Effects of management outweigh effects of plant diversity on restored animal communities in tallgrass prairies
Effects of management outweigh effects of plant diversity on restored animal communities in tallgrass prairies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.2015421118
复制
发表时间：
2021-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Guiden;N. Barber;Ryan C. Blackburn;Anna K. Farrell;Jessica Fliginger;Sheryl C. Hosler;R. King;Melissa Nelson;Erin G Rowland;Kirstie Savage;J. Vanek;H. Jones
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Guiden;N. Barber;Ryan C. Blackburn;Anna K. Farrell;Jessica Fliginger;Sheryl C. Hosler;R. King;Melissa Nelson;Erin G Rowland;Kirstie Savage;J. Vanek;H. Jones
意义"如果你建造它，他们会来"是一个普遍接受的原则恢复生态学（梦想的领域假说）。这一假说经常指导恢复实践，它预测恢复植物生物多样性将导致动物生物多样性的恢复。然而，这一预测很少得到验证，因为恢复研究测量植物或动物的生物多样性，但很少两者兼而有之。从高草草原收集的四年的植物和动物生物多样性数据表明，恢复对脊椎动物和无脊椎动物的生物多样性有很大的影响。动物的生物多样性更多的是通过管理实践而不是植物的生物多样性来解释的，这表明了梦之地假说没有捕捉到的重要反应。在动物介导关键生态系统功能的地方，恢复规划将受益于明确考虑动物群落的反应。生态恢复的一个主要目标是增加退化生态系统的生物多样性。然而，恢复生态学的成功往往是通过测量一个单一的功能组或营养级恢复的反应，而不考虑恢复如何影响塑造生物多样性的多营养相互作用进行评估。因此，有必要采取全生态系统的恢复办法，以了解动物对恢复的反应，如生物多样性的变化，是否受到植物群落变化（植物驱动的影响）或恢复活动造成的干扰和演替（管理驱动的影响）的促进。此外，大多数恢复生态学的研究集中在恢复如何改变分类多样性，而较少关注恢复生态系统的功能和系统发育多样性的响应。在这里，我们比较了植物驱动和管理驱动的恢复对四种动物群落（地面甲虫，金龟子，蛇，和小型哺乳动物）的恢复高草草原，在不同的管理历史（规定的火灾和野牛重新引入）的网站的时序的影响。我们的分析表明，对动物群落的管理驱动的影响比通过植物生物多样性的变化介导的影响强六倍。此外，我们证明，恢复可以同时通过不同的途径对生物多样性产生积极和消极的影响，这可能有助于调和恢复结果的变化。此外，动物分类学和系统发育多样性对恢复的反应不同，这表明恢复计划可能会受益于考虑动物生物多样性的多个维度。我们的结论是，单独的植物多样性的指标可能不足以评估成功的恢复功能的生态系统重组。
Significance “If you build it, they will come” is a commonly accepted principle of restoration ecology (the Field of Dreams hypothesis). This hypothesis, which frequently guides restoration practice, predicts that restoring plant biodiversity will lead to the recovery of animal biodiversity. However, this prediction is rarely tested because restoration studies measure plant or animal biodiversity, but rarely both. Four years of plant and animal biodiversity data collected from tallgrass prairies showed that restoration had strong effects on vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity. Animal biodiversity was explained more by management practices than plant biodiversity, demonstrating important responses not captured by the Field of Dreams hypothesis. Where animals mediate key ecosystem functions, restoration planning will benefit from explicitly considering the responses of animal communities. A primary goal of ecological restoration is to increase biodiversity in degraded ecosystems. However, the success of restoration ecology is often assessed by measuring the response of a single functional group or trophic level to restoration, without considering how restoration affects multitrophic interactions that shape biodiversity. An ecosystem-wide approach to restoration is therefore necessary to understand whether animal responses to restoration, such as changes in biodiversity, are facilitated by changes in plant communities (plant-driven effects) or disturbance and succession resulting from restoration activities (management-driven effects). Furthermore, most restoration ecology studies focus on how restoration alters taxonomic diversity, while less attention is paid to the response of functional and phylogenetic diversity in restored ecosystems. Here, we compared the strength of plant-driven and management-driven effects of restoration on four animal communities (ground beetles, dung beetles, snakes, and small mammals) in a chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie, where sites varied in management history (prescribed fire and bison reintroduction). Our analyses indicate that management-driven effects on animal communities were six-times stronger than effects mediated through changes in plant biodiversity. Additionally, we demonstrate that restoration can simultaneously have positive and negative effects on biodiversity through different pathways, which may help reconcile variation in restoration outcomes. Furthermore, animal taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity responded differently to restoration, suggesting that restoration plans might benefit from considering multiple dimensions of animal biodiversity. We conclude that metrics of plant diversity alone may not be adequate to assess the success of restoration in reassembling functional ecosystems.