EDITOR'S CHOICE: Confronting contingency in restoration: management and site history determine outcomes of assembling prairies, but site characteristics and landscape context have little effect

Summary 1. The outcomes of ecological restoration are notoriously unpredictable, but we have no general predictive understanding of this contingency. Management decisions can have strong effects on restoration outcomes, but in other cases may be overwhelmed by site characteristics (e.g. soil conditions), landscape context (e.g. abundance of similar habitat) or historical factors (e.g. priority effects). However, we generally cannot predict which of these four classes of drivers will affect restoration outcomes. Disparate aspects of restoration outcomes (e.g. species richness, beta diversity and community composition) and their unique responses further complicate our understanding. Finally, these four classes of drivers might differentially affect subsets of the restored community, where, for example, management might shape the abundance and distribution of species of the target community, while other species are more contingent on site, landscape or historical factors. 2. Here, we used variation partitioning to compare the relative importance of management, site, landscape and historical factors for determining the plant community outcomes of 27 prairie restorations in south-west Michigan. 3. We found that management, especially the composition, diversity and density of seed mixes applied, and history, especially site age, were the most important drivers of prairie restoration species richness, beta diversity and composition. Site and landscape factors were only rarely important for restoration outcomes. 4. Finally, we found that comparing the unique responses of sown and non-sown species typically increased our understanding of the dynamics contributing to community-wide restoration outcomes. 5. Synthesis and applications. This is, to our knowledge, the first quantitative comparison of how four major classes of drivers determine the outcome of restoration. Historical legacies and management decisions, but generally not landscape context or local site conditions, shaped plant communities at restored sites. These findings represent an important step towards developing a more predictive framework for understanding contingency in restoration outcomes.

[1]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[2]  Karel Prach,et al.  Large‐Scale Restoration of Dry Grasslands on Ex‐Arable Land Using a Regional Seed Mixture: Establishment of Target Species , 2013 .

[3]  R. Lindborg,et al.  Landscape context and management regime structure plant diversity in grassland communities , 2012 .

[4]  J. Blair,et al.  High richness and dense seeding enhance grassland restoration establishment but have little effect on drought response. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[5]  C. D’Antonio,et al.  Gone but Not Forgotten? Invasive Plants' Legacies on Community and Ecosystem Properties , 2012, Invasive Plant Science and Management.

[6]  J. Blair,et al.  Recovery of Native Plant Community Characteristics on a Chronosequence of Restored Prairies Seeded into Pastures in West‐Central Iowa , 2012 .

[7]  M. K. Gillespie,et al.  A Cross-Taxonomic Comparison of Insect Responses to Grassland Management and Land-Use Legacies , 2011 .

[8]  D. Landis,et al.  Influence of habitat and landscape perenniality on insect natural enemies in three candidate biofuel crops , 2011 .

[9]  B. Woodcock,et al.  Can long-term floodplain meadow recreation replicate species composition and functional characteristics of target grasslands? , 2011 .

[10]  Jonathan M. Chase,et al.  Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[11]  E. Damschen,et al.  Land-use history, historical connectivity, and land management interact to determine longleaf pine woodland understory richness and composition , 2011 .

[12]  L. Brudvig.  The restoration of biodiversity: where has research been and where does it need to go? , 2011, American journal of botany.

[13]  K. Kindscher,et al.  Evaluating patterns of biodiversity in managed grasslands using spatial turnover metrics. , 2011 .

[14]  L. Brudvig,et al.  Dispersal, not Understory Light Competition, Limits Restoration of Iowa Woodland Understory Herbs , 2011 .

[15]  T. L. Dickson,et al.  Seed availability constrains plant species sorting along a soil fertility gradient , 2010 .

[16]  Truman P. Young,et al.  Contingent Conclusions: Year of Initiation Influences Ecological Field Experiments, but Temporal Replication is Rare , 2010 .

[17]  N. Hölzel,et al.  Species introduction in restoration projects-Evaluation of different techniques for the establishment of semi-natural grasslands in Central and Northwestern Europe , 2010 .

[18]  V. Brown,et al.  The role of management and landscape context in the restoration of grassland phytophagous beetles , 2010 .

[19]  A. G. Endress,et al.  Relative influence of landscape vs. local factors on plant community assembly in restored wetlands. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[20]  Sharon K Collinge,et al.  Transient patterns in the assembly of vernal pool plant communities. , 2009, Ecology.

