Study

Evaluating Ecosystem Services Provided by Non-Native Species: An Experimental Test in California Grasslands

  • Published source details Stein C., Hallett L.M., Harpole W.S. & Suding K.N. (2014) Evaluating Ecosystem Services Provided by Non-Native Species: An Experimental Test in California Grasslands. PLOS ONE, 9, e75396

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Use fewer grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Other biodiversity: Use fewer grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Other biodiversity: Use grazers to manage vegetation

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Use fewer grazers

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2010 in sown plots in lowland grasslands in northern California, USA, found no difference in nitrogen availability or soil respiration between plots grazed at medium intensity, compared to high intensity. Nutrients: There was no difference in nitrogen availability between plots grazed at medium or high intensity (0.2–0.3 g N/g soil/day). Greenhouse gases: There were no differences in soil respiration between plots grazed at a medium or high intensity (245–315 µmol CO2/min/g soil). Methods: In 2007 four experimental blocks were established across two pastures. Each block was split into eighteen plots and subjected to one of three treatments: no manipulation; mowing and trampling by cattle to simulate medium cattle grazing; mowing and trampling by cattle to simulate heavy cattle grazing. Soil nitrogen availability was measured in December 2009–March 2010 using ion exchange resin bags. Soil respiration was measured in February 2010.

     

  2. Other biodiversity: Use fewer grazers

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2010 in grasslands in northern California, USA, found that plant diversity did not vary between plots grazed at different intensities, but that cover of native species was higher in plots grazed at lower intensities, compared to those grazed at higher intensities, for one of three plant assemblages. Plants: Plant diversity did not differ between plots with different grazing intensities (results reported as Shannon diversity). Cover of native species was higher in plots with medium, rather than high, grazing intensity in plots sown with native perennial grasses (17% vs 22% cover), but there was no difference in plots sown with two types of non-native assemblages (2–3%). Methods: In 2007 four experimental blocks were established across two pastures. Each block was split into three areas, sown with one of three vegetation types: native perennial grasses, non-native annual forage grasses, or a non-native, non-edible annual weed. These were then divided into six plots, which were subjected to one of three treatments, each replicated twice: no manipulation, mowing and trampling by cattle to simulate medium cattle grazing, or mowing and trampling by cattle to simulate heavy cattle grazing. Plants were surveyed in a 1 m2 quadrat in May 2008–2010.

     

  3. Other biodiversity: Use grazers to manage vegetation

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2008–2010 in lowland grasslands in northern California, USA, found that plant diversity did not differ between plots with simulated grazing and ungrazed plots. The cover of native species was lower in plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, for one of three plant assemblages. Plants: Plant diversity did not differ between plots with simulated grazing and ungrazed plots (results reported as Shannon diversity). Cover of native species was lower in plots with simulated grazing, compared to ungrazed plots, when plots were sown with native perennial grasses (17–22% vs 59% cover), but there was no difference in plots sown with two types of non-native assemblages (1–3%). Methods: In 2007, four experimental blocks were established across two pastures. Each block was split into three areas, sown with one of three vegetation types: native perennial grasses, non-native annual forage grasses, and a non-native, non-edible annual weed. These were then divided into six plots, which were subjected to one of three treatments, each replicated twice: no manipulation, mowing and trampling by cattle to simulate medium grazing, or to simulate heavy grazing. Plants were surveyed in a 1 m2 quadrat in May 2008–2010.

     

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust