1
|
Xu C, Silliman BR, Chen J, Li X, Thomsen MS, Zhang Q, Lee J, Lefcheck JS, Daleo P, Hughes BB, Jones HP, Wang R, Wang S, Smith CS, Xi X, Altieri AH, van de Koppel J, Palmer TM, Liu L, Wu J, Li B, He Q. Herbivory limits success of vegetation restoration globally. Science 2023; 382:589-594. [PMID: 37917679 DOI: 10.1126/science.add2814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2023] [Indexed: 11/04/2023]
Abstract
Restoring vegetation in degraded ecosystems is an increasingly common practice for promoting biodiversity and ecological function, but successful implementation is hampered by an incomplete understanding of the processes that limit restoration success. By synthesizing terrestrial and aquatic studies globally (2594 experimental tests from 610 articles), we reveal substantial herbivore control of vegetation under restoration. Herbivores at restoration sites reduced vegetation abundance more strongly (by 89%, on average) than those at relatively undegraded sites and suppressed, rather than fostered, plant diversity. These effects were particularly pronounced in regions with higher temperatures and lower precipitation. Excluding targeted herbivores temporarily or introducing their predators improved restoration by magnitudes similar to or greater than those achieved by managing plant competition or facilitation. Thus, managing herbivory is a promising strategy for enhancing vegetation restoration efforts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Changlin Xu
- MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station for Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Brian R Silliman
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, USA
| | - Jianshe Chen
- MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station for Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xincheng Li
- MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station for Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Mads S Thomsen
- Marine Ecology Research Group and Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
- Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
| | - Qun Zhang
- MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station for Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Juhyung Lee
- Marine Science Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, MA, USA
- Department of Oceanography and Marine Research Institute, Pusan National University, Busan, Republic of Korea
| | - Jonathan S Lefcheck
- Tennenbaum Marine Observatories Network and MarineGEO Program, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, MD, USA
- University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, USA
| | - Pedro Daleo
- Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (IIMyC), UNMdP, CONICETC, Mar del Plata, Argentina
| | - Brent B Hughes
- Department of Biology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA, USA
| | - Holly P Jones
- Department of Biological Sciences and Institute for the Study of the Environment, Sustainability, and Energy, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA
| | - Rong Wang
- School of Ecological and Environmental Sciences, Zhejiang Tiantong Forest Ecosystem National Observation and Research Station, East China Normal University, Shanghai, China
| | - Shaopeng Wang
- Institute of Ecology, College of Urban and Environmental Sciences, and Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes of the Ministry of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Carter S Smith
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, USA
| | - Xinqiang Xi
- Department of Ecology, School of Life Science, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Andrew H Altieri
- Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Johan van de Koppel
- Department of Estuarine and Delta Systems, Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Yerseke, Netherlands
- Conservation Ecology Group, Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | - Todd M Palmer
- Department of Biology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - Lingli Liu
- State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jihua Wu
- State Key Laboratory of Herbage Improvement and Grassland Agro-Ecosystems, and College of Ecology, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China
| | - Bo Li
- Yunnan Key Laboratory of Plant Reproductive Adaptation and Evolutionary Ecology and Centre for Invasion Biology, Institute of Biodiversity, School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University, Kunming, Yunnan, China
| | - Qiang He
- MOE Key Laboratory for Biodiversity Science and Ecological Engineering, National Observations and Research Station for Wetland Ecosystems of the Yangtze Estuary, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
De Vitis M, Havens K, Barak RS, Egerton-Warburton L, Ernst AR, Evans M, Fant JB, Foxx AJ, Hadley K, Jabcon J, O’Shaughnessey J, Ramakrishna S, Sollenberger D, Taddeo S, Urbina-Casanova R, Woolridge C, Xu L, Zeldin J, Kramer AT. Why are some plant species missing from restorations? A diagnostic tool for temperate grassland ecosystems. FRONTIERS IN CONSERVATION SCIENCE 2022. [DOI: 10.3389/fcosc.2022.1028295] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022] Open
Abstract
The U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration aims to accelerate actions to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems, and re-establish ecosystem functioning and species diversity. The practice of ecological restoration has made great progress in recent decades, as has recognition of the importance of species diversity to maintaining the long-term stability and functioning of restored ecosystems. Restorations may also focus on specific species to fulfill needed functions, such as supporting dependent wildlife or mitigating extinction risk. Yet even in the most carefully planned and managed restoration, target species may fail to germinate, establish, or persist. To support the successful reintroduction of ecologically and culturally important plant species with an emphasis on temperate grasslands, we developed a tool to diagnose common causes of missing species, focusing on four major categories of filters, or factors: genetic, biotic, abiotic, and planning & land management. Through a review of the scientific literature, we propose a series of diagnostic tests to identify potential causes of failure to restore target species, and treatments that could improve future outcomes. This practical diagnostic tool is meant to strengthen collaboration between restoration practitioners and researchers on diagnosing and treating causes of missing species in order to effectively restore them.