[21]  T. L. Dickson,et al.  Forb Species Establishment Increases with Decreased Grass Seeding Density and with Increased Forb Seeding Density in a Northeast Kansas, U.S.A., Experimental Prairie Restoration , 2009 .

[22]  G. Cumming,et al.  Historical influences dominate the composition of regenerating plant communities in abandoned citrus groves in north-central Florida , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[23]  P. Legendre,et al.  Forward selection of explanatory variables. , 2008, Ecology.

[24]  R. Marrs,et al.  Do restored calcareous grasslands on former arable fields resemble ancient targets? The effect of time, methods and environment on outcomes , 2008 .

[25]  S. Wilson,et al.  Climatic variability alters the outcome of long‐term community assembly , 2008 .

[26]  James R. Miller,et al.  Butterfly responses to prairie restoration through fire and grazing , 2007 .

[27]  James R. Miller,et al.  Evaluation of Central North American Prairie Management Based on Species Diversity, Life Form, and Individual Species Metrics , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[28]  C. Clark,et al.  Are Plant Populations Seed Limited? A Critique and Meta‐Analysis of Seed Addition Experiments , 2007, The American Naturalist.

[29]  B. Graae,et al.  Homogenization of forest plant communities and weakening of species–environment relationships via agricultural land use , 2007 .

[30]  P. Legendre,et al.  Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. , 2006, Ecology.

[31]  Marti J. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate dispersion as a measure of beta diversity. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[32]  D. Debinski,et al.  Evaluation of isolated and integrated prairie reconstructions as habitat for prairie butterflies , 2005 .

[33]  B. Wilsey,et al.  Patterns of Plant Species Diversity in Remnant and Restored Tallgrass Prairies , 2005 .

[34]  T. Mitchell Aide,et al.  Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured? , 2005 .

[35]  B. Wilsey,et al.  An assessment of grassland restoration success using species diversity components , 2005 .

[36]  K. Holl,et al.  Applicability of landscape and island biogeography theory to restoration of riparian understorey plants , 2004 .

[37]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Assembly rules and restoration ecology : bridging the gap between theory and practice , 2004 .

[38]  Scott D. Wilson,et al.  CONTINGENCY OF GRASSLAND RESTORATION ON YEAR, SITE, AND COMPETITION FROM INTRODUCED GRASSES , 2003 .

[39]  William Sluis.  Patterns of Species Richness and Composition in Re‐Created Grassland , 2002 .

[40]  Richard J. Hobbs,et al.  Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium , 2001 .

[41]  P. Rich,et al.  Land‐Use History in Ecosystem Restoration: A 40‐Year Study in the Prairie‐Forest Ecotone , 2000 .

[42]  J. Lancaster,et al.  Assembly rules within a contingent ecology , 1999 .

[43]  J. Blair,et al.  Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie , 1998, Science.

[44]  M. Palmer,et al.  Ecological Theory and Community Restoration Ecology , 1997 .

[45]  Andrew P. Dobson,et al.  Hopes for the Future: Restoration Ecology and Conservation Biology , 1997 .

[46]  E. G. Voss,et al.  Michigan Flora, Part III, Dicots (Pyrolaceae-Compositae). , 1997 .

[47]  P. Poschlod,et al.  Seed banks and seed dispersal: Important topics in restoration ecology , 1996 .

[48]  A. J. Frost,et al.  Determination of buffer zones to protect seedlings of non-target plants from the effects of glyphosate spray drift , 1993 .

[49]  S. Collins.  Fire Frequency and Community Heterogeneity in Tallgrass Prairie Vegetation , 1992 .

[50]  C. Williams,et al.  Buffer zone widths for honeybees from ground and aerial spraying of insecticides. , 1990, Environmental pollution.

[51]  T. Seastedt,et al.  Detritus Accumulation Limits Productivity of Tallgrass PrairieThe effects of its plant litter on ecosystem function make the tallgrass prairie unique among North American biomes , 1986 .

[52]  T. Barkley,et al.  Michigan Flora Part II: Dicots (Saururaceae-Cornaceae) , 1985 .

[53]  E. G. Voss,et al.  Michigan Flora. Part I. Gymnosperms and Monocots , 1972 .