| Literature DB >> 31988728 |
Notiswa Libala1, Carolyn G Palmer1, Oghenekaro Nelson Odume1.
Abstract
Hill slope seep wetlands are ecologically and economically important ecosystems as they supply a variety of ecosystem services to society. In South Africa, livestock grazing is recognized as one of the most important disturbance factors changing the structure and function of hill slope seep wetlands. This study sought to investigate the potential effect of livestock grazing on the resilience and vulnerability of hillslope seep wetland vegetation cover using a trait-based approach (TBA). Changes in vegetation cover were used as a surrogate for indicating grazing intensity. The degree of human disturbances was assessed using the Anthropogenic Activity Index. A TBA was developed using seven plant traits, resolved into 27 trait attributes. Based on the developed approach, plant species were grouped into vulnerable and resilient groups in relation to grazing pressure. It was then predicted that species belonging to the vulnerable group would be less dominant at the highly disturbed sites, as well as in the winter season when grazing pressure is at its peak. The approach developed enabled accurate predictions of the responses of hillslope plant species to grazing pressure seasonally, but spatially, only for the summer season. The predicted responses during the winter season across sites did not match the observed results, which could be attributed to the difficulty in species identification and accurate estimation of vegetation cover during winter. Overall, the approach developed here provides a general framework for applying the TBA and can thus be tested and applied elsewhere.Entities:
Keywords: hill slope seep; livestock grazing; traits; vulnerability or resilience
Year: 2019 PMID: 31988728 PMCID: PMC6972813 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ecol Evol ISSN: 2045-7758 Impact factor: 2.912
Figure 1Locality map of quaternary catchments T35D and T35E in the Tsitsa River catchment within the Mzimvubu catchment, Eastern Cape, South Africa
Visual method used for estimating the degree of erosion of the studied hillslope seep wetland in the current study (adapted from Bunning, McDonagh, & Rioux, 2011)
| Erosional category | Description |
|---|---|
| Low | A few shallow (<0.5 m depth) gullies affecting no more than 5% of the surface and the vegetation cover are good with little soil exposure. |
| Moderate | Presence of shallow to moderately deep gullies (0.5–1.0 m depth) and/or gullies affecting 5%–25% of the surface area and plant cover is moderate with small bare patches. |
| High | Presence of deep gullies (>1 m depth) and/or affecting > 25% of the surface and plant cover is very sparse with large bare areas. |
Figure 2Locality map of selected hillslope seep sites in quaternary catchment T35D and T35E in the Tsitsa River catchment
A summary of modes by which grazing impact on plant communities
| Grazing mode of stress | Impacts on vegetation |
|---|---|
| Trampling | Trampling of plant by livestock is common in wetland ecosystems and it negatively impacts on ecosystem functioning, leading to a reduction in vegetation cover and degradation of plant communities (Pescott & Stewart, |
| Removal of plant biomass | Grazing may reduce plant biomass and leads to bare patches. Bare ground in wetlands increases soil erosion and accelerates water runoff which increases the amount of soil particles entering the water column (Morris & Reich, |
| Shift in vegetation communities | The shift in vegetation communities is an indirect effect of grazing. This may occur due to overgrazing or trampling that may allow changes from the dominance of palatable grasses and forbs toward dominance by unpalatable forbs and weedy annuals (McIntyre & Lavorel, |
Plant traits, trait attributes, vulnerable trait attributes, and rationalized relationship of the vulnerable trait attributes to grazing stress
| Trait category | Trait attribute | Vulnerable trait attribute(s) | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plant height (cm) (Díaz et al., |
Short (<40) Medium (40–80) Tall (>80) | Medium–tall (≥40) |
|
| Life cycle (years) (Dubey et al., |
Annual Perennial | Perennial | Perennial plants develop more extensive root systems to support their longer lives. However, when grazed heavily, they usually take longer to re‐establish than annual and biannual species (Díaz et al., |
| Palatability (Dubey et al., |
Highly palatable Moderately palatable Unpalatable |
Highly palatable | Generally, livestock such as cattle and sheep selects the most palatable plant species and avoids species that are difficult to digest (unpalatable) (Grime et al., |
| Specific leaf area (mm2/mg) (Walker, Kinzig, & Langridge, |
SLA 1 (<4) SLA 2 (4–8) SLA 3 (8–12) SLA 4 (12–16) SLA 5 (>16) | SLA 1 (< 4) |
Specific leaf area (SLA) is an important leaf trait that integrates plant investment into growth vs. defense (Hodgson, Wilson, Hunt, Grime, & Thompson, |
| Leaf size (mm2) (Willby, Abernrthy, & Demars, |
LS1 (<10) LS2 (10–200) LS3 (200–1,000) LS 4 > 1,000 | LS 4 > 1,000 | Leaf size is a one‐sided, projected surface area of a single or an average leaf expressed in mm2. Larger leaves provide better bites for grazers, whereas smaller leaves require more bites in a given leaf (and mass) (Vesk et al., |
| Resprouting potential (Cornelissen et al., |
0—never resprouting 20—very poor resprouting 40—moderate resprouting 60—substantial resprouting 80—abundant resprouting 100—very abundant resprouting (these are subjective numbers assigned to species for resprouting capacity after disturbance). |
0—never resprouting 20—very poor resprouting | Resprouting refers to the capacity of plants to regenerate from disturbances after damage to the living tissues (Pausas et al., |
| Leaf dry‐matter content (mg/g) (Pérez‐Harguindeguy et al., |
LDMC 1 (<150) LDMC 2 (150–300) LDMC 3 (300–500) LDMC 4 > 500 | LDMC 1 (<150) | Leaves with high LDMC tend to be tough and thus assumed to be more resistant to livestock grazing than leaves with low LDMC. Species with low LDMC tend to be associated with productive, often highly disturbed environments (Pérez‐Harguindeguy et al., |
Scale used to determine the vegetation cover during the present study (DAFF, 2014)
| Categories | % Cover | Mid‐point | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1–10 | 5.5 | Plant cover is very sparse with large bare areas |
| 2 | 10–25 | 18 | Cover is sparse with some bare areas |
| 3 | 25–50 | 38 | Cover is moderate with small bare patches |
| 4 | 50–75 | 63 | Cover is good with only a little soil exposure |
| 5 | 75–100 | 88 | Cover is dense with no soil visible |
Figure 3Anthropogenic Activity Index (AAI) showing disturbances gradient across the sites per season (left) (LE = less eroded site, ME = moderately eroded sites, HE = highly eroded sites) and the means ± standard errors of AAI (right). Different small alphabet letters on the bars across the site groups indicate significant differences (p < .05), whereas the same letters across sites group indicate no significant differences by ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test (p > .05)
Figure 4Vegetation cover (VC) across the sites per season (LE = less eroded site, ME = moderately eroded sites, HE = highly eroded sites) on the left and the means ± standard errors of VC on the right.). Different small alphabet letters on the bars across the site groups indicate significant differences (p < .05), whereas the same letters across sites group indicate no significant differences by ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test (p > .05)
Plant species grouped according to their potential vulnerability to grazing using the trait‐based approach developed
| Resilient | Vulnerability |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Figure 5Linear regression between the relative abundance of the vulnerable group species, resilient group species and Anthropogenic Activity Index (AAI) and vegetation cover for the 11 surveyed hillslope seep wetland during winter
Figure 6Linear regression between the relative abundance of the vulnerable group species, resilient group species and Anthropogenic Activity Index (AAI) and vegetation cover for the 11 surveyed hillslope seep wetland during summer
Figure 7Relative abundance of the vulnerable group (VG) and resilient group (RG) across the site groups LE, ME, and HE for summer and winter. Sites: LE = less eroded, ME = moderately eroded, HE = highly eroded. Season: a and b = winter; c and d = summer. Abbreviation: groups: VG = vulnerable, RG = resilient
Pearson point‐biserial correlation analysis of species association with site groups
| Species | Site group 1 | Site group 2 | Site group 3 | index | Coefficient |
| VG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.57 | .2 | V |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.91 |
| V |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.73 | .1 | R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.91 | .063 | V |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.8 |
| R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.69 | 0.14 | C |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.83 |
| R |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.7 | .26 | R |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0.7 | .2 | R |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.811 | .87 | V |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.65 | .4 | V |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.59 | .68 | V |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.78 | .39 | R |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.68 | .64 | R |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.65 | .41 | V |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.86 | .41 | R |
|
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0.93 | .07 | R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.53 | .71 | R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.44 | 1 | R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.63 | .61 | V |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.78 | .27 | R |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.65 | .4 | V |
|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0.84 | .09 | V |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.66 | .6 | V |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.8 | .09 | V |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.61 | .71 | R |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.85 | .24 | R |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.92 | .074 | V |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.96 |
| V |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.81 | .54 | R |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.61 | .7 | R |
|
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0.85 | .24 | R |
Abbreviation: VG, species vulnerability group.
The numbers 1 and 0 under the respective site group columns indicate when a species is associated and not associated with the site group. Code: 1 (species associated with site group 1); 2 (species associated with site group 2); 3 (species associated with site group 3); 4 (species associated with site groups 1 and 2); 5 (species associated with site groups 1 and 3); 6 (species associated with site groups 2 and 3). Site group 1 (LE1, LE2, and LE3), site group 2 (ME1, ME2, ME3, and ME4), site group 3 (HE1, HE2, HE3, and HE4). Bold face indicates significant associations at p < .05.