Collapse
|
4
|
Anderegg GC, Henn JJ, Orrock JL, Damschen EI. Litter removal reduces seed predation in restored prairies during times when seed predation would otherwise be high. Restor Ecol 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/rec.13550] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Genevieve C. Anderegg
- Department of Integrative Biology University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A
- CU Museum of Natural History University of Colorado‐Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, U.S.A
| | - Jonathan J. Henn
- Department of Integrative Biology University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A
- Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden
| | - John L. Orrock
- Department of Integrative Biology University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A
| | - Ellen I. Damschen
- Department of Integrative Biology University of Wisconsin‐Madison, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Carabajal-Capitán S, Kniss AR, Jabbour R. Seed Predation of Interseeded Cover Crops and Resulting Impacts on Ground Beetles. ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY 2021; 50:832-841. [PMID: 33843995 DOI: 10.1093/ee/nvab026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/16/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Interseeding cover crops into standing grains can promote both agronomic and environmental benefits within agroecosystems. Producers must decide which cover crops are the best fit for their goals, and whether diverse cover crop mixtures provide benefits that are worth the increased seed cost. Broadcast seeding is an accessible strategy to try interseeding but can lead to patchy establishment; it is unknown how much seed loss is due to seed predators. In a two-year study, six cover crop species-planted as either single species or mixtures-were interseeded into standing corn. We evaluated seed predation at the time of seeding, agronomic impact through cover crop, and weedy biomass at the end of the season, and conservation impact through activity-density of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Cover crop seeds were vulnerable to seed predation, primarily by vertebrate seed predators, and seed loss varied across cover crop species. Cover crop biomass did not differ according to cover crop diversity and weedy biomass was not affected by cover crop presence or species. Cover crop diversity effects on carabid activity-density were inconsistent: carabids were higher in diverse mixtures in 1 year of the study, but only predicted by vegetative cover, not by cover crop, in the second year. Interseeding cover crops into corn has potential benefits for ground beetles, although the value of mixtures must be further explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sara Carabajal-Capitán
- Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
| | - Andrew R Kniss
- Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
| | - Randa Jabbour
- Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Baskin CC, Baskin JM. Breaking Seed Dormancy during Dry Storage: A Useful Tool or Major Problem for Successful Restoration via Direct Seeding? PLANTS (BASEL, SWITZERLAND) 2020; 9:E636. [PMID: 32429336 PMCID: PMC7284515 DOI: 10.3390/plants9050636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Revised: 05/07/2020] [Accepted: 05/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
To facilitate the restoration of disturbed vegetation, seeds of wild species are collected and held in dry storage, but often there is a shortage of seeds for this purpose. Thus, much research effort is expended to maximize the use of the available seeds and to ensure that they are nondormant when sown. Sowing nondormant (versus dormant) seeds in the field should increase the success of the restoration. Of the various treatments available to break seed dormancy, afterripening, that is, dormancy break during dry storage, is the most cost-effective. Seeds that can undergo afterripening have nondeep physiological dormancy, and this includes members of common families such as Asteraceae and Poaceae. In this review, we consider differences between species in terms of seed moisture content, temperature and time required for afterripening and discuss the conditions in which afterripening is rapid but could lead to seed aging and death if storage is too long. Attention is given to the induction of secondary dormancy in seeds that have become nondormant via afterripening and to the biochemical and molecular changes occurring in seeds during dry storage. Some recommendations are made for managing afterripening so that seeds are nondormant at the time for sowing. The most important recommendation probably is that germination responses of the seeds need to be monitored for germinability/viability during the storage period.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carol C. Baskin
- Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0225, USA
- Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546-0321, USA;
| | - Jerry M. Baskin
- Department of Biology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0225, USA
| |
Collapse
|