberts. 1979. Complex systems which evolve towards homeostasis. Nature 281:563–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1948. Grass. USDA Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  41. Wardle, D. A. 1999. Is “sampling effect” a problem for experiments investigating biodiversity—ecosystem function relationships?. Oikos 87:403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weber, S. 1999. Designing seed mixes for prairie restorations: revisiting the formula. Ecol. Restoration 17:196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilbur, H. and R. A. Alford. 1985. Priority effects in experimental pond communities: responses of Hyla to Bufo and Rana. Ecology 66:1106–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2002

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyBethel CollegeNorth NewtonUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of Environment and Earth SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations