ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2025
Invasion timing affects multiple scales, metrics, and facets of biodiversity outcomes in ecological restoration experiments.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Invasion timing affects multiple scales, metrics, and facets of biodiversity outcomes in ecological restoration experiments.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The need to develop optimal restoration protocols for degraded grasslands has led to experimental research aimed at determining how different restoration treatments influence outcomes for biodiversity. The magnitude and direction of diversity responses to restoration treatments may depend on the spatial scale at which diversity is measured (local, regional), the metric of diversity used (Hill numbers), and the facet of diversity (taxonomic, functional, phylogenetic) considered. We conducted a long-term factorial experiment in a degraded grassland in Missouri, USA, in which we experimentally applied a regionally appropriate biodiverse seed mixture, added soil nutrients to restore soil fertility, and varied the timing in which the invasive plant Lespedeza cuneata entered the community. We used a unified framework of Hill numbers to evaluate how treatments influenced diversity, considering different spatial scales, metrics, and facets (taxonomic, phylogenetic, functional). We find that the timing in which the invasive L. cuneata entered the community had large effects on diversity, while nutrient addition had more limited effects. This was driven by the high dominance of the focal invasive when allowed to invade early in the growing season, suppressing diversity. The positive effects of late invasion increased in magnitude with spatial grain and were higher for taxonomic than phylogenetic and functional facets of diversity. This was largely due to the dominance of the focal invasive, negatively affecting diversity within specific plant families or functional phenotypes across treatments. Under early invasion, nutrients had a negative effect, particularly at local scales, inflating beta diversity in this treatment and resulting in negative to no effect of late invasion on many aspects of beta diversity. Our results demonstrate the importance of looking at a multitude of different measures of diversity to understand the relative effects of ecological restoration treatments combined with invasion timing. Efforts to keep noxious plant invaders out of a system early in restoration approaches better allow desirable, native plants to establish and can have long-term benefits for multiple aspects of diversity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.