Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec;33(8):e2922.
doi: 10.1002/eap.2922. Epub 2023 Oct 23.

Testing the hierarchy of predictability in grassland restoration across a gradient of environmental severity

Affiliations

Testing the hierarchy of predictability in grassland restoration across a gradient of environmental severity

Diana Bertuol-Garcia et al. Ecol Appl. 2023 Dec.

Abstract

Ecological restoration is critical for recovering degraded ecosystems but is challenged by variable success and low predictability. Understanding which outcomes are more predictable and less variable following restoration can improve restoration effectiveness. Recent theory asserts that the predictability of outcomes would follow an order from most to least predictable from coarse to fine community properties (physical structure > taxonomic diversity > functional composition > taxonomic composition) and that predictability would increase with more severe environmental conditions constraining species establishment. We tested this "hierarchy of predictability" hypothesis by synthesizing outcomes along an aridity gradient with 11 grassland restoration projects across the United States. We used 1829 vegetation monitoring plots from 227 restoration treatments, spread across 52 sites. We fit generalized linear mixed-effects models to predict six indicators of restoration outcomes as a function of restoration characteristics (i.e., seed mixes, disturbance, management actions, time since restoration) and used variance explained by models and model residuals as proxies for restoration predictability. We did not find consistent support for our hypotheses. Physical structure was among the most predictable outcomes when the response variable was relative abundance of grasses, but unpredictable for total canopy cover. Similarly, one dimension of taxonomic composition related to species identities was unpredictable, but another dimension of taxonomic composition indicating whether exotic or native species dominated the community was highly predictable. Taxonomic diversity (i.e., species richness) and functional composition (i.e., mean trait values) were intermittently predictable. Predictability also did not increase consistently with aridity. The dimension of taxonomic composition related to the identity of species in restored communities was more predictable (i.e., smaller residuals) in more arid sites, but functional composition was less predictable (i.e., larger residuals), and other outcomes showed no significant trend. Restoration outcomes were most predictable when they related to variation in dominant species, while those responding to rare species were harder to predict, indicating a potential role of scale in restoration predictability. Overall, our results highlight additional factors that might influence restoration predictability and add support to the importance of continuous monitoring and active management beyond one-time seed addition for successful grassland restoration in the United States.

Keywords: aridity; community composition; ecological restoration; functional composition; grasslands; physical structure; restoration outcomes; restoration success; richness.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Abella, S. R., T. A. Schetter, and T. L. Walters. 2018. “Testing the Hypothesis of Hierarchical Predictability in Ecological Restoration and Succession.” Oecologia 186(2): 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-017-4040-z.
    1. Bardgett, R. D., J. M. Bullock, S. Lavorel, P. Manning, U. Schaffner, N. Ostle, M. Chomel, et al. 2021. “Combatting Global Grassland Degradation.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2(10): 720-735. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2.
    1. Barr, S., J. L. Jonas, and M. W. Paschke. 2017. “Optimizing Seed Mixture Diversity and Seeding Rates for Grassland Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 25(3): 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12445.
    1. Baur, B. 2014. “Dispersal-Limited Species-A Challenge for Ecological Restoration.” Basic and Applied Ecology 15(7): 559-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.06.004.
    1. BenDor, T. K., T. Avery Livengood, W. Lester, A. Davis, and L. Yonavjak. 2015. “Defining and Evaluating the Ecological Restoration Economy.” Restoration Ecology 23(3): 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12206.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources