Carbon Cycling in Native vs. Non-Native Dominated Rangeland Systems
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•911 views
Objective: We are addressing a fundamental information gap on how belowground C-cycling is impacted by the replacement of native rangelands with non-native communities. Our specific objective is to determine if C cycling processes are altered by conversion of native to exotic-dominated grasslands using ongoing experiments and comparative studies.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from National Institute of Food and Agriculture
More from National Institute of Food and Agriculture (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Carbon Cycling in Native vs. Non-Native Dominated Rangeland Systems
- 1. Carbon Cycling in Native vs. Non-Native Dominated Rangeland Systems Brian Wilsey - PI, Iowa State University
- 2. BNPP N, P, Soil C Fungi Bacteria Archaea
- 3. Experimental and Sampling Design Map: John Madson Part 2. ComparisonsPart 1. Experiment x
- 4. Exotic Taxon Place of origin Native pair _________________________________________________________________________________________ C44 GRASSES Bothriochloa ischaemum Tribe Andropogoneae Asia Schizachyrium scoparium Cynodon dactylon Tribe Cynodonteae Africa Buchloe dactyloides Eragrostis curvula Tribe Eragrostideae Africa Sporobolus asper Panicum coloratum Genus Panicum Africa Panicum virgatum Paspalum dilatatum Tribe Paniceae South America Eriochloa sericea Sorghum halapense Tribe Andropogoneae Mediteranean Sorghastrum nutans Paspalum notatum Genus Paspalum Africa Paspalum floridanum Dicanthium annulatum Tribe Andropogoneae Africa, Asia Andropogon gerardii C33 GRASSES: Festuca arundinacea Subfamily Pooideae Europe Elymus canadensis Dactylus glomerata Subfamily Pooideae Europe Nasella luecotricha FORBS: Taraxacum officianale Asteraceae Europe Marshallia caespitosa Cichorium intybus Asteraceae Eurasia Ratibida columnifera Leucanthemum vulgare Asteraceae Europe Vernonia baldwinii Ruellia britoniana Genus Ruellia Eurasia Ruellia humilis Nepeta cataria Lamiaceae Eurasia Salvia azurea Marrubium vulgare Lamiaceae Eurasia Monarda fistulosa LEGUMES: Medicago sativa Subfamily Papilionoideae Eurasia Dalea purpurea Trifolium repens Subfamily Papilionoideae Europe Dalea candidum Lotus corniculatus Fabaceae Eurasia Desmanthus illinoensis Coronilla varia Subfamily Papilionoideae Europe, Med. Astragalus canadensis ________________________________________________________________________________________
- 5. Isbell, Wilsey, many others. 2015. Nature
- 6. t0 J08O08J09O09J10O10O11J12O12J13 J14O14J15O15J16 Numberofspeciesperplot 0 2 4 6 8 10 Exotic - Irrig. Exotic - No Irr. Native - Irrig. Native - No Irr.
- 7. CV Not different! Origin, Irrigation P > 0.10 Exotic Native BiomassCV 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Irrigated Non - Irrigated A A A A
- 8. Table 2. Species that dominated plots in 2012 (i.e., had highest pi, mean pi for exotics 0.78, range of1 0.45-0.99, mean pi of 0.48 for natives, range 0.35-0.81 ) and their deviation from expected variance.2 FG’s are C4G = C4 grasses, C3G = C3 grasses, C3F = C3 forbs.3 _____________________________________________________________________________________4 Species FG no. plots mean(g) deviation t Ho = 0, P value5 Exotic dominant species:6 Panicum coloratum C4G 18 276.2 -0.263 -3.63 0.0027 Sorghum halepense C4G 8 110.3 -0.324 -2.77 0.0128 Eragrostis curvula C4G 3 120.5 -0.023 -0.29 0.7779 Cynodon dactylon C4G 2 12.5 -0.846 -4.93 < 0.00110 Bothriochloa ischaemum C4G 1 20.1 -0.197 -2.39 0.02511 3212 Native dominant species:13 Eriochloa sericea C4G 13 117.7 -0.540 -9.87 < 0.00114 Ratibida columnifera C4F 6 152.4 0.486 5.25 < 0.00115 Elymus canadensis C3G 5 94.8 0.541 5.75 < 0.00116 Sorghastrum nutans C4G 5 54.4 0.081 0.48 0.63417 Nasella luecotricha C3G 2 57.0 0.406 3.29 0.00518 Vernonia baldwinii C4F 1 18.8 0.357 2.89 0.01219 3220 _____________________________________________________________________________________21 22
- 9. 2. Forage response to H2O treatment Response to summer irrigation was larger in native communities Origin x Irrigation, F = 4.7, P = 0.03 Date 7-08 10-08 6-09 10-09 6-10 10-1010-11 6-12 10-12 6-13 10-13 6-14 10-14 Ratioofirrigated/non-irrigated 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 Exotic Native Wilsey et al. (2014), Polley et al. (2014, 2016), Isbell et al. (2015)
- 10. 2. Response to 2011 drought Time (month, year) J08O 08J09O 09J10O 10O 11J12O 12J13O 13J14O 14J15 RUE(gm -2 mm -1 ) 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90 Natives Exotics Natives Exotics
- 12. 3. Root production and depth b fBNPP Beta Diversity fBNPP,Beta,anddiversity -2 -1 0 1 2 a BNPP ANPP NPP Productivity(gm -2 ) 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 Natives Exotics a Ln-transformed soil depth (cm) 1 2 3 4 BNPP(gm -2 cm -1 ) 3 4 5 6 b Ln-transformed soil depth (cm) 1 2 3 4 BNPP(gm -2 cm -1 ) 4 6 8 10 12 y=-1.36x+10.70 r 2 =0.52, P=0.04 y=0.52x+3.20 r 2 =0.63, P=0.02 Natives Exotics
