Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:14:03.400Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restoring Abandoned Agricultural Lands in Cold Desert Shrublands: Tradeoffs between Water Availability and Invasive Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeanne C. Chambers ,
Eric P. Eldredge ,
Keirith A. Snyder ,
David I. Board ,
Tara Forbis de Queiroz  and
Vada Hubbard
Jeanne C. Chambers*
Affiliation:
US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV 89512
Eric P. Eldredge
Affiliation:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Great Basin Plant Materials Center, Fallon, NV 89406
Keirith A. Snyder
Affiliation:
USDA Agricultural Research Service, Great Basin Rangelands Unit, Reno, NV 89512
David I. Board
Affiliation:
US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Reno, NV 89512 Reno, NV 89509
Tara Forbis de Queiroz
Affiliation:
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Minden, NV 89423
*
Corresponding Author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Restoration of abandoned agricultural lands to create resilient ecosystems in arid and semi-arid ecosystems typically requires seeding or transplanting native species, improving plant–soil–water relations, and controlling invasive species. We asked if improving water relations via irrigation or surface mulch would result in negative tradeoffs between native species establishment and invasive species competition. We examined the effects of sprinkler irrigation and straw mulch on native seed mixtures planted in two consecutive years in an abandoned agricultural field in a cold desert shrubland in southwestern Nevada, USA. Restoration effects differed among years because of contingency effects of growing season conditions. Precipitation was low during the first year and seeded plant density and biomass increased in response to irrigation. Precipitation was relatively high during the second year, seeded plant densities and biomass were generally high, and irrigation had inconsistent effects. Mulch increased native plant cover in the absence of irrigation during the dry year. Invasive plant biomass and cover also were influenced by year, but irrigation increased invasive plants regardless of precipitation. Positive effects of irrigation on seeded plant density, cover, and biomass outweighed negative tradeoffs of increases in invasive plants. In ecosystems with highly variable precipitation, the most effective restoration strategies will most likely be adaptive ones, requiring determination of timing and amount of irrigation based on precipitation, native plant establishment, and invasive species composition and abundance.

Keywords

2, 4-Ddimethylamine salt of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acidCompetitionirrigationmulchnative plant establishmentrevegetationsagebrush ecosystemsweed species
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 176 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Allen, E. B. Restoration ecology: limits and possibilities in arid and semiarid lands. Pages 7–15 in Roundy, B. A., McArthur, E. D. Haley, J. S. and Mann, K. D., comps. Proceedings: wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium. Ogden, UT. General Technical Report INT-GTR-315, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 1995.Google Scholar
Allen, E. B. and Knight, D. H. The effects of introduced annuals on secondary succession in sagebrush-grassland, Wyoming. Southwest Nat. 1984. 4:407–421.Google Scholar
Bakker, J. D., Wilson, S. D., Christian, J. M., Li, X., Ambrose, L. G. and Waddington, J. Contingency of grassland restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses. Ecol Appl. 2003. 13:137–153.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, D. A. A guide for desert and dryland restoration-new hope for arid lands. San Diego, CA. Society for Ecological Restoration. 2007.Google Scholar
Benayas, J. M. R., Martins, A., Nicolau, J. M. and Schulz, J. J. Abandonment of agricultural land: an overview on drivers and consequences. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources. 2007. 2:1–14.Google Scholar
Blank, R. S. and Morgan, T. Suppression of Bromus tectorum L. by established perennial grasses: potential mechanisms – Part One. 2012. Appl Environ Soil Science DOI:10.1155/2012/632172.Google Scholar
