4.4 Article

The mark of zorro:: Effects of the exotic annual grass Vulpia myuros on California native perennial grasses

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 10-17

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1526-100x.2000.80003.x

关键词

Nassella pulchra; Hordeum brachyantherum ssp brachyantherum; Elymus glaucus; Melica californica; Nassella cernua; Poa secunda ssp secunda; Vulpia myuros; California prairie restoration; California native perennial grasses; competition

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Native perennial grasses were once common in California prairies that are now dominated by annual grasses introduced from Europe. Competition from exotics may be a principal impediment to reestablishment of native perennial grasses. Introduced annual grasses, such as Vulpia myuros (zorro fescue), are often included with native perennial species in revegetation seed mixtures used in California. To examine the potential suppressive effect of this graminoid, we evaluated the growth and performance of a mixture of California native perennial grasses and resident weeds when grown with varying densities of V. myuros. The annual fescue exhibited a strongly plastic growth response to plant density, producing similar amounts of above-ground biomass at all seeding densities. Perennial grass seedling survival and above- ground biomass decreased and individuals became thinner (i.e., reduced weight-to-height ratio) with increasing V. myuros seeding density. V. myuros also significantly suppressed above-ground biomass and densities of weeds and had a more negative effect on weed densities than on native perennial grass densities. Biomass of native grasses and weeds was not differentially affected by increasing densities of V. myuros. Overall, because V. myuros significantly reduced the survival and performance of the mixture of native perennial grasses and this effect increased with increasing V. myuros density, we conclude that including this exotic annual in native seed mixtures is counterproductive to restoration efforts.

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