Impact of mid‐successional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands

Abstract

1Questions: (1) Which species dominate mid-successional old-fields in Hungary? How does 2 the identity of these species relate to local (patch-scale) diversity and to the progress of 3 succession? (2) Which species have the strongest negative impact on diversity in spontaneous 4 old-field succession and what generalizations are possible about the traits of these species? 5 (3) Are these species dominant or subordinate components in mature target communities? (4) 6 Do native or alien species have stronger effects on the diversity and progress of succession? 7Location: Abandoned agricultural fields (abandoned croplands, orchards and vineyards) at 8 various locations scattered throughout Hungary. 9Methods: Vegetation patterns on 112 old-fields, in 25 sites varying in soils and climatic 10 conditions, topography, landscape contexts and land use histories were sampled. Most old-11 fields had appropriate seed sources in the immediate vicinity, i.e. natural or semi-natural 12 grasslands (meadows steppes, closed and open sand steppes) as source and target habitats. 13The age of abandoned fields ranged from 1 to 69 years, but most sites were between 15 and 14 60 years. The cover of vascular plant species (in %) was estimated in 2 m x 2 m plots. 15Relationships between diversity, the progress of succession (similarity to target communities) 16 and the identity of dominants were tested. 17Results: A small portion of successional dominants (eight species) had strong negative 18 impacts on diversity. These species belonged to Poaceae, Asteraceae and Fabaceae families. 19Most of these species were wind pollinated, and capable of lateral vegetative spread. 20 Dominant species varied in size and had, on average, low requirements for nitrogen but a 21 high requirement for light. With one exception, Solidago gigantea, they were native to the 22

Do exotic plants lose resistance to pathogenic soil biota from their native range? A test with Solidago gigantea

“…This species was introduced to Europe in the 18th century as an ornamental and today it is a widespread and problematic invader in Central Europe (Török et al 2003;Botta-Dukát 2008;Lambdon et al 2008). In its non-native range, S. gigantea monopolizes wetland habitats as well as drier disturbed areas and abandoned fields (Török et al 2003;Güsewell et al 2005;Weber and Jakobs 2005;Láník-ová et al 2009;Bartha et al 2014).…”

Biomass Accumulation and Net Primary Production during the Early Stage of Secondary Succession after a Severe Forest Disturbance in Northern Japan

“…In Hokkaido Island, this species was introduced as an ornamental before the 1950s [56]. This species is light-demanding, grows in wide ranges of soil moisture and nutrient conditions, and is often found in open sites such as wetlands [55], the forest margin, and gaps including those at disturbed sites [57], abandoned farmland and grassland [58], and ski slopes [59]. At the study site, Solidago gigantea also formed dense and monospecific communities, accounting for about 70% of the understory biomass (Figure 1b), as reported by [55].…”

Do Landscape Structure and Socio-Economic Variables Explain the Solidago Invasion?

“…Long-range dispersal is realized by numerous wind-dispersed seeds whereas shortrange spread is realized by vegetative growth of rhizomes (Weber 2001). They can create large stands in abandoned fields and meadows, riparian habitats, forest edges and unmowed road verges (Weber 2001;Weber and Jacobs 2005;Szymura 2011, 2013;Bartha et al 2014;Fenesi et al 2015). The alien Solidago species included in this study are similar with respect to their biology and ecology, and they do not differ in their habitat preferences and soil conditions in the study region.…”

“…Invasive species of Solidago are able to better utilize resources for biomass production than co-occurring plant species native to Central Europe (Szymura and Szymura 2015). The increase of the cover of alien Solidago species in patches of vegetation is correlated with a decrease in species richness (Hejda et al 2009;Del Fabbro et al 2013;Fenesi et al 2015) and alters spontaneous succession (Bornkamm 2007;Bartha et al 2014). Meadows, invaded by goldenrods, have lower bird species richness and lower numbers of breeding pairs than uninvaded ones (Skórka et al 2010).…”