Life-History Correlates of Plant Endemism in Longleaf Pine
Ecosystems
Jennifer M. Fill, Shane M. Welch, Herrick Brown, Jayme L. Waldron, Alan S. Weakley, and Timothy A. Mousseau
Southeastern Naturalist, Volume 13, Issue 3 (2014): 484–492
Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers.To subscribe click here.)
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
484
2014 SOUTHEASTERN NATURALIST 13(3):484–492
Life-History Correlates of Plant Endemism in Longleaf Pine
Ecosystems
Jennifer M. Fill1,*, Shane M. Welch2, Herrick Brown3, Jayme L. Waldron2,
Alan S. Weakley1, and Timothy A. Mousseau1
Abstract - The herbaceous ground-layer community is a key target of restoration efforts in
Pinus palustris (Longleaf Pine) ecosystems (LLPE). Identification of life-history traits that
correlate with endemism could shed light on advantages or limitations of restoration strategies.
We investigated whether dispersal and longevity (life cycle) correlate with species
endemism in the LLPE. We characterized plant species as obligate associates of the LLPE
(LLO), strong associates (LLP), or neither (N). We predicted that increased dependency on
the LLPE (N < LLP < LLO) would correlate with decreased dispersal and greater longevity
(longer life cycle). We failed to detect a significant relationship between LLPE affinity
and dispersal ability. However, there was a significant positive relationship between LLPE
affinity and longevity. We suggest that if dispersal is not limiting, LLO species restoration
may depend on both soil properties and the precise use of fire to enhance their establishment
and persistence.
Introduction
Ecological restoration activities target many different aspects of ecosystem
structure and function. The overarching goal of these efforts is restoration of an
ecosystem’s “species composition, community structure, ecological function, suitability
of the physical environment to support the biota, and connectivity with the
surrounding landscape” (Clewell and Aronson 2013). Typically, ecological restoration
activities initially focus on vegetation because of the relationship between
plants and ecosystem function (Hooper and Vitousek 1997, Tilman et al. 1996).
Thus, a fundamental strategy of restoration is the re-establishment or rehabilitation
of damaged or lost plant species native to the ecosystem (Bowles and Whelan 1994,
Jordan et al. 1987, Palmer et al. 1997).
In the southeastern US, Pinus palustris Mill. (Longleaf Pine) ecosystems
(LLPE) have experienced widespread decline and are a current focus of restoration
activities in the region. In particular, the recovery of the herbaceous ground-layer
is a key restoration objective in these communities (Brockway et al. 2005, Walker
and Silletti 2006). The LLPE ground-layer community exhibits some of the highest
rates of endemism in North America (Sorrie and Weakley 2001). These plant
1Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina Columbia, Sumter Street,
Columbia, SC 29208. 2Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, 1 John
Marshall Drive, Huntington, WV 25755. 3Andrew Charles Moore Herbarium, Department
of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Sumter Street, Columbia, SC 29208.
4Department of Biology, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, 120 South Road, Chapel
Hill, NC 27599. *Corresponding author - jenna999@gmail.com.
Manuscript Editor: Alvin R. Diamond, Jr.
Southeastern Naturalist
485
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
species have characteristics conducive to fires that maintain the structure and function
of the ecosystem (Beckage et al. 2009, 2011; Platt 1999). Restoration activities,
therefore, target increases in species richness and successful establishment of rare
species with limited geographic range, habitat specificity, or small population size
(Palmer et al. 1997, Spellerburg 1992).
There are two general approaches to LLPE groundcover restoration: engineered
restoration, and passive restoration or spontaneous succession (Prach et al. 2001). In
the former approach, species are actively reintroduced or rehabilitated through protocols
such as direct seeding or planting (Bowles and Whelan 1994, Walker and Silletti
2006). The latter approach focuses on the creation or restoration of site conditions
and habitat structure (Bakker et al. 2000) with the assumption that the creation of suitable
site conditions is sufficient to promote the natural return of the native vegetation
to fire-excluded land (the “Field of Dreams” hypothesis; Palmer et al. 1997, Prach et
al. 2001, Suding et al. 2004). Restoration techniques include removal of hardwoods
through herbicide application, tree felling, reinstatement of fire, or mechanical means
(Outcalt and Brockway 2010, Walker and Silletti 2006) with the assumption that increased
light and decreased competition will facilitate the repopulation or recovery of
the groundcover, resulting in an influx of colonizing LLPE species.
