Search for: All records

Abstract With rapid climate warming, some coastal high‐latitude ecosystems are experiencing more frequent tidal floods. Yet little is known about tundra plant‐community responses to flooding, and whether Arctic warming may modulate such responses.In a 2‐year, full‐factorial field experiment in coastal tundra wetlands of the Yukon‐Kuskokwim (Y‐K) Delta (western Alaska), we simulated periodic tidal flood events at two severities under both ambient and warmed summer conditions and measured above‐ground plant‐community responses. Low‐severity flooding represented overbank flooding 1 day per month, which is consistent with projections in the next 5 years. High‐severity flooding represented a more impactful flooding regime (three consecutive days per month) that is projected to occur in the next 10 years. Our warming treatment (+1°C) also represented a change projected in the next 10 years.Regardless of temperature, high‐severity flooding increased graminoid biomass by >45%, in turn increasing live plant‐community biomass by >18%. Low‐severity flooding had similar, though weaker, effects. Flooding had overall negative effects on both forb and shrub biomass, though shrub responses were weaker. Only during the second summer, warming increased graminoid biomass by 20% and tended to increase shrub biomass, regardless of flooding. Concurrently, warming enhanced standing‐dead graminoid biomass by 20%, while high‐severity flooding decreased it by 15%. Therefore, wet tundra that was both flooded and warmed had the greatest proportion of graminoids and total live biomass, but standing‐dead biomass comparable to that of unmanipulated wet tundra.Synthesis. While our manipulations simulated flooding and warming regimes expected in the wetlands of the Y‐K Delta over the same, near‐future (5‐to‐10 years) time frame, flooding had stronger effects than warming. What is striking is the rate at which graminoid increases occurred, becoming apparent after only two monthly flood events in the first experimental year. Flooding‐induced decreases in standing‐dead biomass suggests that the incorporation of dead plant material into the litter layer might be facilitated by tidal floods. These rapid increases in plant biomass and potentially biomass turnover, especially of graminoids, which are characterized by high‐quality litter, may have major implications for carbon and nutrient cycling of more frequently flooded coastal ecosystems in a warmer Arctic. 

Abstract QuestionUnderstanding the sensitivity and magnitude of plant community responses in tundra wetlands to herbivory and warming is pressing as these ecosystems are increasingly threatened by changes in grazing pressure and higher temperatures. Here, we ask to what extent different low‐Arctic coastal wetland plant communities are affected by short‐term goose grazing and warming, and whether these communities differ in their responses. LocationYukon–Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. MethodsWe conducted an experiment where we simulated goose grazing by clipping the vegetation and summer warming by using open‐top chambers in three plant communities along a 6‐km coastal–inland gradient. We assessed plant community compositional changes following two years of treatments. ResultsGrazing had stronger effects than warming on both plant functional group and species composition. Overall, grazing decreased the abundance of grasses and sedges and increased the abundance of forbs, whereas warming only caused a decrease in forb abundance. However, plant communities and functional groups, both within and across communities, varied widely in their responses to treatments. Grazing decreased grass abundance (−25%) and increased forb abundance (+44%) in the two more coastal communities, and reduced sedge abundance (−22%) only in the most inland community. Warming only decreased forb abundance (−18%) in the most coastal community, which overall was the most responsive to treatments. ConclusionsWe show that short‐term goose grazing predominates over short‐term summer warming in eliciting compositional changes in three different low‐Arctic coastal wetland plant communities. Yet, responses varied among communities and the same functional groups could respond differently across them, highlighting the importance of investigating the effects of biotic and abiotic drivers in different contexts. By showing that tundra wetland plant communities can differ in their immediate sensitivity to goose grazing and, though to a lesser extent, warming, our findings have implications for the functioning of these rapidly changing high‐latitude ecosystems. 

Vertebrate herbivore excrement is thought to influence nutrient cycling, plant nutrition, and growth; however, its importance is rarely isolated from other aspects of herbivory, such as trampling and leaf removal, leaving questions about the extent to which herbivore effects are due to feces. We hypothesized that as a source of additional nutrients, feces would directly increase soil N concentrations and N2O emission, alleviate plant, and microbial nutrient limitations, resulting in increased plant growth and foliar quality, and increase CH4 emissions. We tested these hypotheses using a field experiment in coastal western Alaska,USA, where we manipulated goose feces such that naturally grazed areas received three treatments:feces removal, ambient amounts of feces, or double ambient amounts of feces. Doubling feces marginally increased NH4 +-N in soil water, whereas both doubled feces and feces removal significantly increased NO3--N; N2O flux was also higher in removal plots. Feces removal marginally reduced root biomass and significantly reduced productivity (that is, GPP) in the second year, measured as greater CO2 emissions. Doubling feces marginally increased foliar chemical quality by increasing %N and decreasing C:N. Treatments did not influence CH4 flux. In short, feces removal created sites poorer in nutrients, with reduced root growth, graminoid nutrient uptake, and productivity. While goose feces alone did not create dramatic changes in nutrient cycling in western Alaska, they do appear to be an important source of nutrients for grazed areas and to contribute to greenhouse gas exchange as their removal increased emissions of CO2 and N2O to the atmosphere.