- 13. F2009 N=63 F2014 N=61 F2015 N=63 Native/Non-irrigated Native/Irrigated Exotic/Non-Irrigated Exotic/Irrigated 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 unknown phylum Ascomycota Basidiomycota Blastocladiomycota Chytridiomycota Fungi_phy_Incertae_sedis Glomeromycota Neocallimastigomycota Rozellomycota Zygomycota
- 14. perMANOVA and NMS (Bray Curtis distance matrix) Source d.f F p ------------------------------------------------------ origin 1 1.51 0.012 irrig 1 1.17 0.168 Interac. 1 0.82 0.854 Residual 56 Source d.f. F p -------------------------------------------------------- origin 1 1.62 0.017 irrig 1 1.11 0.267 Interac. 1 0.73 0.906 Residual 48 Source d.f. F p --------------------------------------------------------------- origin 1 1.40 0.063 irrig 1 0.92 0.570 Interac. 1 1.63 0.017 Residual 56 N ati ve Ex oti c N ati ve Ex oti c Native Exotic 2009 2014 2015
- 15. Fungal Pathogens 2014 Source d.f. SS MS F p ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- origin 1 0.395 0.395 1.62 0.017000 irrig 1 0.270 0.270 1.11 0.267000 Interac. 1 0.177 0.178 0.73 0.906000 Residual 48 11.67 0.243 Total 51 12.52 FDR_P E_mean N_mean taxonomy 0.03753 1.741935 55.2 k__Fungi; p__Ascomycota; c__Dothideomycetes; o__Pleosporales; f__Phaeosphaeriaceae; g__Stagonospora; s__ Genus Stagonospora – some species are plant pathogens
- 17. 5. N mineralization (feedback) Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Nmineralization 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Exotic Native B A B A B A Averaged across times, 24% higher in native plots than exotic (origin, P < 0.001)
- 18. 6. Decomposition of litter, roots Random draws Exotic Native Masspresent 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 Actual relative abundances Exotic Native Masspresent 0.90 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 Origin x Abundance type, P < 0.001 Top (triangles) - Native Bottom (circles) - Exotic
- 19. 7. Mycorrhizal colonization Species Pair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Medianpercentcolonization 0 20 40 60 80 100 Exotic Native P < 0.01, Means Exotic > Native
- 20. 7. Soil Carbon accumulation Polley, Fay, Gibson, Wilsey. 2016. Ecosystems
- 21. Comparative Studies: • Native and Exotic grasslands across the tallgrass prairie region. N = 21 for each. • Sample 25 locations per site (100 points), estimate % native/exotic, species diversity measures and ecosystem services.
- 22. Martin et al. (2014) Oecologia
- 23. Exotics greened up (reached 50% of peak NDVI) an average of 10 days earlier (p < 0.01) NDVI Date X XX X
- 24. Exotics senesced (dropped to 50% of peak) an average of 31 days later (p < 0.01) NDVI Date X XX X
- 25. Kaitlin Barber Ph.D. student project
- 26. BNPP N, P, Soil C Fungi Bacteria Archaea
- 27. Acknowledgements • Leanne Martin (Ph.D. student) • Kaitlin Barber (Ph.D. student) • Xia Xu (postdoc) • Aleksandra Sielaff (postdoc) • You (USDA – NIFA 2014-67003-22067)
Editor's Notes
- Add Stirling and Wilsey, Wilsey and Stirling, Benuealas et al., dominant grasses
- Novel Ecosystems
- I was aware of the African species from my Ph.D. at Syracuse University
- Fig. 1 Fungal diversity composition at the phylum taxonomy level. Each plot shows samples grouped by treatment combination: origin (native vs. exotic) and irrigation (non-irrigated vs. irrigated), and sorted by draw (1-8). The y axis shows the percentage of reads depicting each phylum.Top: 2009, Middle: 2014, Bottom: 2015.
- Fig. 3 Nonparametric multidimensional scaling (NMS) based on Bray Curtis distance matrix constructed in PC-ORD (v. 5). The OTU table was rarefied to 10724, 7270, and 10083 sequences per sample for 2009, 2014, and 2015 respectively in QIIME. The singleton and doubleton OTUs were added up to single category “low abundance’ . The PERMANOVA does not run when the set of data is unbalanced that is why the samples from corresponding treatments for the samples that didn’t yield any sequencing results (2009: n=60, 2014: n=52, 2015; n=60). Biplots were calculated at the cut-off level: 0.25 (2009), 0.3 (2014) and 0.25 (2015). The output from two-factorial PERMANOVA for origin and irrigation as factors shows significance variance between samples originating from native and exotic plots, but there is no effect from irrigation treatment in each year. The combined effect of origin and irrigation is only seen in 2015 year.
- Fig. 2 Least Square Means Estimate for Simpson’s Diversity Index (1-D) for fungal diversity. The Simpson’s Diversity Index was calculated in QIIME using command alpha_diversity.py and simpson _reciprocal metrics. The values was log transformed in SAS (v.9) and the Least Square Mean Estimate was calculated using proc mixed. There was no significance difference between Irrigated and Non-Irrigated plots in each year.
- Same climatic conditions, soil types, etc.