The impact of co-occurring tree and grassland species on carbon sequestration and potential biofuel production

We evaluated how three co-occurring tree and four grassland species influence potentially harvestable biofuel stocks and above- and belowground carbon pools. After 5 years, the tree Pinus strobus had 6.5 times the amount of aboveground harvestable biomass as another tree Quercus ellipsoidalis and 10 times that of the grassland species. P. strobus accrued the largest total plant carbon pool (1375 gCm -2 or 394 gCm -2 yr), while Schizachyrium scoparium accrued the largest total plant carbon pool among the grassland species (421 gCm -2 or 137 gCm -2 yr). Quercus ellipsoidalis accrued 850 gCm -2, Q. macrocarpa 370 gCm -2, Poa pratensis 390 gCm -2, Solidago canadensis 132 gCm -2, and Lespedeza capitata 283 gCm -2. Only P. strobus and Q. ellipsoidalis significantly sequestered carbon during the experiment. Species differed in total ecosystem carbon accumulation from -21.3 to 1169.8 gCm -2 yr compared with the original soil carbon pool. Plant carbon gains with P. strobus were paralleled by a decrease of 16% in soil carbon and a nonsignificant decline of 9% for Q. ellipsoidalis. However, carbon allocation differed among species, with P. strobus allocating most aboveground in a disturbance prone aboveground pool, whereas Q. ellipsoidalis, allocated most carbon in less disturbance sensitive belowground biomass. These differences have strong implications for terrestrial carbon sequestration and potential biofuel production. For P. strobus, aboveground plant carbon harvest for biofuel would result in no net carbon sequestration as declines in soil carbon offset plant carbon gains. Conversely the harvest of Q. ellipsoidalis aboveground biomass would result in net sequestration of carbon belowground due to its high allocation belowground, but would yield lower amounts of aboveground biomass. Our results demonstrate that plant species can differentially impact ecosystem carbon pools and the distribution of carbon above and belowground

Ecosystem Jenga!

Students are often taught that ecosystems are delicately balanced, But what. exactly, does this mean? How do we help students relate what they learn in the classroom about ecosystems to the world immediately around them? As scientists who work closely with middle school students as part of a National Science Foundation-funded Graduate Fellows in K-12 Education program called Project Fulcrum. we have learned that abstract concepts, such as delicately balanced ecosystem, are often not truly understood. We addressed this concern in a seventh-grade science classroom in Lincoln. Nebraska. by introducing students to locally threatened saline wetlands and the endangered Salt Creek tiger beetle (see Figure 1). To give students a tangible model of an ecosystem and have them experience what could happen if a component of that ecosystem were removed, we developed a hands-on. inquiry-based activity that visually demonstrates the concept of a delicately balanced ecosystem through a modification of the popular game Jenga. This activity can be modified to fit classrooms in other regions by focusing on a locally endangered plant or animal. which can be determined by contacting local governmental agencies (e.g .. Department of Natural Resources)

Biochar amendment of grassland soil may promote woody encroachment by Eastern Red Cedar

Although carbon (C) additions to soil have been used in restoration to combat invasive species through changes in soil nitrogen (N) availability, carbon amendments to soil derived from plant material can impact soil N availability in a species-specific manner. As such, amendment-driven feedbacks on N may impact invasive species success and woody encroachment. Soil amendments like biochar, which is often added to soil to increase C storage in grassland systems, may unintentionally encourage woody encroachment into these grasslands by changing soil N dynamics. Few studies have examined biochar impacts on non-agricultural species, particularly invasive species. Woody encroachment of Eastern Red Cedar (Juniperus virginiana) into grasslands provides an ideal context for examining the impact of biochar in grasslands. In the greenhouse, we examined the effect of biochar or leaf litter derived from native and exotic grasses on J. virginiana seedling growth. Juniperus virginiana seedlings grew 40% bigger in biochar amended soil as compared to seedlings grown in litter amended soil. Additionally, we found a more than 2 order of magnitude increase in available NH4+ in the biochar treatments compared to the litter amended soils. Furthermore we found that biochar feedstock type did not have an impact on the effect of biochar, as both native and exotic grass biochar had similar impacts on soil N levels and J. virginiana growth. Our work suggests that once grassland litter is converted to biochar, species impacts on soil N may disappear. In conclusion, our data suggests soil amendments of biochar may encourage woody encroachment into grasslands

