Underneath it All: Soil Differences May Explain Contrasting Outcomes of Adjacent Prairie Restorations in Madison, Wisconsin

K. Marshall, N. Balster, Alex W. Bajcz
{"title":"Underneath it All: Soil Differences May Explain Contrasting Outcomes of Adjacent Prairie Restorations in Madison, Wisconsin","authors":"K. Marshall, N. Balster, Alex W. Bajcz","doi":"10.33697/ajur.2018.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The evaluation of prairie restorations tends to focus on aboveground properties such as changes in plant diversity and the encroachment of non-native species. As a result, knowledge gaps persist concerning belowground controls of restoration success. To address these gaps at a 13-year-old prairie restoration site in Madison, Wisconsin, we spatially compared soil chemical, physical, and hydrological properties in two adjacent parcels that differed markedly in response to a tallgrass prairie restoration. We hypothesized that soil properties and their heterogeneity would differ significantly between the two parcels and that these differences would help explain the divergent response. In support of this hypothesis, soil organic matter, pH, and total nitrogen were significantly lower (p = 0.007, p < 0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively) in the restored parcel compared to the parcel that has yet to respond to any restoration efforts. Moreover, despite no significant difference in soil average bulk density between the two parcels, the restored parcel had significantly lower sand and silt fractions overall (p = 0.039 and p = 0.040, respectively). In contrast, except for total nitrogen, there were no apparent differences in the spatial heterogeneity of the measured soil properties between the restored and unrestored parcels, which did not support the second hypothesis of this study. These results demonstrate the utility of measuring belowground properties when assessing unexpected outcomes of prairie restorations as well as inform future hypothesis-driven experiments to determine which soil properties impede restoration and under what circumstances.\nKEYWORDS: Prairie Restoration; Bulk Density; Soil Organic Matter; Soil Properties; Soil Texture; Spatial Heterogeneity","PeriodicalId":383906,"journal":{"name":"Volume 15, Issue 3","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 15, Issue 3","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33697/ajur.2018.024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The evaluation of prairie restorations tends to focus on aboveground properties such as changes in plant diversity and the encroachment of non-native species. As a result, knowledge gaps persist concerning belowground controls of restoration success. To address these gaps at a 13-year-old prairie restoration site in Madison, Wisconsin, we spatially compared soil chemical, physical, and hydrological properties in two adjacent parcels that differed markedly in response to a tallgrass prairie restoration. We hypothesized that soil properties and their heterogeneity would differ significantly between the two parcels and that these differences would help explain the divergent response. In support of this hypothesis, soil organic matter, pH, and total nitrogen were significantly lower (p = 0.007, p < 0.001, and p = 0.006, respectively) in the restored parcel compared to the parcel that has yet to respond to any restoration efforts. Moreover, despite no significant difference in soil average bulk density between the two parcels, the restored parcel had significantly lower sand and silt fractions overall (p = 0.039 and p = 0.040, respectively). In contrast, except for total nitrogen, there were no apparent differences in the spatial heterogeneity of the measured soil properties between the restored and unrestored parcels, which did not support the second hypothesis of this study. These results demonstrate the utility of measuring belowground properties when assessing unexpected outcomes of prairie restorations as well as inform future hypothesis-driven experiments to determine which soil properties impede restoration and under what circumstances. KEYWORDS: Prairie Restoration; Bulk Density; Soil Organic Matter; Soil Properties; Soil Texture; Spatial Heterogeneity
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在这一切之下:土壤差异可以解释威斯康星州麦迪逊市邻近草原恢复的不同结果
对草原恢复的评价往往侧重于植物多样性变化和外来物种入侵等地上性状的评价。因此,关于地下控制恢复成功的知识差距仍然存在。为了解决这些空白,我们在威斯康星州麦迪逊的一个13年前的草原恢复地点,在空间上比较了两个相邻地块的土壤化学、物理和水文特性,这两个地块对高草草原恢复的响应明显不同。我们假设土壤性质及其异质性在两个地块之间存在显著差异,这些差异将有助于解释不同的反应。为了支持这一假设,与尚未响应任何恢复工作的地块相比,恢复地块的土壤有机质,pH和总氮显著降低(p = 0.007, p < 0.001和p = 0.006)。此外,尽管两个地块的土壤平均容重没有显著差异,但恢复地块的砂和粉粒组分总体上显著降低(p = 0.039和p = 0.040)。相比之下,除全氮外,恢复地块与未恢复地块间土壤性质的空间异质性无明显差异,不支持本研究的第二个假设。这些结果表明,在评估草原恢复的意外结果时,测量地下属性的效用,以及为未来的假设驱动实验提供信息,以确定哪些土壤属性在什么情况下阻碍了恢复。关键词:草原恢复;体积密度;土壤有机质;土壤属性;土壤质地;空间异质性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Selective Extraction of Red Phosphor (Y2O3:Eu3+) Constituents from Waste Fluorescent Lamps Phosphor Using Acid Leaching Enhancing Number System Knowledge to Promote Number Sense and Adaptive Expertise: A Case Study of a Second-Grade Mathematics Student Measuring the Mechanical Properties of Laminated Wood Structures Using a Homemade Bending Tester College Students’ Well–Being: Use of Counseling Services Underneath it All: Soil Differences May Explain Contrasting Outcomes of Adjacent Prairie Restorations in Madison, Wisconsin
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1