Diminishing Returns from Higher Density Restoration Seedings Suggest Trade‐offs in Pollinator Seed Mixes. Issue 6 (5th August 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wilkerson, Marit L.; Ward, Kimiora L.; Williams, Neal M.; Ullmann, Katharina S.; Young, Truman P.
• Is Part Of: Restoration ecology. Volume 22:Issue 6(2014:Nov.)
• Page Start: 782
• Page End: 789
• Publication Date: 2014-08-05
• Subjects: Restoration ecology -- Periodicals; Reclamation of land -- Environmental aspects -- Periodicals; 333.7153
• DOI: 10.1111/rec.12141
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1061-2971

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="rec12141-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <p id="rec12141-para-0001">Native forbs have become a more central component of restoration programs, especially because of their role in supporting crop pollinators. This study evaluates the success of different native forb mixes and seeding rates using shared goals of restoration practitioners and agroecologists, namely percent native species cover, floral resources, native diversity, and cost‐effectiveness. At 6 sites with hedgerows adjacent to agricultural lands in California's Central Valley, we planted 3 native forb seed mixes at 3 seeding rates and monitored germination, percent cover, and floral resources for 2 to 3 years. We also evaluated the cost of the mixes based on seeding rates and original seed prices. More than mix type, relative seeding rate strongly affected germination, cover, and floral resource success. The relative benefits of seeding with more species diminished at higher seeding rates, especially when cost was considered. Cover increased significantly over the years but diversity declined sharply after the first year. Increased cover of target species was mainly due to the effect of 1 dominant species <italic>Grindelia camporum</italic>, common gumplant. We summarize data from a similar forb restoration study showing that the species that dominated in our mix‐and‐rate experimental sites also attracted the greatest diversity and abundance of pollinators. These findings highlight trade‐offs and balance‐points within restoration and pollination services goals. We offer suggestions on how to weigh those trade‐offs, given particular priorities and how native forb plantings can support combined goals of pollination services and restoration.</p> </abstract>