Nutrient addition shifts plant community composition towards earlier flowering species in some prairie ecoregions in the U.S. Central Plains

e0178440, 15 p.The distribution of flowering across the growing season is governed by each species' evolutionary history and climatic variability. However, global change factors, such as eutrophication and invasion, can alter plant community composition and thus change the distribution of flowering across the growing season. We examined three ecoregions (tall-, mixed, and short-grass prairie) across the U.S. Central Plains to determine how nutrient (nitrogen (N), phosphorus, and potassium (+micronutrient)) addition alters the temporal patterns of plant flowering traits. We calculated total community flowering potential (FP) by distributing peakseason plant cover values across the growing season, allocating each species' cover to only those months in which it typically flowers. We also generated separate FP profiles for exotic and native species and functional group. We compared the ability of the added nutrients to shift the distribution of these FP profiles (total and sub-groups) across the growing season. In all ecoregions, N increased the relative cover of both exotic species and C3 graminoids that flower in May through August. The cover of C4 graminoids decreased with added N, but the response varied by ecoregion and month. However, these functional changes only aggregated to shift the entire community's FP profile in the tall-grass prairie, where the relative cover of plants expected to flower in May and June increased and those that flower in September and October decreased with added N. The relatively low native cover in May and June may leave this ecoregion vulnerable to disturbance induced invasion by exotic species that occupy this temporal niche. There was no change in the FP profile of the mixed and short-grass prairies with N addition as increased abundance of exotic species and C3 graminoids replaced other species that flower at the same time. In these communities a disturbance other than nutrient addition may be required to disrupt phenological patterns

How do nutrients change flowering in prairies?

Farmers today apply more synthetic fertilizers to farm fields than ever before – but not all of these nutrients are used by crops: some fertilizer escapes through the air, soil, or water. Nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium flow off farm fields when it rains, billow into the air when fields are plowed, and drift with the wind to other areas. Extra nutrients are also released to the air when people burn fossil fuels. We wanted to find out: what happens when these extra nutrients land on wild prairie ecosystems? How do its wild plants respond? Do they all just grow better? Or could there be any negative side effects? To answer these questions, we systematically added nutrients to experimental patches of prairie. We found that these added nutrients (specifically nitrogen) made early-season plants thrive while reducing the amount of late-season plants, but only in some prairie types. This change could have serious implications for the way prairie ecosystems function

Nothing lasts forever: Dominant species decline under rapid environmental change in global grasslands

Dominance often indicates one or a few species being best suited for resource capture and retention in a given environment. Press perturbations that change availability of limiting resources can restructure competitive hierarchies, allowing new species to capture or retain resources and leaving once dominant species fated to decline. However, dominant species may maintain high abundances even when their new environments no longer favour them due to stochastic processes associated with their high abundance, impeding deterministic processes that would otherwise diminish them. Here, we quantify the persistence of dominance by tracking the rate of decline in dominant species at 90 globally distributed grassland sites under experimentally elevated soil nutrient supply and reduced vertebrate consumer pressure. We found that chronic experimental nutrient addition and vertebrate exclusion caused certain subsets of species to lose dominance more quickly than in control plots. In control plots, perennial species and species with high initial cover maintained dominance for longer than annual species and those with low initial cover respectively. In fertilized plots, species with high initial cover maintained dominance at similar rates to control plots, while those with lower initial cover lost dominance even faster than similar species in controls. High initial cover increased the estimated time to dominance loss more strongly in plots with vertebrate exclosures than in controls. Vertebrate exclosures caused a slight decrease in the persistence of dominance for perennials, while fertilization brought perennials' rate of dominance loss in line with those of annuals. Annual species lost dominance at similar rates regardless of treatments. Synthesis. Collectively, these results point to a strong role of a species' historical abundance in maintaining dominance following environmental perturbations. Because dominant species play an outsized role in driving ecosystem processes, their ability to remain dominant—regardless of environmental conditions—is critical to anticipating expected rates of change in the structure and function of grasslands. Species that maintain dominance while no longer competitively favoured following press perturbations due to their historical abundances may result in community compositions that do not maximize resource capture, a key process of system responses to global change.Fil: Wilfahrt, Peter A.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Biederman, Lori. Iowa State University; Estados UnidosFil: Bugalho, Miguel N.. Universidade Nova de Lisboa; PortugalFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto–Scarborough; Estados UnidosFil: Caldeira, Maria C.. Universidade Nova de Lisboa; PortugalFil: Catford, Jane A.. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: Chen, Qingqing. Peking University; China. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Ebeling, Anne. University of Jena; AlemaniaFil: Eisenhauer, Nico. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Leipzig University; AlemaniaFil: Haider, Sylvia. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. Leuphana University of Lüneburg; AlemaniaFil: Heckman, Robert W.. University of Texas; Estados Unidos. United States Forest Service; Estados UnidosFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Koerner, Sally E.. University of North Carolina Greensboro; Estados UnidosFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. University of North Carolina Greensboro; Estados UnidosFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Poly Prep Country Day School; Estados UnidosFil: MacDougall, Andrew. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Smith, Nicholas G.. Texas Tech University; Estados UnidosFil: Stevens, Carly J.. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Sullivan, Lauren L.. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Tedder, Michelle. University of KwaZulu-Natal; SudáfricaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. 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; ArgentinaFil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Veen, Ciska. Netherlands Institute of Ecology; Países BajosFil: Wheeler, George. University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Alyssa L.. University of North Carolina Greensboro; Estados UnidosFil: Young, Hillary. University of California; Estados UnidosFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados Unido

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (\u3c50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and jonnondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.Fil: Arnillas, Carlos Alberto. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Alberti, Juan. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Baez, Selene. Escuela Politécnica Nacional; EcuadorFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Boughton, Elizabeth H.. Archbold Biological Station; Estados UnidosFil: Buckley, Yvonne M.. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Bugalho, Miguel Nuno. Universidad de Lisboa; PortugalFil: Donohue, Ian. Trinity College Dublin; IrlandaFil: Dwyer, John. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Firn, Jennifer. The University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Gridzak, Riley. Queens University; CanadáFil: Hagenah, Nicole. University of Pretoria; SudáfricaFil: Hautier, Yann. Utrecht University; Países BajosFil: Helm, Aveliina. University of Tartu; EstoniaFil: Jentsch, Anke. University of Bayreuth; AlemaniaFil: Knops, Johannes M. H.. Xi'an Jiaotong Liverpool University; China. University of Nebraska; Estados UnidosFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Laanisto, Lauri. Estonian University of Life Sciences; EstoniaFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Poly Prep Country Day School; Estados UnidosFil: McCulley, Rebecca. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Patagonia Sur. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz. Agencia de Extensión Rural Río Gallegos; ArgentinaFil: Power, Sally A.. University of Western Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University; AustraliaFil: Sankaran, Mahesh. National Centre for Biological Sciences; IndiaFil: Schamp, Brandon. Algoma University; CanadáFil: Speziale, Karina Lilian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Standish, Rachel. Murdoch University; AustraliaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu; FinlandiaFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto Scarborough; Canadá. University of Toronto; Canad

Temporal rarity is a better predictor of local extinction risk than spatial rarity

