Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies
Conceptual restoration models depict strong correlations between structure and function, with both decreasing as an ecosystem is degraded and increasing during restoration. We evaluated the “linear” and “asymptotic” models by measuring diversity and annual net primary productivity (NPP) within four...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Restoration ecology 2011-03, Vol.19 (2), p.186-193 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 193 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 186 |
container_title | Restoration ecology |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Jelinski, Nicolas A Kucharik, Christopher J Zedler, Joy B |
description | Conceptual restoration models depict strong correlations between structure and function, with both decreasing as an ecosystem is degraded and increasing during restoration. We evaluated the “linear” and “asymptotic” models by measuring diversity and annual net primary productivity (NPP) within four states of a southern Wisconsin floodplain: a remnant (unplowed) wet prairie, two degraded sites (soybean field and invaded prairie), and a restored prairie. Neither model fit our data for aboveground (ANPP), belowground (BNPP), or total (TNPP) productivity. ANPP declined as species richness increased (r = 0.998, df = 2), with highest values for soybeans (1,024 g/m²; two species in 30 0.25-m² plots) and invaded prairie (937 g/m²; nine species, 99% cover of Phalaris arundinacea), intermediate for restored prairie (712 g/m²; 28 species), and lowest for diverse remnant prairie (571 g/m²; 36 species). In contrast, BNPP was lowest for soybeans (225 g/m²) and highest for remnant prairie (571 g/m²). TNPP in restored prairie (990 g/m²) matched that of the remnant (1,147 g/m²) within 7 years, but root:shoot NPP ratios were quite different (0.39 and 0.99, respectively). Overall, results suggest that the relationship between species diversity and productivity can differ with the component measured (ANPP, BNPP, or TNPP) and that diversity does not ensure high productivity. Because measuring ANPP does not fully test ecosystem-function theory, we recommend assessing BNPP and additional ecosystem processes in future attempts to determine whether adding species will restore more function to degraded ecosystems. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00551.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_860398573</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>860398573</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-e39ac36cba2d4032812a8106998fea431511c97e6a7757b6246750a8cd4d8ba03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURiMEUkvhGWqxYdME_8a2xAbSUpBKOyozKmJz5YmdykM6LnZSZt6-DkFdsMIbX8vfsT-dokAEVySvd5uKCFqXBOPvFcVYVxgLQards-Lw6eJ5nnFNSqolOSheprTBmAil2GGxWro0oNChU__gYvLDvlzEYMd28A_5gL4G6_qE_BZdmmGMpj9Bp-42GuvsCTJbi64zH6Kz6MYNaBGNj96lV8WLzvTJvf67HxWrT2fL5nN5cXX-pflwUbacMVI6pk3L6nZtqOWYUUWoUbmp1qpzhjMiCGm1dLWRUsh1TXktBTaqtdyqtcHsqHg7v3sfw68xN4E7n1rX92brwphA1ZhpJSTLyTf_JDdhjNtcDpTgnKv8aw6pOdTGkFJ0HdxHf2fiHgiGyTZsYJIKk1SYbMMf27DL6PsZ_e17t_9vDq7PmjxkvJxxnwa3e8JN_Am1ZFLAzeU5fFwuGt7QHzA1PZ7znQlgbqNPsPpGMWGY6CxNM_YI_FmcMg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>854448069</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Jelinski, Nicolas A ; Kucharik, Christopher J ; Zedler, Joy B</creator><creatorcontrib>Jelinski, Nicolas A ; Kucharik, Christopher J ; Zedler, Joy B</creatorcontrib><description>Conceptual restoration models depict strong correlations between structure and function, with both decreasing as an ecosystem is degraded and increasing during restoration. We evaluated the “linear” and “asymptotic” models by measuring diversity and annual net primary productivity (NPP) within four states of a southern Wisconsin floodplain: a remnant (unplowed) wet prairie, two degraded sites (soybean field and invaded prairie), and a restored prairie. Neither model fit our data for aboveground (ANPP), belowground (BNPP), or total (TNPP) productivity. ANPP declined as species richness increased (r = 0.998, df = 2), with highest values for soybeans (1,024 g/m²; two species in 30 0.25-m² plots) and invaded prairie (937 g/m²; nine species, 99% cover of Phalaris arundinacea), intermediate for restored prairie (712 g/m²; 28 species), and lowest for diverse remnant prairie (571 g/m²; 36 species). In contrast, BNPP was lowest for soybeans (225 g/m²) and highest for remnant