Author Correction: Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts

1 Pág. Correción errata.In the version of this Article originally published, the surname of author Tina Parkhurst was incorrectly written as Schroeder. This has now been corrected.Peer reviewe

Conversion of Exotic Cool-Season Grasslands to Restored Native Plant Communities Utilizing Herbicide Treatments

Exotic, invasive weeds are a major issue in maintaining, rehabilitating, and restoring native plant communities. Many areas in the northern Great Plains are now dominated by exotic cool-season grasses such as smooth brome (Bromus inermis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). Information was collected to evaluate methods of control for exotic grass species and reestablishment or rehabilitation of native plant communities in eastern South Dakota. During the fall of 2005 and the spring of 2006, I implemented a smooth brome removal study at five reed canarygrass sites in eastern South Dakota. Five fall herbicide treatments, two spring herbicide treatments, and an untreated control that received no herbicide or seed addition were applied at each location in fall 2005-spring 2006 and fall 2006-spring 2007. Three fall herbicide treatments and two spring herbicide treatments were added for fall 2006-spring 2007. Herbicides were applied over clipped vegetation that had residual vegetation removed in 2005-2006 and over standing vegetation in 2006- 2007. Sites were seeded with a native plant mix within two weeks following spring herbicide treatment. Reed canarygrass cover in untreated plots ranged from 80-99%, while cover on herbicide treated plots ranged from 0-98% on 2005-2006 plots and 26-99% on 2006-2007 plots at the conclusion of the study, suggesting that clipping is necessary to achieve adequate control. Native plant response was limited throughout the study. During the fall of 2005 and spring of 2006, I implemented a smooth brome removal study at five smooth brome sites in eastern South Dakota. Seven fall herbicide treatments, five spring herbicide treatments, an untreated plot that was planted with a native seed mix, and an untreated control that received no herbicide or seed addition were applied at each location in fall 2005-spring 2006 and fall 2006-spring 2007. Based upon first year results, three fall herbicide treatments and two spring herbicide treatments were added for fall 2006-spring 2007. Sites were seeded with a native plant mix within two weeks following spring herbicide treatment. Smooth brome cover in untreated plots ranged from 73-99%, while cover on herbicide treated plots ranged from 0-84% on 2005-2006 plots and 0-98% on 2006-2007 plots at the conclusion of the study. Future response of native plants will be important in determining the proper timing and herbicide combination. During the fall of 2005 and spring of 2006, I implemented a removal study at six native prairie sites in eastern South Dakota that had been invaded by smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass. Treatments included five herbicide combinations, a fall burn, and an untreated control. Untreated plots averaged 64% smooth brome cover and 38% Kentucky bluegrass cover after the third growing season. Smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass cover on herbicide treated plots ranged from 6 to 23% and 15 to 35%, respectively, after the third growing season. Burned plots had 20% and 19% cover of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, respectively, after the third growing season. Spring and fall treatments had similar native plant cover after three growing seasons. I initiated a study at two sites in southeastern South Dakota to determine the necessary rates of Journey® herbicide applied pre-emergence to establish native grasses. Spring application of 0.07 kg ai/ha imazapic + 0.18 kg ai/ha glyphosate, 0.09 kg ai/ha imazapic + 0.25 kg ai/ha glyphosate, and 0.11 kg ai/ha imazapic + 0.31 kg ai/ha glyphosate and an untreated control were applied at each site. Plots were seeded within two weeks following herbicide application with a mixture of native warm- and coolseason grasses. My results indicate that a pre-emergent application of 0.07 kg ai/ha imazapic + 0.18 kg ai/ha glyphosate can improve establishment of planted native grasses. Vegetative characteristics and grassland bird use of conservation plantings were studied in eastern South Dakota Game Production Areas, June 2007-2008. Fourteen fields, from one to eight years old at the onset of the study, were surveyed in each year to describe vegetative characteristics and to correlate grassland bird use. Grassland birds were sampled along fixed width transects during June 2007-2008. Vegetation was sampled at seven points along three parallel transects within the bird sampling transects. Younger plantings had lower height and cover dead vegetation, greater litter depth, higher coverage of alfalfa and unplanted forbs, and more bare ground than older plantings. Nonmetric multi-dimensional scaling based upon vegetative characteristics showed that sites tended to become more similar with age. Fifteen bird species were identified during transects in each year. Six species showed a relationship between abundance and the measured vegetation structure and composition variables

Population extinctions driven by climate change, population size, and time since observation may make rare species databases inaccurate.

