A threatened ecological community: Research advances and priorities for Banksia woodlands

The rapid expansion of urban areas worldwide is leading to native habitat loss and ecosystem fragmentation and degradation. Although the study of urbanisation\u27s impact on biodiversity is gaining increasing interest globally, there is still a disconnect between research recommendations and urbanisation strategies. Expansion of the Perth metropolitan area on the Swan Coastal Plain in south-western Australia, one of the world\u27s thirty-six biodiversity hotspots, continues to affect the Banksia Woodlands (BWs) ecosystem, a federally listed Threatened Ecological Community (TEC). Here, we utilise the framework of a 1989 review of the state of knowledge of BWs ecology and conservation to examine scientific advances made in understanding the composition, processes and functions of BWs and BWs\u27 species over the last 30 years. We highlight key advances in our understanding of the ecological function and role of mechanisms in BWs that are critical to the management of this ecosystem. The most encouraging change since 1989 is the integration of research between historically disparate ecological disciplines. We outline remaining ecological knowledge gaps and identify key research priorities to improve conservation efforts for this TEC. We promote a holistic consideration of BWs with our review providing a comprehensive document that researchers, planners and managers may reference. To effectively conserve ecosystems threatened by urban expansion, a range of stakeholders must be involved in the development and implementation of best practices to conserve and maintain both biodiversity and human wellbeing

Global change effects on plant communities are magnified by time and the number of global change factors imposed

Global change drivers (GCDs) are expected to alter community structure and consequently, the services that ecosystems provide. Yet, few experimental investigations have examined effects of GCDs on plant community structure across multiple ecosystem types, and those that do exist present conflicting patterns. In an unprecedented global synthesis of over 100 experiments that manipulated factors linked to GCDs, we show that herbaceous plant community responses depend on experimental manipulation length and number of factors manipulated. We found that plant communities are fairly resistant to experimentally manipulated GCDs in the short term (<10 y). In contrast, long-term (≥10 y) experiments show increasing community divergence of treatments from control conditions. Surprisingly, these community responses occurred with similar frequency across the GCD types manipulated in our database. However, community responses were more common when 3 or more GCDs were simultaneously manipulated, suggesting the emergence of additive or synergistic effects of multiple drivers, particularly over long time periods. In half of the cases, GCD manipulations caused a difference in community composition without a corresponding species richness difference, indicating that species reordering or replacement is an important mechanism of community responses to GCDs and should be given greater consideration when examining consequences of GCDs for the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship. Human activities are currently driving unparalleled global changes worldwide. Our analyses provide the most comprehensive evidence to date that these human activities may have widespread impacts on plant community composition globally, which will increase in frequency over time and be greater in areas where communities face multiple GCDs simultaneously

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

Effects of a decade of grazing exclusion on three Wyoming big sagebrush community types

Livestock grazing is the most extensive land use in Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis [Beetle &amp; A. Young] S.L. Welsh) steppe and its effects on plant community characteristics have been greatly debated. However, most of the studies used to support grazing removal evaluated the impacts of excluding historic grazing, rather than the impacts of excluding moderate contemporary grazing (40–50% utilization, altering season of use) which has vastly different effects on plant communities. Thus, to understand the effects of removing contemporary grazing, we compared contemporary grazed areas to long-term (+10 yrs.) grazing exclusion areas in three common Wyoming big sagebrush community types: intact, degraded, and exotic annual grass-dominated types. Plant community characteristics (cover, density, diversity, richness, dissimilarity) were measured in 2020 and 2021 in five grazed and grazing excluded areas within each community type. Most plant community characteristics were not influenced by grazing exclusion, suggesting that the removal of contemporary grazing has little effect on Wyoming big sagebrush plant communities. The effect of grazing exclusion on Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda J. Presl) abundance and litter cover varied among community types, suggesting that grazing exclusion effects slightly varied among community types. In contrast, most plant community characteristics varied among community types and between years, suggesting that grazing management plans need to account for the spatial and temporal variability among Wyoming big sagebrush communities. Furthermore, our results suggest that contemporary grazing exclusion has negligible effects compared to contemporary grazing on plant communities, and that exclusion of contemporary grazing (passive restoration) does not promote the recovery of degraded and annual grass invaded plant communities

Influence of directional side of sagebrush canopies and interspaces on microhabitats

Shrubs can contribute to spatial heterogeneity in plant communities by creating distinct microsites under their canopies compared to between their canopies (interspaces). This results in distinct microhabitats that differ in understory vegetation characteristics and ground cover. However, microhabitats may also differ under the north and south side of canopies because of differences in shading and other microsite characteristics. We investigated if microhabitats varied among north and south sides of sagebrush canopies, and interspaces in 16 plant communities. Several understory vegetation characteristics and most ground cover variables varied among north sides, south sides, and interspaces. Moss and litter cover were greatest and bare ground was lowest in north sides. Moss and litter cover decreased and bare ground increased from north to south sides and from south sides to interspaces. Exotic annual grass cover and abundance was less in north side microsites compared to south side and interspace microsites, implying that sagebrush creates heterogeneity in resistance to invasion. This may be critical in allowing native herbaceous vegetation to persist under annual grass invasion pressure. Our results provide evidence that sagebrush creates distinct microhabitats. This highlights the pivotal role of shrubs in creating heterogeneity in shrub steppe communities and indicates that preventing the loss of shrubs in these communities should be a management priority. This also suggests that it is critical to restore sagebrush, and potentially other shrubs in similar ecosystems, after they are lost to maintain differences in microhabitats that promote diversity and coexistence

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 and informed restoration decision-making.EEA Santa CruzFil: Shackelford, Nancy. University of Victoria. School of environmental Studies; Canadá.Fil: Shackelford, Nancy. University of Colorado. Ecology and evolutionary biology; Estados UnidosFil: Paterno, Gustavo B. Universidade Federal do rio Grande do Norte. Departamento de ecología; Brasil.Fil: Paterno, Gustavo B. Technical University of Munich. Department of ecology and ecosystem management. Restoration ecology research Group; AlemaniaFil: Winkler, Daniel E. Southwest biological Science Center. US Geological Survey; Estados UnidosFil: Erickson, Todd E. The University of Western Australia School of biological Sciences; Australia.Fil: Erickson, Todd E. Kings park Science. Department of biodiversity Conservation and Attractions; Australia.Fil: Leger, Elizabeth A. University of Nevada. Department of Biology; Estados UnidosFil: Svejcar, Lauren N. Eastern Oregon Agricultural research Center. USDA Agricultural research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Breed , Martin F. Flinders University. College of Science and engineering; Australia.Fil: Faist, Akasha M. New Mexico State University. Department of Animal and range Sciences; Estados UnidosFil: Harrison, Peter A. University of Tasmania. School of Natural Sciences and ArC training. Centre for Forest Value; Australia.Fil: Curran, Michael F. University of Wyoming. Program in ecology; Estados UnidosFil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Peri, Pablo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Suding, Katharine L. University of Colorado. Ecology and evolutionary biology; Estados UnidosFil: Suding, Katharine L. University of Colorado. Institute of Arctic and Alpine research; Estados Unido

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

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 and informed restoration decision-making.6 month embargo; published: 22 July 2021This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]