Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:40:38.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Augmentative Restoration: Repairing Damaged Ecological Processes During Restoration of Heterogeneous Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger L. Sheley ,
Jeremy J. James  and
Erin C. Bard
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Jeremy J. James
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Hwy 205, Burns, OR 97720
Erin C. Bard
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: roger.sheley@oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Heterogeneity in disturbance regimes, propagule pools, and factors affecting plant performance are a ubiquitous feature of wildlands. We tested a conceptual framework, termed augmentative restoration, aimed at identifying and selectively repairing or replacing damaged processes based on their predicted influence on the three causes of succession: site availability, species availability, and species performance. This framework was tested at three sites each with a different cause of succession naturally occurring in an ephemeral wetland dominated by invasive plants that had varying levels of disturbance (site availability), remnant native plants (species availability), and water availability (species performance). Our hypotheses were (1) seeding combined with watering would augment meadow vole disturbance to increase desired species composition, (2) shallow tilling combined with watering would augment remnant native species, and (3) shallow tilling combined with seeding would augment mesic soils to increase desired species composition. Shallow tilling, watering, and seeding were applied in a factorial arrangement at all three sites. These eight treatment combinations were applied in a split-plot design with four replications to generate 32 whole plots (2 m2). The herbicide 2,4-D was applied on half of each whole plot to influence relative species performance. In two of the three sites, using augmentative restoration to guide our management approaches improved our decision as to the treatment combinations that would maximize seedling establishment. Selectively augmenting successional processes that remain intact by repairing or replacing processes occurring at inadequate levels can improve implementation of successional management and provide a refined process-based framework for restoration across heterogeneous landscapes. Besides the clear economic advantages of lower management inputs associated with augmentative restoration, avoiding unnecessary management inputs has the additional advantage of minimizing unintended negative impacts on ecosystem processes.

Keywords

2,4-Dmeadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus Ord.Invasive plantsrangeland restorationsuccessional management
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 10 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bard, E. C., Sheley, R. L., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2003. Using ecological theory to guide augmentative restoration (Montana). Ecol. Restor 21:143–144.Google Scholar
Bard, E. C., Sheley, R. L., Jacobsen, J. S., and Borkowski, J. J. 2004. Using ecological theory to guide the implementation of augmentative restoration. Weed Technol 18:1246–1249.Google Scholar
Benton, T. G., Vicery, J. A., and Wilson, J. D. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key. Trends Ecol. Evol 18:182–188.Google Scholar
Berlow, E. L., D'Antonio, C. M., and Reynolds, S. A. 2002. Shrub expansion in montane meadows: the interaction of local-scale disturbance and site aridity. Ecol. Appl 12:1103–1118.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. W. and Grime, J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790.Google Scholar
Burnett, M. R., August, P. V., Brown, J. H., and Killingbeck, K. T. 1998. The influence of geomorphological heterogeneity on biodiversity. I. A patch-scale perspective. Conserv. Biol 12:363–370.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Dyer, W. E. 1999. Herbicide and rangeland. Pages 116–132. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, E. 1990. Spotted Knapweed (Centuarea maculosa Lam.) Seed Longevity, Chemical Control and Seed Morphology. Masters thesis. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 109.Google Scholar
DeSimone, S. A. and Zedler, P. H. 1999. Shrub seedling recruitment in unburned Californian coastal sage scrub and adjacent grassland. Ecology 80:2018–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duggin, J. A. and Gentle, C. B. 1998. Experimental evidence on the importance of disturbance intensity for invasion of Lantana camara L. in dry rainforest-open forest. For. Ecol. Manage 109:279–292.Google Scholar
Foster, B. L., Dickson, T. L., Murphy, C. A., Karel, I. S., and Smith, V. H. 2004. Propagule pools mediate community assembly and diversity-ecosystem regulation along a grassland productivity gradient. J. Ecol 92:435–449.Google Scholar
Fuhlendorf, S. D. and Engle, D. M. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. J. Appl. Ecol 41:604–614.Google Scholar
Gordon, T. A., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Légère, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci 52:874–880.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L. 1980. Colonization by Verbascum thapsus (Mullein) in an old field in Michigan: experiments on the effects of vegetation. J. Ecol 68:919–927.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L., Mittelbach, G. G., and Reynolds, H. L. 2005. Grassland invasibility and diversity: responses to nutrients, seed input, and disturbance. Ecology 86:476–486.Google Scholar
Halle, S. and Fattorini, M. 2004. Advances in restoration ecology: insights from aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Pages 10–33. in Temperton, V. M., Hobbs, R. J., Nuttle, T., and Halle, S., editors. Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Washington, DC Island.Google Scholar
Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol. Monogr 37:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huenneke, L. F., Hamburg, S. P., Koide, R., Mooney, H. A., and Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plant invasion and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491.Google Scholar
Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 704.Google Scholar
Jones, S., Wraith, J. M., and Or, D. 2002. Time domain reflectometry measurement principles and applications. Hydrol. Processes 16:141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedzie-Webb, S. A., Sheley, R. L., and Borkowski, J. J. 2002. Predicting plant community response to picloram. J. Range Manage 55:576–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindscher, K. and Tieszen, L. L. 1998. Floristic and soil organic matter changes after five and thirty-five years of native tallgrass prairie restoration. Restor. Ecol 6:181–196.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 2004. Tillage and weed management effects on weeds in barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci 52:881–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y. C. and Norland, M. 2001. The role of soil fertility in invasion of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terabinthfolius) in Everglades National Park, Florida. Soil Sci 166:400–405.Google Scholar
Loreau, M., Mouguet, N., and Gonzalez, A. 2003. Biodiversity as spatial insurance in heterogeneous landscapes. Ecology 100:12765–12770.Google Scholar
Ludwig, J. A. and Tongway, D. J. 1995. Spatial organization of landscapes and its function in semi-arid woodlands, Australia. Landscape Ecol 10:51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luken, J. 1990. Directing Ecological Succession. New York Chapman and Hall. 264.Google Scholar
Mosley, J. C., Bunting, S. C., and Manoukian, M. E. 1999. Cheatgrass. Pages 175–188. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., editors. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. and Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report Int-66, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 154.Google Scholar
Patten, R. S. and Ellis, J. E. 1995. Patterns of species and community distributions related to environmental gradients in an arid tropical ecosystem. Vegetation 17:69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. and Cadenasso, M. L. 1995. Landscape ecology: spacial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269:331–334.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A. and Cadenasso, M. L. 2005. Landscape ecology: spacial heterogeneity in ecological systems. Science 269:331–334.Google Scholar
Pickett, S. T. A., Collins, S. L., and Armesto, J. J. 1987. Model, mechanisms, and pathways of succession. Bot. Rev 53:335–371.Google Scholar
Popova, A. Y. 1960. Centaurea diffusa Lam, a steppe pasture weed in the Crimea (English Translation). Botanicheskiy Zhurnal 45:1207–1213.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R., Holt, J. S., and Gharsa, C. M. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York J Wiley and Sons. 608.Google Scholar
Rebollo, S., Perez-Camacho, L., Valenia, J., and Gomez-Sal, A. 2003. Vole mound effects and disturbance rate in a Mediterranean plant community under different grazing and irrigation regimes. Plant Ecol 169:227–243.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, W. H., Raikes, J. A., Hartley, A. E., and Cross, A. F. 1996. On the spatial pattern of soil nutrients in desert ecosystems. Ecology 77:364–374.Google Scholar
Seabloom, E. W., Borer, E. T., Boucher, V. L., Burton, R. S., Cottingham, K. L., Goldwasser, L., Gram, W. K., Kendall, B. E., and Micheli, F. 2003. Competition, seed limitation, disturbance, and reestablishment of California native annual forbs. Ecol. Appl 13:575–592.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Hook, P. B., and LeCain, R. 2006a. Establishment of native and invasive plants along a rangeland riparian gradient. Ecol. Restor 24/3:173–181.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single entry. J. Range Manage 54:576–583.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Svejcar, T. J. 2005. Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. Weed Sci 53:307–314.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Velagala, R. P. 1999. High seeding rates enhance intermediate wheatgrass establishment in spotted knapweed infested rangeland. J. Range Manage 52:67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger-Mangold, J. 2003. Principles for restoring invasive plant infested rangeland. Weed Sci 51:260–265.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Observation: comparative life history of cheatgrass and yellow starthistle. J. Range Manage 47:450–456.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mangold, J. M., and Anderson, J. L. 2006b. Potential for successional theory to guide restoration of invasive-plant-dominated rangeland. Ecol. Monogr 76/3:365–379.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol 10:766–773.Google Scholar
Temperton, V. R., Hobbs, R. J., Nuttle, T., and Halle, S. 2004. Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice. Washington, DC Island. 424.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1990. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turnbull, L. A., Crawley, M. J., and Rees, M. 2000. Are plant populations seed-limited? A review of seed sowing experiments. Oikos 88:225–238.Google Scholar
Vandvik, V., Heegaard, E., Maren, I., and Aarrestand, P. 2005. Managing heterogeneity: the importance of grazing and environmental variation on post-fire succession in heathlands. J. Appl. Ecol 42:139–149.Google Scholar
Werner, P. 1999. Reflections on “mechanistic” experiments in ecological restoration. Pages 321–328. in Jordan, W. R. III, Gilpin, M. E., and Aber, J. D., editors. Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands: A Process Oriented, Landscape-Scale Approach. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 328.Google Scholar