| Literature DB >> 26158494 |
Kelly Anne Farrell1, W Stanley Harpole2, Claudia Stein3, Katharine N Suding4, Elizabeth T Borer5.
Abstract
Cattle grazing and invasion by non-native plant species are globally-ubiquitous changes occurring to plant communities that are likely to reverberate through whole food webs. We used a manipulative field experiment to quantify how arthropod community structure differed in native and non-native California grassland communities in the presence and absence of grazing. The arthropod community was strongly affected by cattle grazing: the biovolume of herbivorous arthropods was 79% higher in grazed than ungrazed plots, whereas the biovolume of predatory arthropods was 13% higher in ungrazed plots. In plots where non-native grasses were grazed, arthropod biovolume increased, possibly in response to increased plant productivity or increased nutritional quality of rapidly-growing annual plants. Grazing may thus affect plant biomass both through the direct removal of biomass, and through arthropod-mediated impacts. We also expected the arthropod community to differ between native and non-native plant communities; surprisingly, arthropod richness and diversity did not vary consistently between these grass community types, although arthropod abundance was slightly higher in plots with native and ungrazed grasses. These results suggest that whereas cattle grazing affects the arthropod community via direct and indirect pathways, arthropod community changes commonly associated with non-native plant invasions may not be due to the identity or dominance of the invasive species in those systems, but to accompanying changes in plant traits or functional group composition, not seen in this experiment because of the similarity of the plant communities.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26158494 PMCID: PMC4497643 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129823
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Plot experimental treatments.
(A) A satellite photo of one of the experimental fields in 2010, courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey. (B) A diagram of the experimental setup of one of the fields. Plots were solarized in 2006, then planted with an exotic annual grass mixture, a native perennial grass mixture, an exotic Medusae head (Taeneathrum caput-medusae) grass monoculture, or left as a control in late 2006 and early 2007. Across these plantings, cattle herding and mowing were combined to create a gradient of grazing intensity, from heavy grazing at the centers of the plots (lightest color) to no grazing at the outside of the plots (darkest color). Two mirror replicates of each grass * grazing block were sampled in this study, for a total of four samples from each grass*grazing combination in each field. (C) The vegetation differences between grass treatments were highly evident at the arthropod sampling date in May 2009.
Responses of the plant community to experimental treatments.
| Plant Community Response, 95% Confidence Intervals | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richness (# species) | Shannon Evenness | Biomass (g/m2) | Litter mass (g/m2) | |
|
| -5.1, 0.6 | -0.250, -0.0489** | -123.88, 57.70 | -103.36, 19.20 |
|
| -0.4, 5.2 | 0.0214, 0.2089 * | -147.94, 6.20 † | -128.10, -27.98 ** |
Plant community metrics were compared between native perennial and non-native annual grass-dominated communities using a t-test, and between grazed and ungrazed treatments using paired t-tests. Negative numbers indicate that annual grass or grazed plots have a greater response value (richness, evenness, etc.) than perennial grass or ungrazed plots. The 95% confidence interval range is shown for each test. (Significance levels: **, p<0.01; *, p< 0.05; †, p<0.1).
§Values in row represent the 95% confidence range for a difference in the plant community response between plant provenance/life history treatments {native perennial vs. non-native annual grass plots}.
‡Values in row represent the 95% confidence range for a difference in the plant community response between grazing treatments {grazed vs. ungrazed plots}.
Results of linear model testing for significant impacts of environmental parameters on arthropod diversity measures and biovolume of arthropod trophic guilds.
| Arthropod Diversity | Arthropod Biovolume | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Abundance (log link) | Richness (log link) | Evenness | Total | Herbivore (ln herb) | Predator (ln pred) | Parasitoid | Detritivore | |
| Non-native grasses (compared to Native) | -0.166*** | - | - | 183.14* | 0.4263 | -0.8058 | 1.8439† | 2.7246 | |
| Grazing | -0.247*** | -0.1567* | - | 191.13** | 0.8621* | -2.3813** | - | 2.4928 | |
| Grass × Grazing | -0.100** | - | - | 212.77* | 0.5889 | -1.9326* | - | - | |
| Field/Block | -0.09*** | -0.0222** | 0.0005* | - | 0.0917** | -0.1388* | -0.1771 | -0.5525* | |
| Plant richness | 0.035*** | - | -0.0005* | - | - | - | - | - | |
| Plant evenness (Shannon) | 0.503*** | 0.8877*** | - | - | - | 6.2731** | 5.0651 | 14.1057* | |
| Plant biomass | 0.0001* | - | 0.00002 | - | - | - | 0.0063 | - | |
| Litter mass | -0.002** | -0.0010 | - | - | - | -0.0081† | -0.0109 | -0.0243† | |
Environmental parameters included experimental treatments and plant community measures. Each model started with all parameters, and the best-fitting model was selected using AIC. For each arthropod response variable, the parameter estimates and their significance levels in the final model (***, p< 0.001; **, p<0.01; *, p< 0.05; †, p<0.1) are given. (ln) natural log.
Fig 2Response of total plot arthropod biovolume to grass provenance and grazing treatments.
Values represent means ±SE.
Fig 3Log response of each trophic group’s biovolume to grazing treatments.
Values represent means ±SE.
Results of perMANOVAs evaluating differences in proportional morphospecies abundances between experimental treatments.
| perMANOVA test | # plots | # morphos | Blocking F-ratio (df) | Treatment F-ratio (df) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grazing | 30 | 177 | 1.4150**(14) | 2.4749**(1) |
| Grass in Ungrazed | 16 | 138 | 1.7347 (1) | 1.2273 (2) |
| Grass in Grazed | 12 | 112 | 1.6921**(1) | 0.9557 (2) |
For each test, the number of plots and the number of morphospecies used in the analysis are included. The F-ratios, their significance levels (** p< 0.001), and the degrees for freedom (df) are given for each test. Paired grazing plots were evaluated with Field as a blocking factor to account for differences in baseline morphospecies’ abundances between fields. Grass treatment was evaluated separately for grazed and ungrazed plots due to the complexity of the experimental design and were blocked by treatment block.
Fig 4Two views of the same 4-dimentional NMS ordination of plots in arthropod species space.
(A) Open shapes represent native perennial grass plots; filled shapes represent non-native annual plots. Plots in experimental field 5 are represented by blue squares; field 14 by red circles. Joint plot lines show environmental variables that were strongly correlated with the arthropod species composition as represented in the ordination. Grazing was negatively associated with litter mass and residual dry matter (RDM), and was a strong predictor of arthropod assemblage. Arthropod assemblages from the two grass treatments were not distinct from each other. (B) The same ordination, but each point represents the placement of an arthropod morphospecies within the species space. Joint plot lines show groups of arthropods whose biomass in a plot was strongly correlated with the ordination.