Abstract
Since the passage of legislation in 1977, Appalachian mineland reclamation is typically completed using non-native C3 grasses and forbs. Alternatively, reclamation with native prairie (C4) grasses and forbs offers a more ecologically friendly alternative that can contribute to native plant conservation and potentially improve soil properties more quickly than shallower rooted C3 cool-season grasses. We assessed the establishment of native prairie after reclamation, evaluating three treatments for six years after planting—traditional cool season planting, native prairie planted at light density, and native prairie planted at heavy density. All treatments reached the objectives of reclamation—percentage of ground covered by vegetation—within 2 years after planting. All treatments at all sites, except for one site by treatment combination near a forest, showed an increase in plant species richness and Shannon–Wiener diversity in the first four years of reclamation, a peak around 5 years, and subsequent decrease. Little difference in plant richness and Shannon–Wiener diversity among treatments was observed. However, the two native seed mixes quickly diverged from the traditional mix in terms of community structure and diverged further over time, with both native treatments heading towards a more desirable native prairie grassland state, while the traditional mix remained dominated by non-native cool season grasses. The native treatments also exhibited greater increase in microbial biomass and fungi:bacteria ratio over time compared to the traditional mix. Soil organic carbon increased over time regardless of seed mix treatment. Exchangeable base cations and phosphorus generally decreased over time, as expected, regardless of seed mix treatment, likely due to uptake from established plants. Native grassland species were able to establish despite inclusion of some traditional species in the native mix. Native plant establishment likely resulted in benefits including pollinator resources, bird and wildlife habitat, and increased soil health, and we recommend that native prairie mixes be used directly in reclamation moving forward, as they are able to meet reclamation goals while establishing a successful native prairie plant community.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments met vegetation coverage goals within two years.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments reached the objectives of reclamation—percentage of ground covered by vegetation—within 2 years after planting”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant richness and diversity rose for four years, peaked near year five, then fell at nearly all sites.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments at all sites, except for one site by treatment combination near a forest, showed an increase in plant species richness and Shannon–Wiener diversity in the first four years of reclamation, a peak around 5 years, and subsequent decrease”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Richness and diversity differed little among treatments.
Verbatim
e0“Little difference in plant richness and Shannon–Wiener diversity among treatments was observed”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Native mixes diverged increasingly from the traditional mix in community structure.
Verbatim
e0“the two native seed mixes quickly diverged from the traditional mix in terms of community structure and diverged further over time”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Native treatments moved toward native prairie grassland while traditional mixes remained nonnative dominated.
- Taxon
- native prairiee0
- Treatment
- native treatmentse0
- Outcome
- native prairie grassland statee0
- Comparator
- traditional mixe0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“both native treatments heading towards a more desirable native prairie grassland state, while the traditional mix remained dominated by non-native cool season grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Native treatments increased microbial biomass and fungi:bacteria ratio more than traditional mix.
Verbatim
e0“The native treatments also exhibited greater increase in microbial biomass and fungi:bacteria ratio over time compared to the traditional mix”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil organic carbon increased over time for all seed mixes.
Verbatim
e0“Soil organic carbon increased over time regardless of seed mix treatment”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Exchangeable base cations and phosphorus decreased over time across mixes.
Verbatim
e0“Exchangeable base cations and phosphorus generally decreased over time, as expected, regardless of seed mix treatment”
e1“native prairie planted at light density”
Claim · model-written summary
Native grassland species established despite traditional species in native mix.
Verbatim
e0“Native grassland species were able to establish despite inclusion of some traditional species in the native mix”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommended native prairie mixes for reclamation.
Verbatim
e0“we recommend that native prairie mixes be used directly in reclamation moving forward”