Spatial rarity is often used to predict extinction risk, but rarity can also occur temporally. Perhaps more relevant in the context of global change is whether a species is core to a community (persistent) or transient (intermittently present), with transient species often susceptible to human activities that reduce niche space. Using 5–12 yr of data on 1,447 plant species from 49 grasslands on five continents, we show that local abundance and species persistence under ambient conditions are both effective predictors of local extinction risk following experimental exclusion of grazers or addition of nutrients; persistence was a more powerful predictor than local abundance. While perturbations increased the risk of exclusion for low persistence and abundance species, transient but abundant species were also highly likely to be excluded from a perturbed plot relative to ambient conditions. Moreover, low persistence and low abundance species that were not excluded from perturbed plots tended to have a modest increase in abundance following perturbance. Last, even core species with high abundances had large decreases in persistence and increased losses in perturbed plots, threatening the long-term stability of these grasslands. Our results demonstrate that expanding the concept of rarity to include temporal dynamics, in addition to local abundance, more effectively predicts extinction risk in response to environmental change than either rarity axis predicts alone.Fil: Wilfahrt, Peter A.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Asmus, Ashley L.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Seabloom, Eric. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Henning, Jeremiah A.. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Adler, Peter. State University of Utah; Estados UnidosFil: Arnillas, Carlos A.. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Bakker, Jonathan. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Biederman, Lori. University of Iowa; Estados UnidosFil: Brudvig, Lars A.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Cadotte, Marc W.. University of Toronto Scarborough; CanadáFil: Daleo, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mar del Plata. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras; ArgentinaFil: Eskelinen, Anu. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Firn, Jennifer. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Harpole, W. Stanley. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; AlemaniaFil: Hautier, Yann. Utrecht University; Países BajosFil: Kirkman, Kevin P.. University of KwaZulu-Natal; SudáfricaFil: Komatsu, Kimberly J.. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center; Estados UnidosFil: Laungani, Ramesh. Doane University; Estados UnidosFil: MacDougall, Andrew. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: McCulley, Rebecca L.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Joslin L.. Monash University; AustraliaFil: Morgan, John W.. La Trobe University; AustraliaFil: Mortensen, Brent. Benedictine College; Estados UnidosFil: Ochoa Hueso, Raul. Universidad de Cádiz; EspañaFil: Ohlert, Timothy. University of New Mexico; Estados UnidosFil: Power, Sally A.. University of Western Sydney; AustraliaFil: Price, Jodi. Charles Sturt University; AustraliaFil: Risch, Anita C.. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; SuizaFil: Schuetz, Martin. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research; SuizaFil: Shoemaker, Lauren. University of Wyoming; Estados UnidosFil: Stevens, Carly. Lancaster University; Reino UnidoFil: Strauss, Alexander T.. University of Minnesota; Estados Unidos. University of Georgia; Estados UnidosFil: Tognetti, Pedro Maximiliano. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Virtanen, Risto. University of Oulu; FinlandiaFil: Borer, Elizabeth. University of Minnesota; Estados Unido

Opposing community assembly patterns for dominant and nondominant plant species in herbaceous ecosystems globally

Biotic and abiotic factors interact with dominant plants—the locally most frequent or with the largest coverage—and nondominant plants differently, partially because dominant plants modify the environment where nondominant plants grow. For instance, if dominant plants compete strongly, they will deplete most resources, forcing nondominant plants into a narrower niche space. Conversely, if dominant plants are constrained by the environment, they might not exhaust available resources but instead may ameliorate environmental stressors that usually limit nondominants. Hence, the nature of interactions among nondominant species could be modified by dominant species. Furthermore, these differences could translate into a disparity in the phylogenetic relatedness among dominants compared to the relatedness among nondominants. By estimating phylogenetic dispersion in 78 grasslands across five continents, we found that dominant species were clustered (e.g., co-dominant grasses), suggesting dominant species are likely organized by environmental filtering, and that nondominant species were either randomly assembled or overdispersed. Traits showed similar trends for those sites (<50%) with sufficient trait data. Furthermore, several lineages scattered in the phylogeny had more nondominant species than expected at random, suggesting that traits common in nondominants are phylogenetically conserved and have evolved multiple times. We also explored environmental drivers of the dominant/nondominant disparity. We found different assembly patterns for dominants and nondominants, consistent with asymmetries in assembly mechanisms. Among the different postulated mechanisms, our results suggest two complementary hypotheses seldom explored: (1) Nondominant species include lineages adapted to thrive in the environment generated by dominant species. (2) Even when dominant species reduce resources to nondominant ones, dominant species could have a stronger positive effect on some nondominants by ameliorating environmental stressors affecting them, than by depleting resources and increasing the environmental stress to those nondominants. These results show that the dominant/nondominant asymmetry has ecological and evolutionary consequences fundamental to understand plant communities.National Science Foundation; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota and Portuguese Science Foundation.http://www.ecolevol.orghj2022Mammal Research InstituteZoology and Entomolog