Cited by 35Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesPlant Ecology and Soil Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing the Progress of a Tallgrass Prairie Restoration in Southern Wisconsin

BRYE, K. R., NORMAN, J. M., GOWER, S. T.·2002·The American Midland Naturalist

Abstract

Assessments of ecosystem restorations are necessary to improve restoration practices and goals. Restoration assessments, whether quantitative or qualitative, are also a vital part of managing previously degraded ecosystems. This study examined some of the key structural and functional characteristics and processes of a tallgrass prairie restoration near Arlington, Wisconsin for 5 y, 19 to 24 y after beginning restoration from cultivation, including mean annual drainage, N and C leaching, soil organic matter, pH, extractable P and K, total N and C contents, above- and belowground net primary production, leaf area index, soil surface CO2 flux and net N-mineralization. Total soil N and C contents of the prairie restoration were compared to other nearby prairie restorations, remnants and an adjacent agricultural field, all on similar soil, to determine the degree of change in ecosystem properties as a result of ecological restoration. Soil properties and processes and vegetation characteristics varied annually throughout the 5-y assessment period, but most soil properties showed no significant temporal trend. Only soil N content in the 0–30 cm layer increased significantly in the 5-y period, but the rate of N increase did not coincide with the rate typical of N inputs to a prairie. Results suggest that most soil properties have either already come to some equilibrium with the surrounding environment or their rates of change were too small to measure over 5 y. This study demonstrates the difficulties of ascribing changes in ecosystem properties to restoration. The spatial and temporal variability and slow rates of change make it difficult to discern differences between restored, disturbed and natural ecosystems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1674/0003-0031(2002)148[0218:atpoat]2.0.co;2

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 35

Metadata

Authors
BRYE, K. R., NORMAN, J. M., & GOWER, S. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas System (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
BRYE, K. R.
Venue
The American Midland Naturalist
Published
2002
Volume
148
Issue
2
Pages
218
ISSN
0003-0031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014763253
Cited by
35
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Midland Naturalist (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Plant Ecology and Soil Science
Keywords
tallgrass prairie restoration, restoration evaluation, soil nitrogen, soil carbon, soil organic matter, net primary productivity, leaf area index, soil CO2 flux, nitrogen mineralization, nitrogen leaching, phosphorus and potassium availability, soil pH, drainage

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the Progress of a Tallgrass Prairie Restoration in Southern Wisconsin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1674/0003-0031(2002)148%5B0218:atpoat%5D2.0.co;2
The paper
BRYE, K. R., NORMAN, J. M., & GOWER, S. T. (2002). Assessing the Progress of a Tallgrass Prairie Restoration in Southern Wisconsin. The American Midland Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031(2002)148%5B0218%3Aatpoat%5D2.0.co%3B2