Small vertebrate granivores reduce seedling emergence in native tallgrass prairie restoration

Herbivory limits success of vegetation restoration globally

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.

Why are some plant species missing from restorations? A diagnostic tool for temperate grassland ecosystems

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.

Seed Predation of Interseeded Cover Crops and Resulting Impacts on Ground Beetles

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.

Breaking Seed Dormancy during Dry Storage: A Useful Tool or Major Problem for Successful Restoration via Direct Seeding?

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.