Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-23T12:10:57.560Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional Group Responses to Reciprocal Plant Litter Exchanges between Native and Invasive Plant Dominated Grasslands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Roger Sheley ,
Edward Vasquez  and
Carla Hoopes
Roger Sheley*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR, 97720
Edward Vasquez
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, 67826-A Highway 205, Burns, OR, 97720
Carla Hoopes
Affiliation:
Montana State University, Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT, 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Roger.Sheley@oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Manipulating plant litter to direct successional trajectories is rarely considered as a management strategy. Our objective was to determine the influence of litter from an intact native plant community on a community dominated by an invasive species within the same habitat type as well as the influence of litter from a community dominated by an invasive species on an intact native plant community. We hypothesized that litter amount, type (source), and fragment size would influence various functional groups within a native plant community differently than within a weed-dominated plant community. We used reciprocal plant litter exchanges between native and invasive plant–dominated grasslands to gain an initial understanding of litter's influence on the density and biomass of native grasses, native forbs, common St. Johnswort, and downy brome. Common St. Johnswort was not influenced by any treatment. Native grass density increased with application of low (454 g/m2) amounts of litter where the grasses were subordinate to common St. Johnswort, and adding native plant litter to the weedy site nearly doubled native grass biomass. Low amounts of finely fragmented litter and high amounts of coarse litter induced native forbs to produce about twice the biomass as found in the non–litter-amended controls. Our study suggests that plant litter may be a component of vegetation that can be managed to shift the plant community toward those plants that are desired.

Keywords

Downy brome, Bromus tectorum L., common St. Johnswort, Hypericum perforatum L.Native plant–dominated grasslandsinvasive plant–dominated grasslandsecological processeslitter management
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 158 - 165
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

