Application of modern coexistence theory to rare plant restoration provides early indication of restoration trajectories

Abstract

Restoration ecology commonly seeks to re-establish species of interest in degraded habitats. Despite a rich understanding of how succession influences re-establishment, there are several outstanding questions that remain unaddressed: are short-term abundances sufficient to determine long-term reestablishment success, and what factors contribute to unpredictable restorations outcomes? In other words, when restoration fails, is it because the restored habitat is substandard, because of strong competition with invasive species, or alternatively due to changing environmental conditions that would

Disturbance alters transience but nutrients determine equilibria during grassland succession with multiple global change drivers

“…Importantly, our results also demonstrated that the rate of community turnover can remain high as communities approach and reach equilibrium states (Figure 5). As such, we advocate that future work on succession and community assembly incorporate fluctuation dependent coexistence and stochastic theory, as communities at their dynamical equilibrium can be highly variable (Hallett et al, 2019;Shoemaker et al, 2020;Aoyama et al, 2022).…”

Reinvasion of restored California vernal pools reveals the importance of long‐term restoration planning

“…However, without continual removal, recruitment from exotic populations adjacent to the restored pools allowed for eventual recolonization of the site. Previous studies have shown that restored native populations can subsequently decline and even go extinct due to low growth rates that are negatively affected by interannual environmental variability and competition by invasive species (Aoyama et al 2022). Indeed, other long‐term monitoring studies in other ecosystems, such as grasslands and forests, have also shown that restored plant communities never reach the species diversity of natural reference ecosystems (McClain et al 2011; Lesage et al 2018).…”

“…In such settings, after the implementation phase ends, isolated restored sites may become reinvaded quickly by undesirable species from the surrounding landscape. Even if there are native individuals present, environmental conditions (e.g., climate change, competition) may prevent population growth and even result in local extirpation (Aoyama et al 2022). For example, restored wetlands that established an average of 28 native species within the implementation phase subsequently experienced a decline in richness to 12 native species 6 years later (Gutrich et al 2009).…”

“…The implementation phase initiates ecosystem recovery by targeting and manipulating key determinants of successional pathways (e.g., altering abiotic environmental site conditions and the abundance of species; Pickett et al 2009). After short‐term restoration efforts cease, the restored ecosystems become subject to ambient drivers of succession, such as the natural recruitment of plants via existing populations (including exotic species) and uncontrolled environmental conditions that favor some species over others (Aoyama et al 2022). For desired native populations to persist past the initial implementation phase, natural recruitment and environmental conditions must favor these native species.…”

Disturbance alters transience but nutrients determine equilibria during grassland succession with multiple global change drivers

“…Importantly, our results also demonstrated that the rate of community turnover can remain high as communities approach and reach equilibrium states (Figure 5). As such, we advocate that future work on succession and community assembly incorporate fluctuation dependent coexistence and stochastic theory, as communities at their dynamical equilibrium can be highly variable (Aoyama et al, 2022;Hallett et al, 2019;Shoemaker et al, 2020).…”