Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Plant Interactions Versus Integrated Vegetation Management (IVM)


Questions:  does existing vegetation help or hurt the IVM goal of creating a self-sustaining, compatible plant community?  Do some compatible species tend to facilitate or inhibit the establishment and growth of incompatible species? And do these plant interactions vary systematically across ecosystems?

These questions fall into the domain of “Community Ecology”.  This looks like a good review paper but I don’t have access to it.  Ecology is notoriously unsystematic, so (without reading the review) I bet the answer is “Its complicated” and “It depends.”

Here are some papers I was able to access:

Paper: The role of plant interactions in the restoration of degraded ecosystems: a meta‐analysis across life‐forms and ecosystems
Relevant Conclusions:  Inhibition predominates in herbaceous communities typical of early‐successional stages, whereas facilitation prevails in communities dominated by shrubs and trees.
My Comment: IVM that leaves shrubs (like in Sonoran desert) would probably not create inhibition for tree growth, whereas IVM that leaves grasses (like Ponderosa habitats) would be expected to inhibit tree growth.

Paper: Is the change of plant–plant interactions with abiotic stress predictable? A meta‐analysis of field results in arid environments
Relevant Conclusions:  Density data showed that the net effect of plant neighbours was positive at low abiotic stress and negative at high abiotic stress levels.  However, none of our meta‐analyses indicated that the magnitude of the net effect provided by plant neighbours, whether positive or negative, was higher under high abiotic stress conditions, and facilitation does not therefore appear to increase in importance with abiotic stress.
My Comment: Results are mixed, but in general deserts do not show more importance of “nurse plant” facilitation.

No comments: