4.4 Article

Legacy microsite effect on the survival of bitterbrush outplantings after prescribed fire: capitalizing on spatial variability to improve restoration

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 723-730

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/rec.12506

关键词

burning; canopy; cheatgrass; interspace; juniper; Purshia tridentata; seedling

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Restoration of shrubs in arid and semi-arid rangelands is hampered by low success rates. Planting shrub seedlings is a method used to improve success in these rangelands; however, it is expensive and labor intensive. The efficiency of shrub restoration could be improved by identifying microsites where shrub survival is greater. Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata Pursh DC) is an important shrub to wildlife that has declined because of conifer encroachment, excessive defoliation, wildfires, and low recruitment. We investigated planting bitterbrush seedlings in western juniper (Juniperus occidentalis ssp. occidentalis Hook) encroached shrublands after prescribed fire was used to control trees. Bitterbrush seedlings were planted in under (canopy) and between (interspace) former juniper canopies at five blocks and evaluated for three growing seasons. Bitterbrush survival was greater than 50% in the former canopy, but only 5% in the interspace microsite by the third growing season. Growth of bitterbrush was also greater in the former canopy compared with the interspace, potentially due to markedly less perennial vegetation in this microsite. Exotic annual grasses and annual forbs became prevalent in the former canopy in the second and third growing season, suggesting that soil resource availability was greater in this microsite. These results suggest that restoration success will vary by specific locations within a burned landscape and that this variability can be used to improve restoration efficiency. In this situation, bitterbrush restoration can be improved by planting seedlings in former canopy compared with interspace microsites.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据