Volume 29, Issue S1 e13281
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Super-abundant C4 grasses are a mixed blessing in restored prairies

Emily Grman

Corresponding Author

Emily Grman

Department of Biology, Eastern Michigan University, 441 Mark Jefferson Science Complex, Ypsilanti, MI, 48197 U.S.A.

Address correspondence to E. Grman, email [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Chad R. Zirbel

Chad R. Zirbel

Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 140 Gortner Laboratory, 1479 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN, 55108 U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Jonathan T. Bauer

Jonathan T. Bauer

Department of Biology, Miami University, 212 Pearson Hall, Oxford, OH, 45056 U.S.A.

Institute for the Environment and Sustainability, Miami University, 118 Shideler Hall, Oxford, OH, 45056 U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Anna M. Groves

Anna M. Groves

Discover Magazine, Kalmbach Media, 21027 Crossroads Circle, Waukesha, WI, 53186 U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Tyler Bassett

Tyler Bassett

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension, PO Box 13036, Lansing, MI, 48901 U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
Lars A. Brudvig

Lars A. Brudvig

Department of Plant Biology and Program in Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior, Michigan State University, 368 Plant Biology Labs, 612 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI, 48824 U.S.A.

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 07 September 2020
Citations: 39
Author contributions: all authors conceived the study and collected data; CRZ analyzed the data; EG drafted the manuscript; all authors contributed to development of the manuscript and commented on drafts.
Guest Coordinating Editor: Jodi Price

Abstract

Forbs comprise most of the plant diversity in North American tallgrass prairie and provide vital ecosystem services, but their abundance in prairie restorations is highly variable. Restoration practitioners typically sow C4 grasses in high abundances because they are inexpensive, provide fuel for prescribed fires, can dominate reference sites, and suppress weeds that suppress sown forbs. However, C4 grasses can also suppress sown forbs, calling this practice into question. We evaluated how C4 grasses influence the abundance and diversity of sown forbs in 78 restored prairies across Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. We found that the direct negative effects of C4 grasses on sown forbs outweighed indirect positive effects that occurred as C4 grasses suppressed nonsown species, which in turn suppressed sown forbs. This pattern was especially strong for the C4 grass big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii). Therefore, strategies to promote big bluestem and other C4 grasses would not promote sown forbs. Although C4 grass cover was not strongly related to two hypothesized drivers (time since fire or site age), seeding density of C4 grasses increased their cover. Sown forb cover also increased with forb seeding density, increased indirectly with fire (through its negative effect on nonsown species), and decreased indirectly with soil water-holding capacity (through its positive effect on nonsown species). These results highlight the complex interplay of species groups during grassland restoration and show how managers can promote sown forbs in restored prairies: increasing forb seeding density and reducing time since fire and the abundance of C4 grasses and weeds.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.