prairie (571 g/m²). TNPP in restored prairie (990 g/m²) matched that of the remnant (1,147 g/m²) within 7 years, but root:shoot NPP ratios were quite different (0.39 and 0.99, respectively). Overall, results suggest that the relationship between species diversity and productivity can differ with the component measured (ANPP, BNPP, or TNPP) and that diversity does not ensure high productivity. Because measuring ANPP does not fully test ecosystem-function theory, we recommend assessing BNPP and additional ecosystem processes in future attempts to determine whether adding species will restore more function to degraded ecosystems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1061-2971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-100X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00551.x</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Biodiversity ; biodiversity-ecosystem function theory ; case study ; diversity ; Ecosystem studies ; Environmental restoration ; Phalaris arundinacea ; Plant ecology ; Prairies ; productivity ; wetland ; Wisconsin</subject><ispartof>Restoration ecology, 2011-03, Vol.19 (2), p.186-193</ispartof><rights>2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-e39ac36cba2d4032812a8106998fea431511c97e6a7757b6246750a8cd4d8ba03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-e39ac36cba2d4032812a8106998fea431511c97e6a7757b6246750a8cd4d8ba03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1526-100X.2009.00551.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1526-100X.2009.00551.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jelinski, Nicolas A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kucharik, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zedler, Joy B</creatorcontrib><title>Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies</title><title>Restoration ecology</title><description>Conceptual restoration models depict strong correlations between structure and function, with both decreasing as an ecosystem is degraded and increasing during restoration. We evaluated the “linear” and “asymptotic” models by measuring diversity and annual net primary productivity (NPP) within four states of a southern Wisconsin floodplain: a remnant (unplowed) wet prairie, two degraded sites (soybean field and invaded prairie), and a restored prairie. Neither model fit our data for aboveground (ANPP), belowground (BNPP), or total (TNPP) productivity. ANPP declined as species richness increased (r = 0.998, df = 2), with highest values for soybeans (1,024 g/m²; two species in 30 0.25-m² plots) and invaded prairie (937 g/m²; nine species, 99% cover of Phalaris arundinacea), intermediate for restored prairie (712 g/m²; 28 species), and lowest for diverse remnant prairie (571 g/m²; 36 species). In contrast, BNPP was lowest for soybeans (225 g/m²) and highest for remnant prairie (571 g/m²). TNPP in restored prairie (990 g/m²) matched that of the remnant (1,147 g/m²) within 7 years, but root:shoot NPP ratios were quite different (0.39 and 0.99, respectively). Overall, results suggest that the relationship between species diversity and productivity can differ with the component measured (ANPP, BNPP, or TNPP) and that diversity does not ensure high productivity. Because measuring ANPP does not fully test ecosystem-function theory, we recommend assessing BNPP and additional ecosystem processes in future attempts to determine whether adding species will restore more function to degraded ecosystems.</description><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>biodiversity-ecosystem function theory</subject><subject>case study</subject><subject>diversity</subject><subject>Ecosystem studies</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Phalaris arundinacea</subject><subject>Plant ecology</subject><subject>Prairies</subject><subject>productivity</subject><subject>wetland</subject><subject>Wisconsin</subject><issn>1061-2971</issn><issn>1526-100X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkM1u1DAURiMEUkvhGWqxYdME_8a2xAbSUpBKOyozKmJz5YmdykM6LnZSZt6-DkFdsMIbX8vfsT-dokAEVySvd5uKCFqXBOPvFcVYVxgLQards-Lw6eJ5nnFNSqolOSheprTBmAil2GGxWro0oNChU__gYvLDvlzEYMd28A_5gL4G6_qE_BZdmmGMpj9Bp-42GuvsCTJbi64zH6Kz6MYNaBGNj96lV8WLzvTJvf67HxWrT2fL5nN5cXX-pflwUbacMVI6pk3L6nZtqOWYUUWoUbmp1qpzhjMiCGm1dLWRUsh1TXktBTaqtdyqtcHsqHg7v3sfw68xN4E7n1rX92brwphA1ZhpJSTLyTf_JDdhjNtcDpTgnKv8aw6pOdTGkFJ0HdxHf2fiHgiGyTZsYJIKk1SYbMMf27DL6PsZ_e17t_9vDq7PmjxkvJxxnwa3e8JN_Am1ZFLAzeU5fFwuGt7QHzA1PZ7znQlgbqNPsPpGMWGY6CxNM_YI_FmcMg</recordid><startdate>201103</startdate><enddate>201103</enddate><creator>Jelinski, Nicolas