Development of these restoration strategies is enhanced by information on the
life-history traits of target species. In both cases, the establishment or recovery of
target species is used as the measure of success in restoring species composition
(Bakker et al. 2000). Therefore, both approaches rely on species’ life-history traits
related to establishment and persistence (Bakker et al. 2000, Pywell et al. 2003).
For example, the success of the initial step depends on species availability. In spontaneous
succession, establishment is controlled by propagule dispersal (dispersal
in space) or seedbank persistence (dispersal in time; Bakker et al. 1996, 2000). A
species cannot establish and reproduce successfully at a site if it cannot arrive via
aboveground dispersal or presence in the seedbank. For engineered restoration,
dispersal attributes may be important in cases where only a few individuals are
planted in order to repopulate an area. Thus, poor dispersal can be a major limiting
factor in ecosystem recovery and self-sustainability (Donath et al. 2003, Holl et al.
2000, White et al. 2004). Finally, the longevity of groundcover species must also
be considered in both restoration approaches. Long-lived, or perennial species can
serve as a source of species availability, for example, through vegetative reproduction,
where remnant populations still exist and have not been extirpated by soil
disturbance (Garcia and Zamora 2003).
Restoration of groundcover composition in the LLPE, including numerous
endemic species, has proven especially difficult (Walker and Silletti 2006).
Identification of life-history traits that correlate with endemism could shed light on
advantages or limitations of restoration approaches. In this study, we investigated
whether dispersal and longevity (using life cycle as a proxy) may be particularly
important factors in endemic species restoration in the LLPE. Our objective was
to answer the question: Does the specificity of LLPE endemic species correspond to
lower dispersal ability and increased longevity?
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
486
Methods
We obtained a reference list of species endemic to the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal
Plains Floristic Province—at least 90% of all occurrences are restricted to this
province (Sorrie and Weakley 2001; Fig.1). In this analysis, we used only those species
(excluding Cyperaceae and Juncaceae) that occurred in at least one of the five
ecoregions (out of 8 total ecoregions, subunits, or subregions; Sorrie and Weakley
2006) within the floristic province that most closely matched the historical distribution
of the LLPE: the mid-Atlantic coastal plain, south Atlantic coastal plain,
temperate central Florida peninsula, east Gulf coastal plain, and west Gulf coastal
plain (Sorrie and Weakley 2006). Each species was characterized as an obligate
associate of the LLPE (LLO), a strong associate of the LLPE (LLP), or neither (N;
see description in Sorrie and Weakley 2006).
We collected information on species’ dispersal traits using the following literature
sources: Godfrey and Wooten (1981), Isely (1990), Flora of North America
(1993+), and Weakley (2011). For dispersal, we rated each species on a scale of
1–3 for increasing dispersal-distance ability (Van der Pijl 1982, Willson and Traveset
2000): 1 = dispersal primarily by gravity, water, or ants; glabrous spikelets or
legumes; absence of pappi, or, if present, scale-like or falling; abortive spores; 2 =
dispersal primarily by vertebrates (fruits, berries); 3 = dispersal by wind; hairy legumes
or spikelets; spores; pappi. If there was no mention in the literature of structures
that particularly facilitated dispersal (e.g., black seed), or there was no mention
of the propagule at all, we coded the species as no data. We used life cycle as
an approximation of longevity (Weiher et al. 1999). Data on species longevity were
obtained primarily from the USDA NRCS PLANTS Database (www.plants.usda.
gov). We coded species as 1 (perennial) or 0 (annual, biennial, or combinations of
annual, biennial, and perennial).
Figure 1. The Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plains Floristic Province. This province includes
eight total subregions, five of which were included in the analy ses.
Southeastern Naturalist
487
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
We fit generalized linear mixed models to dispersal and longevity using Proc
GLIMMIX in SAS v. 9.3 (SAS Institute 2011). We coded LLP as the reference
level in both analyses. Since there is currently no published comprehensive phylogeny
for southeastern flora (A. Weakley, unpubl. data), we included family as
a random factor. For dispersal, we ran a one-way ANOVA using the default unstructured
covariance matrix and the Laplace approximation (Raudenbush et al.
2000) for parameter estimation. Analysis-of-fit statistics indicated that the data
were moderately underdispersed (Pearson chi-square/df = 0.56). For longevity,
we ran a binomial logistic regression with the logit link, the default unstructured
covariance matrix, and the Laplace approximation for parameter estimation. Fit
statistics indicated a good model fit to the data (Pearson chi-square/df = 0.7). We
predicted that relative to LLP species, dispersal would be lower and longevity
higher for LLO species, and that dispersal would be higher and longevity lower
for N species.
Results
We used 129 families in each analysis. Out of 1320 species, we found dispersal
information for 645 species and longevity (life cycle) information for 1300 species.
Neither N nor LLO species were significantly different from LLP in their dispersal
ability (n = 645; df = 2, 580; F = 0.16; P = 0.8512; Table 1). However, status was
a significant predictor of longevity (n = 1300; df = 2, 1169; F = 9.96; P < 0.0001).
LLO and LLP species are longer-lived than N species (Table 2).
Table 2. Parameter estimates from binomial logistic regression (SAS Proc Glimmix) for effect of
status on longevity (life cycle) of Longleaf Pine ecosystem groundcover species. We used degree
of association with Longleaf Pine as the reference category. LLO = obligate associates of Longleaf
Pine ecosystems. N = neither an obligate associates nor strong associates of Longleaf Pine
ecosystems.
Solutions for fixed effects
Effect Estimate Standard error df t value Pr > |t|
Intercept 4.9601 0.9245 128 5.37 less than 0.0001
LLO -0.6021 0.4470 1169 -1.35 0.1782
N -1.3943 0.4577 1169 -3.05 0.0024
Table 1. Parameter estimates from one-way ANOVA (SAS Proc GLIMMIX) for effect of status (endemism)
on dispersal ability of Longleaf Pine ecosystem groundcover species. We used degree of
association with Longleaf Pine as the reference category. LLO = obligate associates of Longleaf Pine
ecosystems. N = neither an obligate associates nor strong associates of Longleaf Pine ecosystems.
Solutions for fixed effects
Effect Estimate Standard error df t value Pr > |t|
Intercept 2.1347 0.1326 62 16.10 less than 0.0001
LLO -0.0400 0.1120 580 -0.36 0.7226
N -0.0037 0.1195 580 -0.03 0.9750
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
488
Discussion
Plant species’ dispersal mode and longevity are important considerations in
LLPE restoration and management practices. In this study, we sought to detect
a relationship between these two attributes and ecosystem affinity, rather than to
obtain an absolute measure of dispersal or longevity. Therefore, it is beyond the
scope of this study for us to draw inferences regarding the absolute dispersal or
longevity of species based on our results. Although we failed to detect an expected
decrease in dispersal ability with increasing LLPE affinity, we cannot conclude that
LLO species are necessarily either broad or restricted dispersers. In fact, Kirkman
et al. (2004) found that LLPE species associated with non-disturbed Longleaf Pine
reference sites displayed restricted absolute dispersal distances (see also Hilton
and Boyd 1996). In contrast, our results indicated that dispersal may not be more
limiting to endemic species than to those less strongly affiliated with the LLPE.
However, we found that stronger affinity corresponded to a longer life cycle.
Our results provide a basis for discussion of potential restoration implications.
Studies on successful establishment of LLPE species, including Aristida spp.
(wiregrass) and several wildflowers, have suggested that ecological similarity of
source and destination conditions play a large role in determining success (Noel
et al. 2011, Norcini et al. 1998). These studies inform the generally accepted view
of specialization in the LLPE ground-layer species to environmental conditions
(Carr et al. 2010) and species variation across environmental gradients (Walker
and Silletti 2006). Persistence of LLO species (via a longer life cycle) over the
widespread geographic range of the LLPE would enhance their modification of the
environment (e.g., via allelopathy or other belowground interactions; Bever 2003,
Casper and Castelli 2007, Fischer et al. 1994, Stover et al. 2012, Van der Putten
2003), and stabilize the ecosystem (Latham 2003). Indeed, current research points
to the important role of vegetation–mycorrhizae relationships in grasslands and
the implications of vegetation–soil relationships for restoration and management
activities (Casper et al. 2008, Johnston and Crossley 2002, Ohsowski et al. 2012).
In particular, there is a growing body of literature on vegetation–soil feedbacks and
their role in successional processes, especially in grasslands (Bever 2003, Kardol
et al. 2006, Klironomos 2002, van der Putten 2003).
Unfortunately, we were unable to measure seedbank longevity as an essential
means of dispersal in time, or even as a mode of persistence via fire avoidance or
tolerance. Seedbanking is a particularly important consideration for restoration
approaches that rely on spontaneous succession. Seedbank longevity has proven
extremely difficult to measure reliably, and there are very few data available
(Carol Baskin, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, pers. comm.). The ability
to long-term seedbank may mitigate the negative effects of limited availability of
suitable post-dispersal establishment sites by allowing species (particularly shortlived
species) to persist locally until more sites become available. It is possible the
relative longevity of LLO species would render a seedbank less important if their
persistence contributes to stable conditions. However, recent seed-burial studies
indicate that LLPE plants in the Asteraceae, Poaceae, and Orobanchaceae may form
Southeastern Naturalist
489
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
at least short-term persistent seedbanks, and some members of the Fabaceae may
even form longer-term seedbanks (Coffey and Kirkman 2006, Kaeser and Kirkman
2012). For example, seeds of Erythrina spp. (coral tree) collected in summer and
sown in autumn did not emerge until the following autumn (H. Brown, pers. observ.).
Thus, we are unsure of the relative importance of seedbanking in affecting
restoration success of LLO versus LLP or N species. Furthermore, future studies
might also address the role of tradeoffs between relative dispersal ability and viable
seed production among LLO, LLP, and N species. Although dispersal ability may
not limit the successful establishment of endemic species, seed viability may be a
contributing factor to endemism (Lavergne et al. 2004).
For this study, we were limited in the number of traits we could include due to a
dearth of data and lack of standards in data collection. As more life-history data become
available, restoration efforts would greatly benefit from research that extends
our efforts to include multiple traits. To this end, we strongly advocate the development
of methods for data standards. Much of the information was qualitative, and
it was difficult to discern the comparability of quantitative measurements. In an
age where technology is rapidly facilitating the accessibility of records, we encourage
discussion of data standards that will enhance our ability to conduct rigorous
research. Such efforts will expand the types of questions that can be answered with
the information available from herbaria and other flora databases whose research
value is becoming increasingly apparent (Lavoie 2013).
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by NSF (DGE-0929297) and an award from the University
of South Carolina Graduate School to Jennifer M. Fill. We would like to thank Brian Habing
for his assistance with the analyses.
Literature Cited
Bakker, J.P., P. Poschlod, R.J. Strykstra, R.M. Bekker, and K. Thompson. 1996. Seed banks
and seed dispersal: Important topics in restoration ecology. Acta Botanica Neerlandica
45(4):461–490.
Bakker, J.P., A.P. Grootjans, M. Hermy, and P. Poschlod. 2000. How to define targets for
ecological restoration? Applied Vegetation Science 3:1–72.
Beckage, B., W.J. Platt, and L.J. Gross. 2009. Vegetation, fire, and feedbacks: A disturbance-
mediated model of savannas. The American Naturalist 174(6):805–818.
Beckage, B., L.J. Gross, and W.J. Platt. 2011. Grass feedbacks on fire stabilize savannas.
Ecological Modelling 222:2227–2233.
Bever, J.D. 2003. Soil community feedback and the coexistence of competitors: Conceptual
frameworks and empirical tests. New Phytologist 157:465–473.
Bowles, M.L., and C.J. Whelan. 1994. Restoration of Endangered Species: Conceptual
Issues, Planning and Implementation. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
394 pp.
Brockway, D.G., K.W. Outcalt, D.J. Tomczak, and E.E. Johnson. 2005. Restoration of
Longleaf Pine ecosystems. General Technical Report SRS-83. USDA Forest Service,
Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 18 pp.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
490
Carr, S.C., K.M. Robertson, and R.K. Peet. 2010. A vegetation classification of fire-dependent
pinelands of Florida. Castanea 75(2):153–189.
Casper, B.B., and J.P. Castelli. 2007. Evaluating plant–soil feedback together with competition
in a serpentine grassland. Ecology Letters 10(5):394–400.
Casper, B.B., S.P. Bentivenga, B. Ji, J.H. Doherty, H.M. Edenborn, and D.J. Gustafson.
2008. Plant-soil feedback: Testing the generality with the same grasses in serpentine and
prairie soils. Ecology 89(8):2154–2164.
Clewell, A.F., and J. Aronson. 2013. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and Structure
of an Emerging Profession. Island Press, Washington, DC. 336 pp.
Coffey, K.L., and L.K. Kirkman. 2006. Seed-germination strategies of species with restoration
potential in a fire-maintained pine savanna. Natural Areas Journal 26(3):289–299.
Donath, T.W., N. Holzel, and A. Otte. 2003. The impact of site conditions and seed dispersal
on restoration success in alluvial meadows. Applied Vegetation Science 6:13–22.
Fischer, N.H., G.B. Williamson, J.D. Weidenhamer, and D.R. Richardson. 1994. In search
of allelopathy in the Florida scrub: The role of terpenoids. Journal of Chemical Ecology
20(6):1355–1380.
Flora of North America Editorial Committee. 1993+. Flora of North America North of
Mexico. 16+ vols. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Garcia, D., and R. Zamora. 2003. Persistence, multiple demographic strategies, and conservation
in long-lived Mediterranean plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 14:921–926.
Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of the Southeastern
United States: Dicotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 933 pp.
Hilton, J.L., and R.S. Boyd. 1996. Microhabitat requirements and seed/microsite limitation
of the rare granite outcrop endemic Amphianthus pusillus (Scrophulariaceae). Bulletin
of the Torrey Botanical Club 123:189–196.
Holl, K.D., M.E. Loik, E.H. V. Lin, and I.A. Samuels. 2000. Tropical montane forest restoration
in Costa Rica: Overcoming barriers to dispersal and establishment. Restoration
Ecology 8(4):339–349.
Hooper, D.U., and P.M. Vitousek. 1997. The effects of plant composition and diversity on
ecosystem processes. Science 277:1302–1305.
Isely, D. 1990. Vascular Flora of the Southeastern United States: Vol. 3, Part 2: Leguminosae
(Fabaceae). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 277 pp.
Johnston, J.M., and D.A. Crossley. 2002. Forest ecosystem recovery in the southeast US:
Soil ecology as an essential component of ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and
Management 155(1):187–203.
Jordan, W.R., M.E. Gilpin, and J.D. Aber. 1987. Restoration ecology: Ecological restoration
as a technique for basic research. Pp. 3–21, In W.R. Jordan, M.E. Gilpin, and J.D.
Aber (Eds.). Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY. 356 pp.
Kaeser, M.J., and L.K. Kirkman. 2012. Seed longevity of 12 native herbaceous species in
a fire-maintained pine savanna after 8 years of burial. Forest Ecology and Management
281:68–74.
Kardol, P., T.M. Bezemer, and W.H. van der Putten. 2006. Temporal variation in plant–soil
feedback controls succession. Ecology Letters 9:1080–1088.
Kirkman, L.K., K.L. Coffey, R.J. Mitchell, and E.B. Moser. 2004. Groundcover-recovery
patterns and life-history traits: Implications for restoration obstacles and opportunities
in a species-rich savanna. Journal of Ecology 92(3):409–421.
Klironomos, J.N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness
in communities. Nature 417:67–70.
Southeastern Naturalist
491
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
Latham, R.E. 2003. Shrubland longevity and rare plant species in the northeastern United
States. Forest Ecology and Management 185:21–39.
Lavergne, S., J.D. Thompson, E. Garnier, and M. Debussche. 2004. The biology and ecology
of narrow endemic and widespread plants: A comparative study of trait variation in
20 congeneric pairs. Oikos 107:505–518.
Lavoie, C. 2013. Biological collections in an ever-changing world: Herbaria as tools for
biogeographical and environmental studies. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution,
and Systematics 15(1):68–76.
Noel, F., D. Prati, M. van Kleunen, A. Gygax, D. Moser, and M. Fischer. 2011. Establishment
success of 25 rare wetland species introduced into restored habitats is best predicted
by ecological distance to source habitats. Biological Conservation 144:602–609.
Norcini, J.G., J.H. Aldrich, L.A. Halsey, and J.G. Lilly. 1998. Seed source affects performance
of six wildflower species. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society
111:4–9.