Loss of biological diversity through population extinctions is a global phenomenon that threatens many ecosystems. Managers often rely on databases of rare species locations to plan land use actions and conserve at-risk taxa, so it is crucial that the information they contain is accurate and dependable. However, small population sizes, long gaps between surveys, and climate change may be leading to undetected extinctions of many populations. We used repeated survey records for a rare but widespread orchid, Cypripedium fasciculatum (clustered lady's slipper), to model population extinction risk based on elevation, population size, and time between observations. Population size and elevation were negatively associated with extinction, while extinction probability increased with time between observations. We interpret population losses at low elevations as a potential signal of climate change impacts. We used this model to estimate the probability of persistence of populations across California and Oregon, and found that 39%-52% of the 2415 populations reported in databases from this region are likely extinct. Managers should be aware that the number of populations of rare species in their databases is potentially an overestimate, and consider resurveying these populations to document their presence and condition, with priority given to older reports of small populations, especially those at low elevations or in other areas with high vulnerability to climate or land cover change

Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts

Restoration of degraded drylands is urgently needed to mitigate climate change, reverse desertification and secure livelihoods for the two billion people who live in these areas. Bold global targets have been set for dryland restoration to restore millions of hectares of degraded land. These targets have been questioned as overly ambitious, but without a global evaluation of successes and failures it is impossible to gauge feasibility. Here we examine restoration seeding outcomes across 174 sites on six continents, encompassing 594,065 observations of 671 plant species. Our findings suggest reasons for optimism. Seeding had a positive impact on species presence: in almost a third of all treatments, 100% of species seeded were growing at first monitoring. However, dryland restoration is risky: 17% of projects failed, with no establishment of any seeded species, and consistent declines were found in seeded species as projects matured. Across projects, higher seeding rates and larger seed sizes resulted in a greater probability of recruitment, with further influences on species success including site aridity, taxonomic identity and species life form. Our findings suggest that investigations examining these predictive factors will yield more effective andinformed restoration decision-making.Fil: Shackelford, Nancy. University of Victoria; Canadá. State University of Colorado at Boulder; Estados UnidosFil: Paterno, Gustavo B.. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte; Brasil. Universitat Technical Zu Munich; AlemaniaFil: Winkler, Daniel E.. Southwest Biological Science Center; Estados UnidosFil: Erickson, Todd E.. University of Western Australia; Australia. Kings Park; AustraliaFil: Leger, Elizabeth A.. University of Nevada; Estados UnidosFil: Svejcar, Lauren N.. Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Breed, Martin F.. Flinders University. College Of Science And Engineering.; AustraliaFil: Faist, Akasha M.. New Mexico State University.; Estados UnidosFil: Harrison, Peter A.. University of Tasmania; AustraliaFil: Curran, Michael F.. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Guo, Qinfeng. Southern Research Station; Estados UnidosFil: Kirmer, Anita. Anhalt University of Applied Sciences; AlemaniaFil: Law, Darin J.. University of Arizona; Estados UnidosFil: Mganga, Kevin Z.. South Eastern Kenya University; KeniaFil: Munson, Seth M.. US Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Porensky, Lauren. Agricultural Research Service Rangeland Resources and Systems Research Unit; Estados UnidosFil: Quiroga, Raul Emiliano. Universidad Nacional de Catamarca. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Departamento de Sanidad Vegetal.; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Catamarca-La Rioja. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Catamarca; ArgentinaFil: Török, Péter. MTA-DE Lendület Functional and Restoration Ecology Research Group; HungríaFil: Wainwright, Claire E.. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation; Estados UnidosFil: Abdullahi, Ali. Hirola Conservation Programme; KeniaFil: Bahm, Matt A.. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Estados UnidosFil: Ballenger, Elizabeth A.. National Park Service; Estados UnidosFil: Barger, Nichole. State University of Colorado at Boulder; Estados UnidosFil: Baughman, Owen W.. The Nature Conservancy of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Becker, Carina. University of Cape Town; SudáfricaFil: Lucas Borja, Manuel Esteban. Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha; EspañaFil: Boyd, Chad S.. USDA Agricultural Research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Burton, Carla M.. University of Northern British Columbia; CanadáFil: Burton, Philip J.. University of Northern British Columbia; CanadáFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional. Facultad Regional Santa Cruz. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral. Centro de Investigaciones y Transferencia de Santa Cruz; Argentin