Search for: All records

Grazing as a management tool is often intended to alter plant community dynamics through preferential foraging. Bison diet in the western United States has been well studied, especially in short and mixed grass remnant prairies. However, there is little known about what bison consume in restored and tallgrass prairies. As bison reintroductions are used more commonly in eastern tallgrass prairies, it is important to understand their diet to predict future impacts on prairie plant communities. This study aims to understand bison diet across different seasons, and asks whether diet differs among male and female, and differently aged bison. We used stable isotope analysis to quantify δ¹³C and δ¹⁵N in plants and used a Bayesian isotope mixing model to estimate bison diet. We found bulls relied more heavily on C₄plants and wetland plants than cows, which relied more heavily on forbs, but no differences in diet between ages. Our analysis shows that bison primarily grazed on C₄grasses throughout the late spring and summer. However, bison foraged more on wetland species and forbs in the late summer and fall. This change in diet could have implications for wetland species and habitats, through dung inputs and trampling. The relatively high reliance on forbs for nearly one‐third of bison diet could mean intended impacts of reintroduced bison such as increased plant diversity through preferential grazing on grasses could be dampened. Managers reintroducing bison to restored prairie ecosystems should ensure adequate wetland and forb species, in addition to a mix of grasses. 

A primary goal of ecological restoration is to increase biodiversity in degraded ecosystems. However, the success of restoration ecology is often assessed by measuring the response of a single functional group or trophic level to restoration, without considering how restoration affects multitrophic interactions that shape biodiversity. An ecosystem-wide approach to restoration is therefore necessary to understand whether animal responses to restoration, such as changes in biodiversity, are facilitated by changes in plant communities (plant-driven effects) or disturbance and succession resulting from restoration activities (management-driven effects). Furthermore, most restoration ecology studies focus on how restoration alters taxonomic diversity, while less attention is paid to the response of functional and phylogenetic diversity in restored ecosystems. Here, we compared the strength of plant-driven and management-driven effects of restoration on four animal communities (ground beetles, dung beetles, snakes, and small mammals) in a chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, where sites varied in management history (prescribed fire and bison reintroduction). Our analyses indicate that management-driven effects on animal communities were six-times stronger than effects mediated through changes in plant biodiversity. Additionally, we demonstrate that restoration can simultaneously have positive and negative effects on biodiversity through different pathways, which may help reconcile variation in restoration outcomes. Furthermore, animal taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity responded differently to restoration, suggesting that restoration plans might benefit from considering multiple dimensions of animal biodiversity. We conclude that metrics of plant diversity alone may not be adequate to assess the success of restoration in reassembling functional ecosystems. 

Site‐specific conditions, climate, and management decisions all dictate the establishment and composition of desired plant communities within grassland restorations. The uncertainty, complexity, and large size of grassland restorations necessitate monitoring plant communities across spatial and temporal scales. Remote sensing with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may provide a tool to monitor restored plant communities at various scales, but many potential applications are still unknown. In a tallgrass prairie restoration located in Franklin Grove, IL, we used UAV‐based multispectral imagery to assess the ability of spectral indices to predict ecological characteristics (plant community, plant traits, soil properties) in the summer of 2017. Using 19 sites, we calculated the moments of 26 vegetation indices and four spectral bands (green, red, red edge, near infrared). Models based on each moment and a model with all moments were estimated using ridge regression with model training based on a subset of 15 sites. Each tested for significant error reduction against a null model. We predicted mean graminoid cover, mean dead aboveground biomass, mean dry mass, and mean soil K with significant reductions in cross‐validated root mean square error. Averaged coefficients determined from cross‐validation of ridge regression models were used to develop a final predictive model of the four successfully predicted ecological characteristics. Graminoid cover and soil potassium were successfully predicted in one of the sites while the other two were not successfully predicted in any site. This study provides a path toward a new level of ease and precision in monitoring community dynamics of restored grasslands. 

Abstract Phylogenetic and species‐based taxonomic descriptions of community structure may provide complementary information about the mechanisms driving community assembly across different environments. Environmental filtering may have similar effects on taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity under the assumption of niche conservatism, whereas competitive exclusion could produce contrasting patterns in these diversity metrics. In grassland restorations, these diversity patterns might then reveal potential assembly mechanisms underlying the impacts of restoration and management conditions on community structure.We compared plant community structure (alpha diversity, composition, and within‐site beta diversity) from both phylogenetic and taxonomic perspectives. Using surveys from 120 tallgrass prairie restorations in four regions of the Midwestern United States, we examined the effects of four potential drivers or environmental gradients: precipitation in the first year of restoration, seed mix richness, time since last prescribed fire, and restoration age, and included soil conditions as a covariate.First‐year precipitation influenced taxonomic community structure, but had weak effects on phylogenetic diversity and composition. Similarly, greater seed mix richness increased taxonomic diversity but did not influence phylogenetic diversity. Taxonomic, but not phylogenetic, diversity generally was lower in older restorations and those with a longer time since the last prescribed fire. These drivers consistently explained more variation in taxonomic than phylogenetic diversity and composition, perhaps in part because species turnover was largely among related species, producing weak impacts on phylogenetic community measures.An impact of precipitation on taxonomic but not phylogenetic diversity suggests that there may not be large differences in drought tolerance among clades that would cause phylogenetic patterns to arise from this environmental filter. Declining taxonomic diversity but not phylogenetic diversity is consistent with competitive exclusion as an assembly mechanism when competition is strongest between related species.Synthesis. This research shows how studying taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity of ecosystem restorations can inform plant community ecology and help natural resource managers better predict the outcomes of restoration actions and management.