The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION ALONG A CHRONOSEQUENCE OF RESTORED GRASSLANDS
Abstract
Changes in aboveground vegetation, roots, and soil characteristics were examined from a 12-yr chronosequence of formerly cultivated fields restored to native C4 grasses through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Following 6–8 yr in the CRP, the native grasses dominated vegetation composition, and the presence of forbs was negligible. Productivity of the restored grasslands did not exhibit any directional changes with the number of years in the CRP, and productivity was generally higher than native prairie in this region. Over time, the restored grasslands accumulated root biomass of decreasing quality as indicated by increasing root biomass and C:N ratio of roots along the 12-yr chronosequence. Root biomass, root C:N ratio, C storage in roots, and N storage in roots of restored grasslands approached that of native tallgrass prairie within the 12 yr of restoration. Establishment of the perennial vegetation also affected soil physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. Soil bulk density in the surface 10 cm decreased with time since restoration. Total C, microbial biomass C, and C mineralization rates increased as a function of time since restoration. The greatest change in total C occurred in the surface 5 cm, where total C was 26% greater in 12- vs. 2-yr restored grasslands. Extractable soil nitrate and soil N transformations (i.e., net N mineralization rates and net nitrification rates) declined over the restoration chronosequence, but these values were not representative of steady-state conditions due to the high variability in these measures among the native prairies. Although complete restoration of ecosystem structure and function was not the primary intention of the CRP, this study demonstrates that establishment of the matrix vegetation (i.e., native C4 grasses) drives ecosystem processes in the trajectory of the original system. Moreover, restoration may hasten the recovery of soil C pools relative to formerly cultivated systems undergoing natural succession.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Prairie restorations with prairie plant species on agricultural lands have increased total soil microbial biomass [25], soil organic matter [26], and root biomass and carbon storage with age [23].”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Prairie restorations can improve ecosystem services on former agricultural lands, but prairie restorations on mine lands are relatively under-studied.”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Restored prairie soils often do not have the same soil properties as remnant prairies, often with lower total nitrogen, organic matter, and total carbon [7,23,24], though [23] and [24] found the bulk density of restored prairie sites to be at or above the range of remnants, and [21] found higher N and P levels in restored versus reference prairies.”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“In comparison to shallow-rooting cool-season grasses, which are typically used in reclamation, warm-season prairie vegetation tends to have deeper roots, and thus might be beneficial to improve soil health in deeper soil layers [23].”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“This work has shown that prairie restorations often do not achieve the same functionality as undisturbed prairies, often having lower species richness that declines over time [6,20,21], and higher levels of exotic species [3,22,23].”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“When standardized for clay content, soil microbial EL-FAME biomarkers (in particular fungal) were found to increase with prairie establishment with increased time since restoration; similarly to [23], who found microbial biomass N and C to increase with time since prairie restoration in disturbed agricultural sites.”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“In other studies, root biomass of restored prairies was found to be similar to remnants after 12 years [23].”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Native plant cover increased with prairie age on a timeline similar to other prairie restorations; for example, one study [23] found prairie plants increased cover from 10% to 80% within four years after planting.”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Although prairie grass roots can extend up to 1 m deep into the soil profile, the majority of root biomass (70-80%) resides in the surface 20-30 cm [23]”
From From the Ground Up: Prairies on Reclaimed Mine Land—Impacts on Soil and Vegetation (2020) · cites this paper as [23]
Citations
Cites
Keeney, D. R., & Nelson, D. W. (1982) · Agronomy monograph/Agronomy · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c33 · Cited by 4,683
Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems
Swift, M. J., Heal, O. W., & Anderson, J. M. (1979) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520407114 · Cited by 4,586
The effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil—V
Jenkinson, D. S., & Powlson, D. S. (1976) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(76)90005-5 · Cited by 2,656
Nitrogen and Lignin Control of Hardwood Leaf Litter Decomposition Dynamics
Melillo, J. M., Aber, J. D., & Muratore, J. F. (1982) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1936780 · Cited by 2,641
Aggregate Structure and Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus in Native and Cultivated Soils
Elliott, E. T. (1986) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1986.03615995005000030017x · Cited by 2,527
Soil Quality: A Concept, Definition, and Framework for Evaluation (A Guest Editorial)
Karlen, D. L., Mausbach, M. J., Doran, J. W., Cline, R. G., Harris, R. F., & Schuman, G. E. (1997) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj1997.03615995006100010001x · Cited by 2,028
Dynamics of C, N, P and S in grassland soils: a model
Parton, W. J., Stewart, J. W., & Cole, C. V. (1988) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/bf02180320 · Cited by 1,483
Prairie Conservation in North America
Samson, F., & Knopf, F. (1994) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1312365 · Cited by 1,461
Primary Production of the Central Grassland Region of the United States
Sala, O. E., Parton, W. J., Joyce, L. A., & Lauenroth, W. K. (1988) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1943158 · Cited by 1,300
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology
Hobbs, R. J., & Norton, D. A. (1996) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1526-100x.1996.tb00112.x · Cited by 1,276
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., Chan, K. M., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., et al. (2009) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/080023 · Cited by 2,389
The Importance of Land-Use Legacies to Ecology and Conservation
FOSTER, D., SWANSON, F., ABER, J., BURKE, I., BROKAW, N., TILMAN, D., & KNAPP, A. (2003) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0077:tiolul]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,213
Jangid, K., Williams, M. A., Franzluebbers, A. J., Schmidt, T. M., Coleman, D. C., & Whitman, W. B. (2011) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.022 · Cited by 482
Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration
Lemus, R., & Lal, R. (2005) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352680590910393 · Cited by 455
Changes in soil organic carbon under biofuel crops
ANDERSON‐TEIXEIRA, K. J., DAVIS, S. C., MASTERS, M. D., & DELUCIA, E. H. (2009) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2008.01001.x · Cited by 391
Metadata
- Authors
- Baer, S. G., Kitchen, D. J., Blair, J. M., & Rice, C. W.
- Affiliations
- Southern Illinois University Carbondale (US)
- Kansas State University (US)
- Venue
- Ecological Applications
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1688-1701
- ISSN
- 1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2162171832
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 11.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
- Keywords
- grassland restoration, Conservation Reserve Program, chronosequence, tallgrass prairie, root biomass, soil carbon storage, soil nitrogen, soil microbial biomass, soil carbon mineralization, soil nitrate, nitrification, soil bulk density, ecological succession
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