Ohsowski, B.M., J.N. Klironomos, K.E. Dunfield, and M.M. Hart. 2012. The potential
of soil amendments for restoring severely disturbed grasslands. Applied Soil Ecology
60:77–83.
Outcalt, K.W., and D.G. Brockway. 2010. Structure and composition changes following
restoration treatments of Longleaf Pine forests on the Gulf Coastal Plain of Alabama.
Forest Ecology and Management 259:1615–1623.
Palmer, M.A., R.F. Ambrose, and N.L. Poff. 1997. Ecological theory and community restoration
ecology. Restoration Ecology 5(4):291–300.
Platt, W.J. 1999. Southeastern pine savannas. Pp. 23–51, In R.C. Anderson, J.S. Fralish,
and J. Baskin (Eds.). The Savanna, Barren, and Rock Outcrop Communities of North
America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 470 pp.
Prach, K., S. Bartha, C.B. Joyce, P. Pysek, R. van Diggelen, and G. Wiegleb. 2001. The role
of spontaneous vegetation succession in ecosystem restoration: A perspective. Applied
Vegetation Science 4:111–114.
Pywell, R.F., J.M. Bullock, D.B. Roay, L. Warman, K.J. Walker, and P. Rothery. 2003. Plant
traits as predictors of performance in ecological restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology
40:65–77.
Raudenbush, S.W., M.L. Yang, and M. Yosef. 2000. Maximum likelihood for generalized
linear models with nested random effects via high-order, multivariate Laplace approximation.
Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 9:141–157.
SAS Institute. 2011. SAS for Windows version 9.3. Cary, NC.
Sorrie, B.A., and A.S. Weakley. 2001. Coastal Plain vascular plant endemics: Phytogeographic
pattern. Castanea 66(1–2):50–82.
Sorrie, B.A., and A.S. Weakley. 2006. Conservation of the endangered Pinus palustris ecosystem
based on Coastal Plain centers of plant endemism. Applied Vegetation Science
9(1):59–66.
Spellerburg, I.F. 1992. Evaluation and Assessment for Conservation: Ecological Guidelines
for Determining Priorities for Nature Conservation. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
260 pp.
Stover, H.J., R.G. Thorn, J.M. Bowles, M.A. Bernards, and C.R. Jacobs. 2012. Arbuscular
mycorrhizal fungi and vascular plant species abundance and community structure in
tallgrass prairies with varying agricultural disturbance histories. Applied Soil Ecology
60:61–70.
Suding, K.N., K.L. Gross, and G.R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks
in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(1):46–53.
Southeastern Naturalist
J.M. Fill, S.M. Welch, H. Brown, J.L. Waldron, A.S. Weakley, and T.A. Mousseau
2014 Vol. 13, No. 3
492
Tilman, D., D. Wedin, and J. Knops. 1996. Productivity and sustainability influenced by
biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–720.
Van der Pijl, L. 1982. Principles of Dispersal in Higher Plants. Springer Verlag, Berlin,
Germany. 214 pp.
Van der Putten, W.H. 2003. Plant defense belowground and spatiotemporal processes in
natural vegetation. Ecology 84:2269–2280.
Walker, J.L., and A.M. Silletti. 2006. Restoring the ground layer of Longleaf Pine ecosystems.
Pp. 297–325, In S. Jose, E.J. Jokela, and D.L. Miller (Eds.). The Longleaf Pine
Ecosystem: Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
450 pp.
Weakley, A.S. 2011. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic states: Working draft of
15 May 2011. Available online at http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/
WeakleyFlora_2011-May-nav.pdf. Accessed 2012.
Weiher, E., A. van der Werf, K. Thompson, M. Roderick, E. Garneir, and O. Eriksson. 1999.
Challenging Theophrastus: A common core list of plant traits for functional ecology.
Journal of Vegetation Science 10(5):609–620.
Willson, M.F., and A. Traveset. 2000. The ecology of seed dispersal. Pp. 61–85, In M.
Fenner (Ed.). Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. CAB International,
Wallingford, UK. 410 pp.
White, E., N. Tucker, N. Meyers, and J. Wilson. 2004. Seed dispersal to revegetated isolated
rainforest patches in North Queensland. Forest Ecology and Management 192:409–426.