Ahlgren, C. E. and Ahlgren, I. F. 1981. Some effects of different forest litter on seed germination and growth. Can. J. For. Res 11:710–714.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. and Carlson, R. W. 1982. Photosynthetic acclimation to variability in the light environment of early and late successional plants. Oecologia 54:313–316.Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Phillips, S. L., Sherrod, S. K., and Moldenke, A. 2005. Soil biota can change after exotic plant invasions: does this affect ecosystem processes? Ecology 86:3007–3017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobbink, R., Bik, L., and Willems, J. H. 1988. Effects of nitrogen fertilization on vegetation structure and dominance of Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. in chalk grassland. Acta Bot. Neerl 37:231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosy, J. L. and Reader, R. J. 1995. Mechanisms underlying the suppression of forb seedling emergence by grass (Poa pratensis) litter. Funct. Ecol 9:635–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, G. W. 1999. Alien species in North America and Hawaii: impacts on natural ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 400.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G. 2003. Effects of exotic plant invasions on soil nutrient cycling processes. Ecosystems 6:503–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellsworth, J. W., Harrington, R. A., and Fownes, J. H. 2004. Seedling emergence, growth, and allocation of Oriental bittersweet: effects of seed input, seed bank, and forest floor litter. For. Ecol. Manag 190:255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, R. D., Rimer, R., Sperry, L., and Belnap, J. 2001. Exotic plant invasion alters nitrogen dynamics in an arid grassland. Ecol. Appl 11:1301–1310.Google Scholar
Facelli, E. and Facelli, J. M. 1993. Interaction after death: plant litter controls priority effects in a successional plant community. Oecologia 95:277–282.Google Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1991a. Plant litter: its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev 5:1–32.Google Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. A. 1991b. Plant litter: light interception and effects on an old field plant community. Ecology 72:1024–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, N. L. 1986. Microsite requirements for germination and establishment of tree grass species. Am. Midl. Nat 115:131–145.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. and Werner, P. A. 1983. The effects of size of opening in vegetation and litter cover on seedling establishment of goldenrods (Solidago spp.). Oecologia 60:149–155.Google Scholar
Hamrick, J. L. and Lee, J. M. 1987. Effect of soil surface topography and litter cover on the germination, survival, and growth of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Am. J. Bot 74:451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. London Academic. 892.Google Scholar
Heady, H. F. 1956. Changes in the central California annual plant community induced by the manipulation of natural mulch. Ecology 37:798–811.Google Scholar
Heil, G. W. and Bruggink, M. 1987. Competition for nutrients between Calluna vulgaris (L.) Hull and Molinia caerulea (L.) Moench. Oecologia 73:105–107.Google Scholar
Herron, G. J., Sheley, R. L., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability on the interaction between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. Restor. Ecol 9:326–332.Google Scholar
Huenneke, L. F., Hamburg, S. P., Koide, R., Mooney, H. A., and Vitousek, P. M. 1990. Effects of soil resources on plant invasions and community structure in Californian serpentine grassland. Ecology 71:478–491.Google Scholar
Hulbert, L. C. 1969. Fire and litter effects in undisturbed bluestem prairie in Kansas. Ecology 50:874–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klironomos, J. N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger-Mangold, J. M., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2006. Toward ecologically-based invasive plant management on rangeland. Weed Sci 54:597–605.Google Scholar
Lacey, J. R., Marlow, C. B., and Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface water runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol 3:627–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, M. C. and D'Antonio, C. M. 2003. Exotic grasses alter controls over soil nitrogen dynamics in a Hawaiian woodland. Ecol. Appl 13:154–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschner, P. and Rengel, Z. 2007. Nutrient Cycling in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Berlin Springer. 397.Google Scholar
McLendon, T. and Redente, E. F. 1991. Nitrogen and phosphorus effects on secondary succession dynamics on a semi-arid sagebrush site. Ecology 72:2016–2024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueggler, W. F. and Stewart, W. L. 1980. Grassland and shrubland habitat types of western Montana. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report Int-66. 154.Google Scholar
Nilsson, C., Xiong, S., Johansson, M. E., and Vought, L. B. M. 1999. Effects of leaf-litter accumulation on riparian plant diversity across Europe. Ecology 80:1770–1775.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E. and Wallander, R. T. 2002. Effects of invasive forb litter on seed germination, seedling growth and survival. Basic Appl. Ecol 3:309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, A. R. and Weston, L. A. 1986. Adverse impacts of allelopathy in agricultural systems. Pages 43–56. In Putnam, A. R. and Tang, C. S. The Science of Allelopathy. New York John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed ecology: implications for management. New York J. Wiley. 608.Google Scholar
Randall, J. M. 1996. Weed control for the preservation of biological diversity. Weed. Technol 10:370–383.Google Scholar
Reader, R. J. 1991. Relationship between seedling emergence and species frequency on a gradient of ground cover density in an abandoned pasture. Can. J. Bot 69:1397–1401.Google Scholar
Rimer, R. L. and Evans, R. D. 2006. Invasion of downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) causes rapid changes in the nitrogen cycle. Am. Midl. Nat 156:252–258.Google Scholar
Schimpf, D. J. and Danz, N. P. 1999. Light passage through leaf litter: variation among northern hardwood trees. Agric. For. Meteorol 97:103–111.Google Scholar
Schlatterer, E. F. and Tisdale, E. W. 1969. Effects of litter of Artemisia, Chrysothamnus and Tortula on germination and growth of three perennial grasses. Ecology 50:869–873.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 10:712–720.Google Scholar
Sperry, L. J., Belnap, J., and Evans, R. D. 2006. Bromus tectorum alters nitrogen dynamics in an undisturbed arid grassland ecosystem. Ecology 87:603–615.Google Scholar
Stubbs, J. M. and Pyke, D. A. 2005. Available nitrogen: a time-based study of manipulated resource islands. Plant Soil 270:123–133.Google Scholar
Suding, K. N. and Goldberg, D. E. 1999. Variation in the effects of vegetation and litter on recruitment across productivity gradients. J. Ecol 87:436–449.Google Scholar
Vasquez, E. A., Sheley, R. L., and Svejcar, T. J. 2008. Creating invasion- and fire-resistant plant communities in the Great Basin, USA via soil nutrient management, Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 1:304–314.Google Scholar
Violle, C., Richarte, J., and Navas, M-L. 2006. Effects of litter and standing biomass on growth and reproduction of two annual species in a Mediterranean old-field. J. Ecol 94:196–205.Google Scholar
Wardle, D. A., Bonner, K. I., and Nicholson, K. S. 1997. Biodiversity and plant litter: experimental evidence which does not support the view that enhanced species richness improves ecosystem function. Oikos 79:247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, A. S. 1974. Senescence and rejuvenation in ungrazed chalk grassland (grassland B) in Breckland: the significance of litter and moles. J. Appl. Ecol 23:1157–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiong, S. and Nilsson, C. J. 1999. The effects of plant litter on vegetation: a meta-analysis. Ecology 87:984–994.Google Scholar