Booth, M. S., Caldwell, M. M. and Stark, J. M. Overlapping resource use in three Great Basin species: implications for community invisibility and vegetation dynamics. J Ecol. 2003. 91:36–48.Google Scholar
Call, C. A. and Roundy, B. A. Perspectives and processes in revegetation of arid and semi-arid rangelands. J Range Manage. 1991. 44:543–549.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. Seed movements and seedling fates in disturbed sagebrush steppe ecosystems: implications for restoration. Ecol Appl. 2000. 10:1400–1413.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. Pinus monophylla establishment in an expanding pinon–juniper woodland: Environmental conditions, facilitation and interacting factors. J Veg Sci. 2001. 12:27–40.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C., Bradley, B. A., Brown, C. S., D'Antonio, C., Germino, M. J., Grace, J. B., Hardegree, S. P., Miller, R. F. and Pyke, D. A. Resilience to stress and disturbance, and resistance to Bromus tectorum L. invasion in the cold desert shrublands of western North America. 2013. Ecosystems DOI 10.1007/s10021-013-9725-5.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. and Linnerooth, A. R. Restoring sagebrush dominated riparian corridors using alternative state and threshold concepts: environmental and seedling establishment response. Appl Veg Sci. 2001. 4:157–166.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C. and MacMahon, J. A. A day in the life of a seed: movements and fates of seeds and their implications for natural and managed systems. Ann Rev Ecol Syst. 1994. 25:263–292.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. C., Roundy, B. A., Blank, R. R., Meyer, S. E. and Whittaker, A. What makes Great Basin ecosystems invasible by Bromus tectorum? Ecol Monogr. 2007. 77:117–145.Google Scholar
Cox, J. R. and Madrigal, R. M. Establishing perennial grasses on abandoned farmland in southeastern Arizona. Appl Agri Res. 1988. 3:36–43.Google Scholar
Cramer, V. A., and Hobbs, R. J., editors. Old Fields: Dynamics and Restoration of Abandoned Farmland. Washington, DC. Island Press. 2007. 352.Google Scholar
Cramer, V. A., Hobbs, R. J. and Standish, R. J. What's new about old fields? Land abandonment and ecosystem assembly. TREE. 2008. 23:104–112.Google Scholar
D'Antonio, C. D. and Meyerson, L. A. Invasive plant species as problems and solution in ecological restoration: a synthesis. Rest Ecol. 2002. 10:703–713.Google Scholar
DeFalco, L. A., Bryla, D. R., Smith-Longozo, V. and Nowak, R. S. Are Mojave Desert annual species equal? Resource acquisition and allocation for the invasiv grass Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens (Poaceae) and two native species. Am J Bot. 2003. 90:1045–1053.Google Scholar
Facelli, J. M., Chesson, P. and Barnes, N. Differences in seed biology of annual plants in aridlands: a key ingredient of the storage effect. Ecology. 2006. 86:2998–3006.Google Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. A. Plant litter — its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot Rev. 1991. 57:1–32.Google Scholar
Fehmi, J. S. and Kong, T. M. Effects of soil type, rainfall, straw mulch, and fertilizer on semi-arid vegetation establishment, growth and diversity. Ecol Eng. 2012. 44:70–77.Google Scholar
Goergen, E. and Chambers, J. C. Facilitation and interference of seedling establishment by a native legume before and after wildfire. 2011. Oecologia DOI 10.1007/s00442-011-2075-0.Google Scholar
Guo, Q. and Brown, J. H. Temporal fluctuations and experimental effects in desert plant communities. Oecologia. 1996. 107:568–577.Google Scholar
Hardegree, S. P., Jones, T. A., Roundy, B. A., Shaw, N. L. and Monaco, T. A. (2011) Pages 171–212 in Briske, D. D., editor. Chapter 4. Assessment of range planting as a conservation practice. Conservation Benefits of Rangeland Practices: Assessment, Recommendations, and Knowledge Gaps. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/?cid=stelprdb1045811. Accessed December 13, 2013.Google Scholar
Hardegree, S. P. and Van Vactor, S. S. Microclimatic constraints and revegetation planning in a variable environment. Weed Tech. 2004. 18:1213–1215.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. R. and Lund, C. Plant community and target species affect responses to restoration strategies. Rangeland Ecol Manag. 2010. 63:453–442.Google Scholar
Humphrey, L. D. and Schupp, E. W. Competition as a barrier to establishment of a native perennial grass (Elymus elymoides) in alien annual grass (Bromus tectorum) communities. J Arid Environ. 2004. 58:405–422.Google Scholar
James, J. J., Drenovsky, R. E., Monaco, T. A. and Rinella, M. J. Managing soil nitrogen to restore annual grass infested plant communities: effective strategy or incomplete framework? Ecol Appl. 2011. 21:490–502.Google Scholar
Knapp, P. A. Cheatgass (Bromus tectorum) dominance in the Great Basin Desert. Global Environ Change. 1996. 6:37–52.Google Scholar
Leishman, M. R. and Westoby, M. The role of seed size in seedling establishment in dry soil conditions – Experimental evidence from semi-arid species J Ecol. 1994. 82:249–258.Google Scholar
Leon, M. F., Squeo, A., Gutierrez, J. R. and Holmgren, M. Rapid root extension during pulses enhances establishment of shrub seedlings in the Atacama Desert. J Veg Sci. 2011. 22:120–129.Google Scholar
Mangla, S., Sheley, R. L., James, J. J. and Radosevich, S. R. Intra and interspecific competition among invasive and native species during early stages of plant growth. Plant Ecol. 2011. 212:531–542.Google Scholar
Marushia, R. G. and Allen, E. B. Control of invasive annual grasses to restore native forbs in abandoned agricultural land. Rest Ecol. 2011. 19:45–54.Google Scholar
Matansanz, S., Escudero, A. and Valladares, F. Additive effects of a potentially invasive grass and water stress on the performance of seedlings of gypsum specialists. Appl Veg Sci. 2008. 11:287–296.Google Scholar
McLendon, T. and Redente, E. F. Succession patterns following soil disturbance in a sagebrush steppe community. Oecologia. 1990. 85:293–300.Google Scholar
Navarro, L. M. and Pereira, H. M. Rewilding abandoned landscapes in Europe. 2012. Ecosystems DOI: 10:1007/s10021-012-9558-7.Google Scholar
Newingham, B. A., Vidiella, P. and Belnap, J. Do soil characteristics or microhabitat determine field emergence and success of Bromus tectorum? J Arid Environ. 2007. 70:389–402.Google Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration, National Climate Data Center. Station Name. Bridgeport, CA. 2013. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCNDMS/stations/GHCND:USC00041072/detail. Accessed July 5, 2013.Google Scholar
Padgett, P. E., Kee, S. N. and Allen, E. B. Effects of irrigation on revegetation of semi-arid coastal shrub in southern California. Environ Manage. 2000. 26:427–435.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J. F., Kemp, P. R., Ogle, K. and Fernandez, R. J. Modifying the ‘pulse-reserve’ paradigm for deserts of North America: precipitation pulses, soil water, and plant responses. Oecologia. 2004. 141:194–210.Google Scholar
Roundy, B. A., Heydari, H., Watson, C., Smith, S. E., Munda, B. and Pater, M. Summer establishment of Sonoran Desert species for revegetation of abandoned farmland using line source sprinkler irrigation. Arid Land Res Manag. 2001. 15:23–29.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc, Version 9.31 of the SAS System for Windows. Cary, NC, USA. 2010.Google Scholar
Sher, A. A., Goldberg, D. E. and Novoplansky, A. The effect of mean and variance in resource supply on survival of annuals from Mediterranean and desert environments. Oecologia. 2004. 141:353–362.Google Scholar
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. Map Unit 731. 2011. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 5, 2013.Google Scholar
USDA USFS Fire Effects Information System, Forb List. 2012. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/index.html. Accessed July 5, 2013.Google Scholar
West, N. E. and Yorks, T. P. Vegetation responses following wildfire on grazed and ungrazed sagebrush semi-desert. Rangeland Ecol Manag. 2002. 55:171–181.Google Scholar
Whisenant, S. G. Repairing damaged wildlands: a process-oriented, landscape-scale approach. Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press. 1999. 312.Google Scholar
Winkel, V. K., Roundy, B. A. and Cox, J. R. Influence of seedbed microsite characteristics on grass seedling emergence. J Range Manage. 1991. 44:210–214.Google Scholar
Wolkovich, E. M., Bolger, D. T. and Cottingham, K. L. Invasive grass litter facilitates native shrubs through abiotic effects. J Veg Sci. 2009. 20:1121–1132.Google Scholar