A</creator><creator>Kucharik, Christopher J</creator><creator>Zedler, Joy B</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>7QH</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201103</creationdate><title>Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies</title><author>Jelinski, Nicolas A ; Kucharik, Christopher J ; Zedler, Joy B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4331-e39ac36cba2d4032812a8106998fea431511c97e6a7757b6246750a8cd4d8ba03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>biodiversity-ecosystem function theory</topic><topic>case study</topic><topic>diversity</topic><topic>Ecosystem studies</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Phalaris arundinacea</topic><topic>Plant ecology</topic><topic>Prairies</topic><topic>productivity</topic><topic>wetland</topic><topic>Wisconsin</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jelinski, Nicolas A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kucharik, Christopher J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zedler, Joy B</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jelinski, Nicolas A</au><au>Kucharik, Christopher J</au><au>Zedler, Joy B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies</atitle><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle><date>2011-03</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>186</spage><epage>193</epage><pages>186-193</pages><issn>1061-2971</issn><eissn>1526-100X</eissn><abstract>Conceptual restoration models depict strong correlations between structure and function, with both decreasing as an ecosystem is degraded and increasing during restoration. We evaluated the “linear” and “asymptotic” models by measuring diversity and annual net primary productivity (NPP) within four states of a southern Wisconsin floodplain: a remnant (unplowed) wet prairie, two degraded sites (soybean field and invaded prairie), and a restored prairie. Neither model fit our data for aboveground (ANPP), belowground (BNPP), or total (TNPP) productivity. ANPP declined as species richness increased (r = 0.998, df = 2), with highest values for soybeans (1,024 g/m²; two species in 30 0.25-m² plots) and invaded prairie (937 g/m²; nine species, 99% cover of Phalaris arundinacea), intermediate for restored prairie (712 g/m²; 28 species), and lowest for diverse remnant prairie (571 g/m²; 36 species). In contrast, BNPP was lowest for soybeans (225 g/m²) and highest for remnant prairie (571 g/m²). TNPP in restored prairie (990 g/m²) matched that of the remnant (1,147 g/m²) within 7 years, but root:shoot NPP ratios were quite different (0.39 and 0.99, respectively). Overall, results suggest that the relationship between species diversity and productivity can differ with the component measured (ANPP, BNPP, or TNPP) and that diversity does not ensure high productivity. Because measuring ANPP does not fully test ecosystem-function theory, we recommend assessing BNPP and additional ecosystem processes in future attempts to determine whether adding species will restore more function to degraded ecosystems.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00551.x</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1061-2971 |
ispartof | Restoration ecology, 2011-03, Vol.19 (2), p.186-193 |
issn | 1061-2971 1526-100X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_860398573 |
source | Wiley Journals |
subjects | Biodiversity biodiversity-ecosystem function theory case study diversity Ecosystem studies Environmental restoration Phalaris arundinacea Plant ecology Prairies productivity wetland Wisconsin |
title | Test of Diversity-Productivity Models in Natural, Degraded, and Restored Wet Prairies |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T15%3A09%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Test%20of%20Diversity-Productivity%20Models%20in%20Natural,%20Degraded,%20and%20Restored%20Wet%20Prairies&rft.jtitle=Restoration%20ecology&rft.au=Jelinski,%20Nicolas%20A&rft.date=2011-03&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=186&rft.epage=193&rft.pages=186-193&rft.issn=1061-2971&rft.eissn=1526-100X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00551.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E860398573%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=854448069&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |