Northeastern Naturalist
45
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Sheep Grazing as a Grassland Management Tool:
Lessons Learned on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts
Karen C. Beattie1,*, Jennifer M. Karberg1, Kelly A. Omand1, and
Danielle I. O’Dell1
Abstract - On Nantucket Island, MA, the present range of coastal sandplain grasslands is
primarily attributed to intense and prolonged historic sheep grazing following European
settlement. The maintenance of this early successional habitat (ranked S-1 or “critically
imperiled” in Massachusetts) relies on disturbance-based land-management tools. Habitat
management efforts have focused primarily on mechanical and prescribed fire treatments,
with limited emphasis on re-introducing sheep. This study examined and compared the
impacts of repeated growing-season grazing, repeated growing-season mowing, and no
management on vegetation community composition in a previously managed grassland.
Sheep grazing effectively controlled and reduced clonal and vining woody plant coverage
while increasing available bare ground for grassland species seed recruitment. However,
grazing and mowing treatments resulted in an increase in weedy agricultural plant species,
which may be an inherent side effect of management that results in soil disturbance. Given
the long-term, variable nature of the ecological disturbances that created Nantucket’s sandplain
grassland vegetation communities, one management technique alone will not likely
result in successful habitat restoration over a short period of time. We recommend that
sheep grazing be more widely considered as an addition to the existing sandplain grassland
management “tool box”.
Introduction
The glacial outwash plain deposits along the coast of the northeastern United
States, including parts of Long Island (NY), Block Island (RI), the Elizabeth Islands
(MA), Cape Cod (MA), Martha’s Vineyard (MA), and Nantucket Island (MA), host
the largest contiguous areas of coastal sandplain grassland (Neill 2007). This vegetation
community occurs on acidic, nutrient-poor, drought-prone soils (Vickery and
Dunwiddie 1997) and is dominated by native graminoids such as Schizachyrium
scoparium (Little Bluestem), Carex pensylvanica (Pennsylvania Sedge), and Danthonia
spicata (Poverty Oatgrass) intermixed with ericaceous shrubs, including
Gaylussacia baccata (Black Huckleberry), Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (Bearberry),
Vaccinium angustifolium (Lowbush Blueberry), and numerous forb species (Swain
and Kearsley 2001). Prior to human settlement, these grasslands likely occurred in
small, open areas impacted by wind, salt spray, and occasionally fire (Dunwiddie
et al. 1996). Forest clearing by Native Americans and then European settlers, as
well as agriculture and livestock grazing during the 1600s–late 1800s increased the
natural expanse of this disturbance-driven community (Dunwiddie 1989).
1Science and Stewardship Department, Nantucket Conservation Foundation, PO Box 13,
Nantucket, MA 02554-0013. *Corresponding author - kbeattie@nantucketconservation.org.
Manuscript Editor: Daniel M. Keppie
Natural History of Agricultural Landscapes
2017 Northeastern Naturalist 24(Special Issue 8):45–66
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
46
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
On Nantucket Island, intense and prolonged sheep grazing played a dominant role
in the expansion and maintenance of sandplain grasslands (Dunwiddie 1989). A New
England survey reported 25,000–30,000 sheep grazing on the island in 1704 (McManis
2010). Henry David Thoreau (1962;818) wrote in 1854, “This island must look
exactly like a prairie, except that the view in clear weather is bounded by the sea.” Botanists
soon noted the unique assemblage of plant species associated with these open
grasslands on Nantucket and the role that sheep grazing played in their establishment
and expansion (Harshberger 1917, Owen 1888, Rice 1946) and continue to study and
document it today (Dunwiddie 1997, Sorrie and Dunwiddie 1996).
Coastal sandplain grasslands require frequent disturbance to prevent vegetative
succession into a community dominated by woody species (Foster and O’Keefe
2000). Compared to early European settlement, current land-use patterns on Nantucket
and elsewhere in coastal New England include decreased agriculture and
livestock grazing, increased fire suppression, and landscape development (Foster
and Match 2003, Foster and O’Keefe 2000). This shift in land management practices
has greatly diminished areas of intact coastal sandplain grassland to small,
globally rare remnants (Dunwiddie et al. 1996) that now represent one of the
highest priorities for conservation in the northeastern Unites States (Neill 2007).
Numerous rare plant and animal species are recognized as strongly affiliated with
sandplain grasslands, which are ranked S-1 (critically imperiled) in Massachusetts
due to extreme rarity and vulnerability to extirpation (Barbour et al. 1998, Carlson
et al. 1991, Steel 1999, Swain and Kearsley 2001).
The current limited distribution of sandplain grasslands and the associated rare
taxa they support are compelling ecological reasons for prioritizing their restoration,
maintenance, and protection (Dunwiddie 1989). Nantucket Island contains some of
the largest contiguous areas of sandplain grassland remaining in the northeastern
United States (Dunwiddie 1989). Research and management efforts on Nantucket
and elsewhere have concentrated on the use and effectiveness of mechanical vegetation
treatments (mowing/brush-cutting), prescribed burning, herbicide use, and
soil disturbance (plowing/harrowing) to maintain and increase sandplain grassland
habitats (Dunwiddie et al. 1990). Little emphasis has been placed on re-introducing
sheep as a potential restoration and management tool, despite the fact that sheep
grazing was the primary historic land use associated with sandplain grassland establishment
and expansion on the island (Dunwiddie 1997).
Targeted grazing, a relatively new livestock management system, is the use of
grazing ungulates to manipulate forage with a particular management goal or set
of defined objectives (Chapman and Reid 2004). Grazing livestock are capable of
modifying plant biomass, structure, and floral composition by removing vegetation
through consumption and disturbing soil and ground cover with their movement
patterns. These actions can create bare ground that facilitates colonization of vegetation
through seed germination (Bullock et al. 1994, 1995; Silvertown and Smith
1988). The effects of grazing contrast with those of mowing, which is widely used
as a grassland management technique. Mowing produces a spatially consistent
disturbance treatment that does not typically create interstitial spaces for plant
Northeastern Naturalist
47
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
recruitment (Huhta 2001). Thus, sheep grazing and mowing as grassland management
techniques can potentially produce very different ecological results that have
not been well studied within a paired treatment research design framework.
This study examined the effects of repeated growing-season grazing, repeated
growing-season mowing, and no management on vegetation communities in a previously
managed open grassland. The goals of this research were to compare how
mowing and sheep grazing performed as management tools for maintaining open
grasslands, increasing sandplain grassland-associated plant species, and reducing
woody shrub cover. Results of this study will help inform the management of sandplain
grasslands and similar open grassland plant communities.
Field-site Description
Study site conditions
Squam Farm (41°18'28"N, 69°59'42"W) is an 88.5-ha conservation property in
the northeast portion of Nantucket Island, MA (Fig. 1), owned by the Nantucket
Conservation Foundation, Inc. Nantucket is located 42 km south of Cape Cod and
comprises ~116 km2 in land area. Average winter and summer temperatures are 1
°C and 22 °C, respectively; mean annual precipitation is 1070 mm (Langlois 1979).
The study site contains a mosaic of upland and freshwater wetlands including
coastal shrubland, open scrub oak shrubland, mowed grassland, wooded swamp,
mixed deciduous forest, and shrub swamp.
Study site land-use history
Although no detailed records exist regarding historic land uses at Squam Farm,
the vast majority of Nantucket was set aside as common grazing land for sheep and
Figure 1. North Pasture location and research plot set-up. Squam Farm, Nantucket, MA.
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
48
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
other livestock immediately after colonial settlement (Crevecoeur 1957). Records
indicate that ~800 ha in the Squam area was planted with grain following a severe
winter food shortage on the island in 1780; at least 3 farms operated within a 1.5
km radius of Squam Farm ca. 1850 (McManis 2010). Therefore, some or all of the
site was likely historically utilized for agricultural purposes.
By 1940, woody vegetation had reclaimed the majority of this area, as shown
in aerial photographs (NHA 2016). More recently, ~30.5 ha of upland areas were
cleared and maintained with mowing and small-scale livestock grazing by a previous
owner in the 1980s. After acquiring the property in 2001, the Nantucket
Conservation Foundation conducted annual dormant-season mowing in these
upland areas to maintain early successional vegetation communities and provide
suitable conditions for sandplain grassland-associated species.
Research area
This research project was initiated in 2005 in the North Pasture (0.69 ha) section
of Squam Farm (Fig. 1). Initially started as a 1-year Master’s Thesis project
(Schlimme 2006), the Nantucket Conservation Foundation continued the research
for a total of 4 years.
Elevation at North Pasture varies from 11 to 15 m above sea level (MassGIS
2012). Surficial geology consists of Pleistocene glacial end moraine (Oldale 1985).
The dominant soil type is Plymouth-Evesboro complex (3–8% slopes) (Langlois
1979, MassGIS 2003).
The North Pasture research area contained an assemblage of native sandplain
grassland-associated species, including Little Bluestem, Pennsylvania Sedge, and
Poverty Oatgrass, as well as non-native, cool-season grasses such as Holcus lanatus
(Common Velvetgrass), Anthoxanthum odoratum (Sweet Vernalgrass), and
Festuca ovina (Sheep Fescue). These non-native grasses are identified as a threat to
sandplain grasslands because they form mats that change the character of the vegetation
community (Swain and Kearsley 2001). Thus, the North Pasture research
area provided an opportunity to test how both desirable and undesirable plant species
responded to mowing and grazing treatments over multiple growing seasons.
Methods
Study design
We divided the North Pasture area at Squam Farm into 9 research units (each
33 m x 21 m; Fig. 1) and randomly assigned each unit to a treatment for the length
of the study: graze (n = 3), mow (n = 3), or control (n = 3). Prior to the initiation
of this study, the entire North Pasture area was mowed annually for several years
during the dormant season. Therefore, the control treatment provided an example
of unmanaged vegetation during the course of this study.
This study was initially designed to conduct 3 mow or graze treatments per
growing season in each research unit for 3 years (2005–2007). However, drought
conditions experienced in both 2005 and 2007 slowed post-grazing vegetation recovery,
and a series of sheep flock management issues, including the unexpected
Northeastern Naturalist
49
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
birth of lambs, caused further logistical complications in implementing the planned
treatment schedule. As a result, the number of treatments varied each year: mowing
and grazing treatments were applied either 2 or 3 times per growing season to
all research units (Table 1). Additionally, the difference in number of treatments
per growing season necessitated that the timing of treatments varied (Table 1). No
treatments occurred in 2008, but we sampled vegetation that year to document the
response during the first full growing season after ending treat ments.
Grazing treatment. During each graze treatment, the sheep flock was contained
in 1 randomly selected graze unit until most available forage was consumed; we
then randomly rotated the flock through the other 2 graze units for the same number
of days per unit (Table 1). Solar-powered, portable electro-net fencing (Wellscroft
Fence Systems, LLC, Harrisville, NH) contained the sheep within the graze units.
The size of the graze treatment sheep flock varied over the course of the study. In
2005, the Foundation borrowed 28 adult Cotswold sheep from the New England
Heritage Breeds Conservancy (formerly in Great Barrington, MA; no longer in
operation) for the duration of the summer season. The remainder of the research
project utilized a reduced-size, mixed flock of Cotswolds (8 in 2006 and 3 in 2007)
and Romneys (9 in 2006 and 4 in 2007). Cotswolds used in 2006–2007 were born
and raised at the study site; Romneys were raised elsewhere on Nantucket and
donated to the project by the Massachusetts Audubon Society. Although differences
in flock size and breed composition were likely sources of variability in the
graze-treatment effect, we believe that these differences are inherent to the use of
livestock grazing as an ecological management regime.
Mowing treatment. We mowed all mow units immediately following the end
of each grazing treatment (Table 1) using a John Deere® tractor fitted with a rearmounted
rotary cutter attachment.
Table 1. Vegetation sampling times each year and corresponding sheep grazing and mowing treatment
times over the course of the study. * the end of the sampling period indicates the late summer vegetation
sampling time used throughout the analysis. Mowing treatments were performed at the end of
each grazing treatment.
Sampling dates
Year Pre-treatment Post-treatment 1 Post-treatment 2
2005 July 14–Aug. 3 Aug. 8–12 Sept. 8–28*
2006 - Aug. 15–Oct. 13*
2007 - Sept. 25–Oct. 19*
2008 - July 24- Aug. 7 Sept. 9–24*
Treatment dates
Year Graze start Graze time Graze start Graze time Graze start Graze time
2005 Aug. 3 2 days/unit Sept. 7 1 day/unit - -
2006 June 13 2 days/unit July 11 2 days/unit Aug. 9 2 days/unit
2007 May 22 5 days/unit July 11 4 days/unit Aug. 14 6 days/unit
2008 - - - - - -
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
50
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Vegetation sampling
Using ArcGIS (ESRI, Inc., Redlands, CA), we established 5 vegetation
sampling plots within each of the 9 research units. Plots were separated from each
other and the unit edge by at least 5 m to maximize spatial independence. Due to
the size of the treatment unit and the need to buffer individual plots from each
other and the unit edge, plot locations were not randomized. However, because
plots were created in ArcGIS, no prior knowledge of site conditions or vegetation
composition influenced plot location selection.
To locate computer generated plots in the field, we exported plot coordinates to
a Trimble® Geo XT™ Global Positioning System unit. Once we navigated to a plot
point, we established a 1-m2 plot, permanently marking all plot corners with buried
rebar to facilitate relocation with a metal detector. We established a total of 45
vegetation-sampling plots (5 plots per research unit; 15 plots per treatment type).
We sampled vegetation community composition at each plot using a 1-m2 inclined
point quadrat sampling frame containing 50 points per quadrat in a 10 x 5 grid
with x-axis points spaced 10 cm apart and y-axis points spaced 20 cm apart. At each
sampling point, a thin dowel (6.3 mm diameter) was inserted through the quadrat
frame at a 32.5º angle. We recorded all plant species contacting the dowel as it slid to
the ground, as well as the type of ground cover present (bare ground or litter) when
the dowel touched the ground. Plants were identified to the species level whenever
possible (Appendix 1). We recorded only once each plant species encountered per
sampling point (dowel contact). From this data, we were able to calculate the percent
foliar coverage of a species within each vegetation plot as a percent of total sampling
points (dowel contacts) per 1-m2 plot (Olusuyi and Raguse 1968, Wilson 1963). For
example, if Little Bluestem was encountered in 9 of the 50 sampling points within a
plot, then percent foliar coverage was calculated to be 18%. Using an inclined point
intercept with an angle of 32.5º dramatically reduced sampling error and over-estimation
of shrubs and forbs (Wilson 1960, 1963; Winkworth 1954).
Pre-treatment vegetation sampling occurred in mid-July 2005. Each year of the
study, we conducted post-treatment vegetation sampling in mid-summer and late
summer, ~1 month post treatment and thus varied annually based on the timing of
treatments (Table 1). We sampled twice during 2008 to document vegetation response
during the first full growing season after ending treatme nts.
Analysis
Broad functional groups. The low number of vegetation sampling plots in
this study (n = 5 per unit and n = 15 total per treatment) meant that individual
species could be encountered infrequently even when common in the research
units, increasing the error associated with analyzing the data at the species level
(Lavorel, et al. 1997, Sternberg, et al. 2000). To minimize this error, we analyzed
vegetation data in broad functional groups (graminoid, forb, woody) as well as
ground-cover categories (bare ground, litter). The response of species at the broad
functional group level can be used as an indication of the direction and speed of
vegetation community shifts, as these functional groups represent different stages
of the successional process (Hellstrom et al. 2003, McIntyre et al. 1995). We chose
Northeastern Naturalist
51
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
to examine broad plant growth forms and ground-cover categories because we
were interested in the influence of these treatments on maintaining and increasing
grassland-associated species, decreasing woody cover, and influencing conditions
for successful grassland-associated species recruitment and establishment.
All analyses were conducted using SPSS (IBM Corp. 2012) with an alpha of
0.05 to determine significance. Percent foliar coverage, representing the mean occurrence
of each functional group, was calculated by dividing the total number of
dowel contacts at a single sampling point by the number of sampling points (n =
50) in each vegetation sampling plot (Anderson 1986; Wilson 1960, 1963). Because
multiple species were assigned to each functional group and dowel contacts were
recorded by individual species, the percent foliar coverage of a functional group
could exceed 100% within a sampling plot.
Management interest functional groups. While changes in overall growth form
and ground cover categories are useful in documenting general ecological successional
trajectories, species composition is an important determinant of whether
habitat restoration is successful. In order to examine the effects of our management
treatments in more detail, we selectively classified key species in functional
groups defined by habitat association and/or plant function that might influence
grassland restoration goals. We created 4 management interest functional groups
(Table 2). Agricultural species included non-native and weedy graminoids and
forbs already present at the start of this study that might increase with disturbance.
Sandplain grassland species included forbs and graminoids indicative
of sandplain grassland communities as defined by the Massachusetts Natural
Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MANHESP 2010). The clonal/vining
woody functional group included clonal or vining woody species that are not
reduced in cover by repeated disturbance (Dunwiddie 1997, Neiring and Driyer
1989) and therefore might decrease the success of grassland establishment and
maintenance (Harper 1995). And last, we examined shrub woody species that
form larger shrubs or trees in the absence of disturbance management. Only species
that were deemed of management interest or defined as strongly indicative of
habitat were included in a management interest functional group; hence, not all
individual species encountered in the study were classified as part of a group.
Percent foliar coverage, representing the mean occurrence of each management
interest functional group, was calculated by dividing the total number of dowel
contacts at a single sampling point by the number of sampling points (n = 50)
in each vegetation sampling plot (Anderson 1986; Wilson 1960, 1963). Because
multiple species were assigned to each functional group and dowel contacts were
recorded by individual species, the percent foliar coverage of a functional group
could exceed 100% within a sampling plot.
Statistical analysis. To determine if vegetation communities differed prior to
treatment, we conducted a 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the pre-treatment
mean foliar coverage of each category (graminoid, forb, woody, bare ground,
and litter) among all research units. Additionally, we conducted a 1-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) on pre-treatment mean foliar coverage of each management
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
52
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
interest functional group (agricultural, sandplain grassland, clonal/vining woody,
and shrub woody) between all research units. The vegetation composition did not
differ among research units prior to the application of treatment (Table 3), which
allowed us to conduct the following analysis on post-treatment data only.
Table 2. Species classified into management interest functional groups based on community definitions
and native species guides for Massachusetts as well as literature review and personal observations
on Nantucket. Note that not all species encountered within this study were assigned to a management
interest functional group.
Management interest Broad
functional group/ functional
Scientific name Common name (status) group
Agricultural species
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet Vernalgrass (non-native) Graminoid
Dactylis glomerata Orchard Grass (non-native) Graminoid
Festuca ovina Sheep Fescue (non-native) Graminoid
Hieracium spp. Hawkweeds (native, disturbance) Forb
Holcus lanatus Common Velvetgrass (non-native, invasive) Graminoid
Leucanthemum vulgare Oxeye Daisy (non-native) Forb
Potentilla canadensis Dwarf Cinquefoil (native, disturbance) Forb
Rumex acetosella Red Sorrel (non-native) Forb
Vicia sativa Common Vetch (non-native) Forb
Sandplain grassland species
Agrostis hyemalis Winter Bentgrass (native) Graminoid
Carex pensylvanica Pennsylvania Sedge (native) Graminoid
Crocanthemum dumosum Bushy Frostweed (native, special concern) Forb
Danthonia spicata Poverty Oatgrass (native) Graminoid
Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod (native) Forb
Hypericum stragulum St. Andrew's Cross (native, endangered) Forb
Juncus greenei Greene's Rush (native) Graminoid
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass (native) Graminoid
Polygala polygama Bitter Milkwort (native) Forb
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem (native) Graminoid
Sisyrinchium fuscatum Coastal Plain Blue-eyed Grass (native, special concern) Forb
Solidago rugosa Wrinkleleaf Goldenrod (native) Forb
Symphyotrichum spp. American-asters (native) Forb
Clonal/vining woody species
Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut (native) Woody
Gaultheria procumbens Eastern Wintergreen (native) Woody
Gaylussacia baccata Black Huckleberry (native) Woody
Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle (non-native, invasive) Woody
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper (native) Woody
Rubus spp. Dewberries (native) Woody
Smilax spp. Greenbriers (native) Woody
Vaccinium spp. Blueberries (native) Woody
Vitis labrusca Fox Grape (native) Woody
Shrub/tree woody species
Morella caroliniensis Bayberry (native) Woody
Quercus spp. Scrub Oaks (native) Woody
Sassafras albidum Sassafras (native) Woody
Northeastern Naturalist
53
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey’s HSD results (C = control, G = graze, M
= mow) for all broad functional groups over the 4-year study. All pre-treatment sampling occured in
2005. * indicates significant P values. Columns for each treatment indicate the mean (M) and standard
deviation (SD) of each treatment. [Table continued on next page.]
Broad functional
groups/ Graze Control Mow Tukey’s
sampling year M SD M SD M SD F 2,42 P HSD
Graminoid
Pre-treatment 143.20 61.12 135.60 59.67 142.80 58.81 0.08 0.93
2005 41.47 29.80 118.67 54.78 57.60 26.75 16.21 0.01* C > G,M
2006 151.33 53.51 174.27 76.54 191.87 37.14 1.84 0.17
2007 111.87 79.27 46.27 10.55 88.93 20.81 7.31 0.02* C < G,M
2008 164.80 42.87 142.13 92.75 196.93 47.03 2.70 0.08
Forb
Pre-treatment 72.40 47.68 70.00 47.68 92.53 66.51 0.68 0.52
2005 4.80 7.12 40.93 42.55 6.80 7.85 9.65 0.01* C > G,M
2006 54.40 25.60 46.80 30.32 52.40 33.26 0.26 0.77
2007 54.93 57.03 16.00 10.17 20.00 18.73 5.57 0.07* G > C,M
2008 71.10 39.69 63.87 53.56 65.10 53.15 0.92 0.91
Woody
Pre-treatment 113.87 59.86 120.00 70.71 102.93 36.65 0.34 0.72
2005 42.93 27.31 86.27 53.72 23.87 10.73 12.28 0.01* C > G,M
2006 78.67 46.63 161.07 91.58 52.27 20.91 13.18 0.01 C > G,M
2007 122.53 73.06 26.27 31.35 12.80 7.81 25.26 0.01 G > C,M
2008 84.40 51.65 103.33 62.69 38.80 17.08 7.19 0.02 M < C,G
Bare ground
Pre-treatment 12.67 13.22 13.87 11.30 14.00 17.05 0.04 0.96
2005 19.60 14.37 18.67 12.27 7.73 7.87 4.67 0.02* M < C,G
2006 24.13 13.45 13.73 13.22 17.60 16.23 2.01 0.15
2007 2.40 2.60 12.67 10.07 7.20 5.22 8.74 0.01* G < C
2008 19.87 9.93 8.40 8.21 10.13 5.73 8.64 0.01* G > C,M
Litter
Pre-treatment 80.40 15.82 82.67 16.38 82.67 14.67 0.11 0.91
2005 88.27 6.28 94.93 4.13 89.47 9.27 3.99 0.03* G < C
2006 94.53 5.97 96.27 12.85 97.73 3.01 0.55 0.58
2007 90.80 6.36 76.80 18.48 86.80 9.85 4.88 0.01* G < C
2008 80.40 9.45 89.60 5.82 91.87 8.09 8.80 0.01* G < C,M
Agricultural
Pre-treatment 77.20 25.06 66.80 35.69 85.60 37.36 1.21 0.31
2005 8.27 9.47 45.73 33.32 11.73 14.73 13.61 0.01* C > G,M
2006 94.93 43.75 63.60 36.75 85.87 43.96 2.25 0.12
2007 24.00 13.37 35.33 35.57 33.87 36.22 0.62 0.54
2008 102.00 48.90 38.67 23.56 96.40 60.43 8.38 0.01* C < G,M
Sandplain
Pre-treatment 118.53 34.62 125.07 35.15 132.93 32.54 0.67 0.52
2005 32.13 21.85 103.73 28.95 31.20 21.43 43.90 0.01* C > G,M
2006 39.07 27.73 77.73 29.11 51.33 30.58 6.89 0.03* C > G,M
2007 35.20 13.26 124.67 33.33 65.73 18.23 57.49 0.01* C > M > G
2008 105.47 36.49 157.07 42.96 141.07 27.70 7.96 0.01* G < C,M
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
54
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
A repeated measures analysis of variance (RMANOVA) was used to examine
changes in the mean foliar coverage in each broad functional group and groundcover
category in response to multiple annual mowing and grazing treatments over
the 4-year study. The same method examined changes in mean foliar coverage in
each management interest functional group. Where the RMANOVAs proved significant,
we used a post hoc Tukey HSD test to examine how each treatment affected
broad functional group, ground-cover group, and management interest functional
group coverage.
Results
Broad functional groups
Prior to the start of the study, vegetation sampling plots showed no significant
difference in percent foliar coverage of broad vegetation functional groups (graminoid,
forb, woody) and ground-cover categories (bare ground, litter) between the
research units (Fig. 2). Post-treatment sampling in the first year of the study (2005)
showed a significant reduction in the foliar coverage of each functional group in both
the grazing and mowing treatments compared to the lack of treatment in the controls
(graminoid [F2,42 = 16.21, P = 0.01], forb [F2, 42 = 9.65, P = 0.01], woody [F2, 42 =
12.28, P = 0.01]). Additionally, this first year of the mowing treatment (2005) resulted
in significantly less bare ground compared to the grazing and control treatments
(F2, 24 = 4.67, P = 0.02), while the grazing treatment had significantly less litter compared
to the mowing and control treatments (F2, 24 = 3.99, P = 0.03). Post-treatment
sampling over the next 3 years of the study allowed us to examine the trajectory of
restoration as the vegetation community responded to repeated management.
Foliar coverage of functional and ground-cover groups exhibited varied responses
to each treatment over the 4 years of the study (Table 3). These responses
may have also been influenced by precipitation levels. Average precipitation during
the growing season on Nantucket (May–September) is 335.3 mm (NOAA 2016).
Table 3, continued.
Broad functional
groups/ Graze Control Mow Tukey’s
sampling year M SD M SD M SD F 2,42 P HSD
Clonal/vining woody
Pre-treatment 87.73 44.54 91.87 45.48 82.13 27.90 0.22 0.08
2005 23.07 19.08 64.80 35.09 14.80 10.30 18.10 0.01* C > G,M
2006 62.93 39.49 123.60 62.44 43.60 18.18 13.55 0.01* C > G,M
2007 18.80 23.84 97.73 60.57 10.40 6.77 24.39 0.01* C > G,M
2008 73.30 50.42 117.87 66.11 48.67 23.82 7.40 0.02* C > G,M
Shrub woody
Pre-treatment 11.73 15.76 14.80 27.05 0.80 3.09 2.46 0.10
2005 8.53 12.13 13.73 24.26 0.13 0.52 2.97 0.06
2006 9.07 14.12 16.27 27.53 0.40 0.82 2.44 0.10
2007 12.93 23.93 16.93 29.15 0.13 0.52 2.88 0.07
2008 18.67 32.53 16.93 28.65 0.00 0.00 2.55 0.09
Northeastern Naturalist
55
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Growing-season precipitation over the study varied each year (2005 = 106.7 mm,
2006 = 577.9 mm, 2007 = 195.8 mm, 2008 = 404.1 mm) and was greatly reduced
in 2005 and 2007, which likely influenced vegetation sampling results. Vegetation
sampled in the 2008 growing season experienced near average precipitation and
was therefore likely representative of an initial year of recovery from the cumulative
influence of each treatment type.
At the end of this study, foliar coverage of the woody functional group was significantly
lower in the mowing treatment as compared to the grazing and control
treatments (F2, 42 = 7.19, P = 0.01; Fig. 3). Additionally, bare ground was significantly
higher and litter significantly lower in the grazing treatment as compared to
the control and mowing treatments (bare ground: F2, 42 = 8.64, P = 0.01; litter: F2, 42
= 8.80, P = 0.01; Fig. 3).
Graminoid foliar coverage was not significantly different between the grazing
and mowing treatments in 2008, although mean coverage was higher in both treatments
as compared to the control (F2, 42 = 2.69, P = 0.08). Overall, forb species
Figure 2. Foliar percent coverage (total hits/total samples per plot *100) of each treatment
(control, graze, mow) by management interest functional group before the start of this project
(2005). Note that because more than 1 species representing a functional group may be
present in a research unit, percent foliar coverage by a functional group can be larger than
100%. Bars are standard errors. Species composition of agricultural, sandplain grassland,
and clonal/vining woody management interest functional groups for this study is presented
in Table 2.
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
56
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
increased in both the grazing and mowing treatments, although there was no significant
difference between the treatments at the end of the study .
Management interest functional groups
Prior to the start of the study, vegetation sampling plots showed no significant
difference in percent foliar coverage of the management interest functional groups’
species (Table 2) between the research units (Table 3) (Fig. 2).
Post-treatment sampling in the first year of the study (2005) showed a significant
reduction in the percent foliar coverage of each functional group in both the grazing
and mowing treatments compared to the controls (agricultural: F2, 42 = 13.61,
P = 0.01; sandplain: F2, 42 = 43.89, P = 0.01; clonal/vining woody: F2, 42 = 18.10, P =
0.01]. The shrub woody functional group showed no difference between treatments.
The coverage of this functional group was negligible over the entire study site and
did not significantly increase over the course of the study .
Figure 3. Foliar percent coverage (total hits/total samples per plot *100) of each treatment
(control, graze, mow) by management interest functional group in the recovery year of this
project (2008). Note that because more than one species representing a functional group
may be present in a research unit, percent foliar coverage by a functional group can be
larger than 100%. Bars are standard errors; letters indicate significant differences based on
ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD. Species composition of agricultural, sandplain grassland, and
clonal/vining woody management interest functional groups for this study is presented in
Table 2.
Northeastern Naturalist
57
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
After 3 consecutive years of treatment (2008), we were able to detect a significant
change in coverage of all species of management interest functional groups,
with the exception of the shrub woody group. Percent foliar coverage of agricultural
species significantly increased (F2, 42 = 8.38, P = 0.01) and clonal/vining woody
species coverage significantly decreased (F2, 42 = 7.40, P = 0.02) in the grazing
and mowing treatments as compared to controls (Fig. 3). The reduction in clonal/
vining woody species was primarily responsible for the reduction of the broader
woody functional group within the mowing treatments, as discussed in the previous
section. Sandplain grassland associate species were significantly reduced in the
grazing treatments compared to the control and mowing treatments (F2, 42 = 7.96,
P = 0.0; Fig. 3).
Discussion
Current grassland management practices on Nantucket focus on slowing establishment
and decreasing cover of woody species that, through succession, will
outcompete native grassland species (Dunwiddie 1989). Three consecutive years
of sheep grazing or mowing, conducted multiple times during the summer growing
season, resulted in significant shifts in vegetation community composition in a grassland
previously managed with only dormant-season mowing. Overall, woody species
cover was significantly reduced in the mow units, and clonal/vining woody species,
which actively compete with native grasses and forbs, were reduced in both the mow
and graze units. Although not statistically significant, both forb and graminoid species
increased in the grazing and mowing treatments. This finding suggests that both
grazing and mowing treatments resulted in shifts in the ecological trajectory towards
a vegetation community containing more cover of early successional species and less
cover of competitive woody species in just 3 years.
Coastal sandplain grassland communities require periodic natural and/or anthropogenic
disturbances in order to persist (Dunwiddie 1989). Prescribed fire and
mowing are the most common techniques currently used, although sheep grazing
has been identified as the primary historic post-colonial disturbance on Nantucket
(Dunwiddie 1989). Both the type and seasonality of management are important factors
influencing management outcomes. On Nantucket, mowing and prescribed fire
management have typically been conducted in the spring and late autumn dormant
seasons to limit smoke impacts and avoid affecting nesting birds and wildlife (K.C.
Beattie, pers. observ.). In contrast, sheep grazing needs to occur during the growing
season when live, palatable forage is present (late spring–late fall). Research
conducted in grasslands on Nantucket suggests that growing-season mowing or
burning can be more effective in reducing shrub cover and increasing frequency
of graminoids and forbs compared to these same treatments applied during the
dormant season (Dunwiddie 1998, Dunwiddie and Caljouw 1990, Dunwiddie et
al. 1995). Our research results provide additional evidence that growing-season
treatments may be more effective than dormant-season treatments in restoring
sandplain grassland habitat.
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
58
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Sheep grazing differs from mowing in the way that vegetation is removed from
a site and how the soil surface is affected. Mowing reduces all vegetation, regardless
of species, to a uniform height, including new leaf and shoot growth as well as
older woody stems (Huhta 2001). In contrast, grazing is more selective, as sheep
show preferences or aversions to particular species based on their varying nutritional
needs (Provenza 2003). Sheep tend to prefer newer growth because it is more
digestible and nutritious (Launchbaugh and Walker 2006). Sheep hooves rework
the litter and soil surface, opening up areas of bare soil and providing opportunities
for increased graminoid seed germination (Silvertown and Smith 1988). Grazing
removes standing vegetation through consumption, whereas mowing removes
standing vegetation by dropping it to the soil surface to decompose. At Squam
Farm, plant litter on the soil surface was significantly reduced and bare ground
available for seedling germination was significantly increased within grazing treatments
as compared to mowing treatments.
While examining response to management at a broad functional group level can
help illustrate overall successional trends (Hellstrom et al. 2003), analyzing results
at a finer scale provides additional insight into the ecology of localized succession.
Pre-treatment data show that prior to this study, the research units at Squam
Farm contained a mosaic of desirable native grassland species, undesirable grasses
and forbs associated with agriculture, and undesirable woody species capable of
outcompeting sandplain grassland species in the absence of disturbance (Table 2).
Clonal woody species such as Black Huckleberry and vining woody species such
as Vitis labrusca (Fox Grape) can inhibit grassland restoration through competition
with desired grasses and forbs (Harper 1995; Reiners 1965; J.M. Karberg, pers.
observ.). Clonal and vining woody species typically respond positively to disturbance
management, potentially creating conflicting management outcomes when
promoting early successional vegetation communities (Dunwiddie et al. 1990,
Harper 1995, Reiners 1965). At Squam Farm, we saw a reduction in the coverage
of clonal/vining woody species in both the mowing and grazing treatments over the
course of the study. This result suggests that mowing and grazing, either separately
or potentially together, may be effective tools at reducing competitive woody cover
in early successional community management.
On the other hand, this study documented a decrease in sandplain grassland
species in the grazing treatment and an increase in undesirable agricultural species
in both the grazing and mowing treatment. Ecosystems that have a history
of past agricultural use often have plant communities that remain altered for
many decades by persistent non-native, agricultural plant species (Neill et al.
2007, Von Holle and Motzkin 2007), which can hinder establishment of desirable
native sandplain grassland species (Neill et al. 2015). The agricultural
species present at the site prior to treatments likely increased due to increased
disturbance from both the grazing and mowing treatments. Previous studies
have documented that grazing can result in the creation of gaps (patches of
bare soil exposed to increased light) as the dominant vegetation is suppressed
by consumption. These gaps are more likely to be colonized by stress-tolerant,
Northeastern Naturalist
59
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
competitive ruderal species (Bullock et al. 2001, Smith and Rushton 1994).
While bare ground provided suitable space for seed germination in the grazing
treatments, it appears that agricultural species were able to establish and possibly
outcompete sandplain species over the 4 years of the study.
Reconstruction of palynological post-glacial vegetation communities using
radiocarbon-dated sediment cores from Nantucket and elsewhere in New England
show a rapid increase in pollen indicative of both native grass species and agricultural
weeds immediately post-European settlement, coincident with increases
in sheep grazing and other agricultural activities (Dunwiddie 1990, Foster and
Motzkin 2003, Motzkin and Foster 2002). This trend continued through the late
19th century and then declined with reductions in historic grazing activity. These
findings suggest that weedy agricultural species may have been a component of the
successional trajectory that resulted in the establishment of current sandplain grassland
habitats. During the height of sheep grazing activity on Nantucket, Foster and
Motzkin (2003:139) reported that overgrazing led to a loss in soil and vegetation
cover followed by wind erosion, resulting in a landscape “described as degraded,
barren, rutted, eroded, and wasteland.” Thus, while soil disturbance was likely
an integral component of the historic disturbance regimes, ultimately resulting in
sandplain grassland establishment and expansion, palynological data suggest that
these highly eroded and degraded soils may have initially been colonized by weedy
agricultural plant species.
Results from our study suggest that the use of sheep grazing alone may not
be effective in restoring sandplain grassland habitat at sites where weedy agricultural
species are already present or become introduced during management.
Native seed availability in the soil seed bank has been identified as a limiting
factor in the establishment of native species in sandplain grassland restoration
efforts (Omand et al. 2014). In a former agricultural field on Martha’s Vineyard,
MA, soil disturbance in the form of tilling combined with native seed addition
increased native species presence and cover (Wheeler et al. 2015), although this
technique did not eliminate the non-native agricultural species formerly dominant
at the site. In our study, sheep grazing was effective in creating soil disturbance,
which appears to be an integral component of grassland restoration. Combining
sheep grazing with native seed addition could be an important next step towards
understanding how grazing can be utilized as an effective grassland restoration
tool. Additional research is needed to determine if grazing can successfully maintain
this community type once restored.
In this study, the amount of time that the sheep were grazed in each treatment
unit was controlled by the study design, and grazing occurred during the later
portion of the growing season. Neither of these conditions likely mimicked the
historic grazing pressures that resulted in Nantucket’s current grassland communities,
which were continuously grazed year-to-year over many decades and
throughout the growing and non-growing seasons. While the trends seen in this
study provide an indication of how grazing pressure can alter these early successional
communities, our project was designed as a replicable study that controlled
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
60
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
for as many variables as possible and therefore was not a simulation of historic,
unmanaged grazing patterns. Future research is needed to examine the effects of
an intensive, year-round grazing regime. Grazing that results in a mosaic of treatment
and intensity may be more effective at maintaining the suite of native forb
and graminoid species desirable within grassland communities. Responsible animal
husbandry would not allow the use of animals today the way they might have been
grazed historically.
The restoration and maintenance of early successional grasslands is complicated
and involves factors related to pre- and post-restoration vegetation composition,
weather variability, and management technique and timing. In this study, sheep
grazing was effective at decreasing coverage of competitive woody species and
creating soil disturbance, which appear to be important first steps in grassland restoration.
The observed increase in undesirable agricultural species within grazing
and mowing treatments may be an inherent side effect of management that results
in soil disturbance. An important next step towards overcoming weedy-species establishment
and expansion could be the combined use of sheep grazing and native
seed addition. Given the long-term, variable nature of the ecological disturbances
that created these early successional communities, one management technique
alone likely will not result in successful grassland restoration over a short period of
time. We recommend that sheep grazing be more widely considered as an addition
to the sandplain grassland restoration “tool box”.
Acknowledgments
We would not have been able to complete this project without the help and support of
numerous individuals. The Nantucket Conservation Foundation, Lucy Dillon, the Boston
Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. Ian MacKenzie, Gretchen Penrose, Robert McDaugh, Patty Gibian,
the Good Samaritan Foundation, the Wolff Family Foundation, and an anonymous
donor provided funding. Rachael Freeman, Kurt Schlimme, and Brooke Brewer contributed
invaluable project development expertise. The following provided field work oversight and/
or sheep flock care and management: Rachael Freeman, Brooke Brewer, Nicole DuPont,
Jessica Pykosz, Constance Helstosky, Pam Buckley, Tom Lennon, Chris Iller, Richard
Mack, Donnie Mack, Tom Larrabee, Billy Coffin, Sarah Bois, Sarah Hinman, Offshore
Animal Hospital, Dr. Maia Howard, Dr. Constance Breese, Dr. Scott White, Sarah Oktay,
Sarah Flack, Phil Lindsay, and Andy Rice. Kurt Schlimme oversaw the initial year of data
collection as part of his Master’s thesis research project. The New England Heritage Breeds
Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon Society donated sheep to the project. Many
thanks to numerous Nantucket Conservation Foundation board members, Science and
Stewardship Department field assistants, and volunteers who provided project support
and data collection assistance.
Literature Cited
Anderson, E.W. 1986. A guide for estimating cover. Rangelands 8:236–238.
Barbour, H., T. Simmons, P.C. Swain, and H. Woolsey. 1998. Our irreplaceable heritage:
Protecting biodiversity in Massachusetts. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species
Program and Masschusetts Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA.
Northeastern Naturalist
61
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Bullock, J.M., B. Clear Hill, M.P. Dale, and J. Silvertown. 1994. An experimental study on
the effects of sheep grazing on vegetation change in a species-poor grassland and the
role of seedling recruitment into gaps. Journal of Applied Ecology 31:493–507.
Bullock, J.M., B. Clear Hill, J. Silvertown, and M. Sutton. 1995. Gap colonization as the
source of grassland community change: Effects of gap size and grazing on the rate and
mode of colonization by different species. Oikos 72:273–282.
Bullock, J.M., J. Franklin, M.J. Stevenson, J. Silvertown, S.J. Coulson, S.J. Gregory, and
R. Tofts. 2001. A plant-trait analysis of responses to grazing in a long-term experiment.
Journal of Applied Ecology 38:253–267.
Carlson, L., M. Babione, P.J. Godfrey, and A. Fowler. 1991. Ecological survey of heathlands
in Cape Cod National Seashore, MA. Botany Department, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, MA.
Chapman, C.K., and C.R. Reid. 2004. Sheep and goats: Ecological tools for the 21st century.
Fact Sheet. Utah State University Extension, Logan, Utah.
Crevecoeur, J.H.S. 1957. Letters from an American Farmer. E.P. Dutton and Company, New
York, NY.
Dunwiddie, P.W. 1989. Forest and heath: The shaping of the vegetation on Nantucket Island.
Journal of Forest History 33:126–133.
Dunwiddie, P.W. 1990. Postglacial vegetation history of coastal islands in southeastern
New England. National Geographic Research 6:178–195.
Dunwiddie, P.W. 1997. Long-term effects of sheep grazing on coastal sandplain vegetation.
Natural Areas Journal 17:261–264.
Dunwiddie, P.W. 1998. Ecological management of sandplain grasslands and coastal heathlands
in southeastern Massachusetts. Pp. 83–93, In T.L. Pruden and L.A. Brennan (Eds.).
Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Suppression to Prescription.
Tall Timbers Research Station Tallahassee, FL.
Dunwiddie, P.W., and C. Caljouw. 1990. Prescribed burning and mowing of coastal heathlands
and grasslands in Massachusetts. New York State Museum Bulletin 471:271–275.
Dunwiddie, P.W., W.A. Patterson III, and R.E. Zaremba. 1995. Evaluating changes in vegetation
from permanent plots: An example from sandplain grasslands in Massachusetts.
Pp. 245–250, In T.B. Herman, S. Bondrup-Nielsen, J.H. Martin Willison and N.W.P.
Munro (Eds.). Ecosystem Monitoring and Protected Areas. Science and Management of
Protected Areas Association Wolfville, NS, Canada.
Dunwiddie, P.W., R.E. Zaremba, and K.A. Harper. 1996. Classification of coastal heathlands
and sandplain grasslands in Massachusetts. Rhodora 98:117–145.
Foster, D.R., and G. Motzkin. 2003. Interpreting and conserving the openland habitats of
coastal New England: Insights from landscape history. Forest Ecology and Management
185:127–150.
Foster, D.R., and J.F. O’Keefe. 2000. New England Forests Through Time: Insights from
the Harvard Forest Dioramas. Harvard Forest, Petersham, MA.
Harper, K.A. 1995. Effect of expanding clones of Gaylussacia baccata (Black Huckleberry)
on species composition in sandplain grassland on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. Bulletin
of the Torrey Botanical Club 122:124–133.
Harshberger, J.W. 1917. American heaths and pine heaths. Brooklyn Botanic Garden Memoirs
1.
Hellstrom, K., A.-P. Huhta, P. Rautio, J. Tuomi, J. Oksanen, and K. Laine. 2003. Use of
sheep grazing in the restoration of semi-natural meadows in northern Finland. Applied
Vegetation Science 6:45–52.
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
62
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Huhta, A. 2001. Restorative mowing on semi-natural grasslands: Community-level changes
and species-level responses. University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. 40 pp.
IBM Corp. 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY.
Langlois, K.H., Jr. 1979. Soil survey of Nantucket County, Massachusetts. USDA Soil
Conservation Service, Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst, MA.
Launchbaugh, K., and J. Walker. 2006. Targeted Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation
Management and Landscape Enhancement. Cottrell Printing, Centennial, CO.
Lavorel, S., S. McIntyre, J. Landsberg, and T.D.A. Forbes. 1997. Plant functional classifications:
From general groups to specific groups based on response to disturbance. TREE
12:474–478.
Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MANHESP). 2010. Sandplain
grassland factsheet. Available online at http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/nhesp/
natural-communities-facts/sandplain-grassland-factsheet.pdf. Accessed May 2016.
MassGIS. 2003. MassGIS data download: NRCS-SSURGO-Certified soils. Available
online at http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/applicationserv/
office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/download-elevation-contours-
15000.html. Accessed May 2016.
MassGIS. 2012. MassGIS data download: Elevation contours (1:5,000). Available online
at http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/
office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/ftpsoi.html. Accessed May 2016.
McIntyre, S., S. Lavorel, and R.M. Tremont. 1995. Plant life-history attributes: Their relationship
to disturbance response in herbaceous vegetation. Journal of Ecology 83:31–44.
McManis, D.A. 2010. Town Farms and Country Commons: Farming on Nantucket. Mill
Hill Press, Nantucket MA.
Motzkin, G., and D.R. Foster. 2002. Grasslands, heathlands, and shrublands in coastal New
England: Historical interpretations and approaches to conservation. Journal of Biogeography
29:1569–1590.
Neill, C. 2007. The challenge of managing disturbance regimes, terrestrial communities,
and rare species in a suburbanized region: The northeastern US coastal sandplain. Biological
Conservation 136:1–3.
Neill, C., W.A. Patterson, and D.W. Crary. 2007. Responses of soil carbon, nitrogen, and
cations to the frequency and seasonality of prescribed burning in a Cape Cod oak–pine
forest. Forest Ecology and Management 250:234–243.
Neill, C., M.M. Wheeler, E. Loucks, A. Weiler, B. Von Holle, M. Pelikan, and T. Chase.
2015. Influence of soil properties on coastal sandplain grassland establishment on former
agricultural fields. Restoration Ecology 23:531–538.
Neiring, W.A., and G.D. Dreyer. 1989. Effects of prescribed burning on Andropogon
scoparius in postagricultural grasslands in Connecticut. American Midland Naturalist
122:88.
Nantucket Historical Association (NHA). 2016. Aerial views of Nantucket from the collections
of the Nantucket Historical Association. Available online at http://www.nha.org/
digitalexhibits/aerialviews/AP1940Web/pages/ap1940_142.htm. Accessed May 2016.
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2016. National Centers
for Environmental Information: Climate data online. Available online at http://www.
ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Accessed 2016.
Oldale, R.N. 1985. Geologic map of Nantucket and Nearby Islands, Massachusetts. Department
of the Interior, US Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
Olusuyi, S.A., and C.A. Raguse. 1968. Inclined-point estimation of species contributions to
dry pasture matter production. Agron 60:441–442.
Northeastern Naturalist
63
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Omand, K.A., J.M. Karberg, K.C. Beattie, D.I. O’Dell, and R.S. Freeman. 2014. Soil seed
bank in Nantucket’s early successional communitites: Implications for management.
Natural Areas Journal 34:188–199.
Owen, M.L. 1888. A Catalogue of Plants Growing without Cultivation in the County of
Nantucket, Mass. Gazette Printing Company, Northampton, MA.
Provenza, F.D. 2003. Foraging Behavior: Managing to Survive in a World of Change. USDANRCS
Grazing Lands Technology Institute; Utah State University Department of Forest,
Range, and Wildlife Servies; Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan, UT.
Reiners, W.A. 1965. Ecology of a heath-shrub synusia in the pine barrens of Long Island,
New York. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 92:448–464.
Rice, M.A. 1946. Trees and shrubs of Nantucket. Maria Mitchell Association, Nantucket,
MA. 77 pp.
Schlimme, K.S. 2006. Returning sheep to the island of Nantucket: A conservation grazing
experiment at Squam Farm. Duke University, Durham, NC.
Silvertown, J., and B.A. Smith. 1988. Gaps in the canopy: The missing dimension in vegetation
dynamics. Vegetatio 77:57–60.
Smith, R.S., and S.P. Rushton. 1994. The effects of grazing management on the vegetation
of mesotrophic (meadow) grassland in northern England. Journal of Applied Ecology
31:13–24.
Sorrie, B.A., and P.W. Dunwiddie. 1996. The vascular and non-vascular flora of Nantucket,
Tuckernuck, and Muskeget Islands. Massachusetts Audubon Society, Massachusetts
Natural Hertiage and Endangered Species Program, Nantucket Maria Mitchell Association,
The Nature Conservancy, Nantucket, MA.
Steel, J. 1999. Losing Ground: An Analysis of Recent Rates and Patterns of Development
and Their Effects on Open Space in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society,
Lincoln, MA.
Sternberg, M., M. Gutman, A. Pereolotsky, E.D. Ungar, and J. Kigel. 2000. Vegetation response
to grazing management in a Mediterranean herbaceous community: A functional
group approach Journal of Applied Ecology 37:224–237.
Swain, P.C., and J.B. Kearsley. 2001. Classification of the natural communities of Massachusetts.
Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program; Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Westborough, MA.
Thoreau, H.D. 1962. The Journal of Henry D. Thoreau, Volumes I–VII (1837–October
1855). B. Torrey and F.H. Allen (Eds.). Dover Publications, Inc. New York, NY. 926 pp.
Vickery, P.D., and P.W. Dunwiddie. 1997. Grasslands of Northeastern North America: Ecology
and Conservation of Native and Agricultural Landscapes. Massachusetts Audubon
Society, Lincoln, MA.
Von Holle, B., and G. Motzkin. 2007. Historical land use and environmental determinants
of nonnative plant distribution in coastal southern New England. Biological Conservation
136:33–43.
Wheeler, M.M., C. Neill, E. Loucks, A. Weiler, B. Von Holle, M. Pelikan, and T. Chase.
2015. Vegetation removal and seed addition contribute to coastal sandplain grassland
establishment on former agricultural fields. Restoration Ecology 23:539–547.
Wilson, J.W. 1960. Inclined point quadrats. New Phytologist 59:1–8.
Wilson, J.W. 1963. Estimation of foliage denseness and foliage angle by inclined point
quadrats. Australian Journal of Botany 11:95–101.
Winkworth, R.E. 1954. The use of point quadrats for the analysis of heathland. Australian
Journal of Botany 3:68–81.
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
64
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Appendix 1. Scientific name and authority, common name, broad functional group designation, and family of plant species encountered
in this project.
Species name and authority Common name Functional group Family
Achillea millefolium L. Common Yarrow Forb Asteraceae
Antennaria spp. Pussytoes Forb Asteraceae
Cirsium spp. Thistle Forb Asteraceae
Crocanthemum dumosum Bickn. Bushy Frostweed Forb Cistaceae
Euthamia caroliniana (L.) Greene ex Porter & Britton Slender Goldentop Forb Asteraceae
Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt. Grass-leaved Goldenrod Forb Asteraceae
Fragaria virginiana Duchesne Wild Strawberry Forb Rosaceae
Hieracium spp. Hawkweed Forb Asteraceae
Hypericum perforatum L. Common St. John's-wort Forb Clusiaceae
Hypochaeris radicata L. Hairy Cat’s ear Forb Asteraceae
Lechea maritima Legg. ex Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. Beach Pinweed Forb Cistaceae
Lechea spp. Pinweed Forb Cistaceae
Lespedeza capitata Michx. Roundheaded Lespedeza Forb Fabaceae
Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. Oxeye Daisy Forb Asteraceae
Oxalis spp. Oxalis Forb Oxalidaceae
Polygala polygama Walter Bitter Milkwort Forb Polygalaceae
Potentilla canadensis L. Dwarf Cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae
Potentilla simplex Michx. Spreading Cinquefoil Forb Rosaceae
Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium (L.) Hilliard & B.L. Burtt Fragrant Everlasting Forb Asteraceae
Rumex acetosella L. Red Sorrel Forb Polygonaceae
Sisyrinchium fuscatum E.P. Bicknell Coastal Plain Blue-eyed Grass Forb Iridaceae
Solidago rugosa Mill. Wrinkleleaf Goldenrod Forb Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum dumosum (L.) G.L. Nesom Bushy Aster Forb Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum patens (Aiton) G.L. Nesom Clasping-leaved Aster Forb Asteraceae
Symphyotrichum undulatum (L.) G.L. Nesom Wavyleaf Aster Forb Asteraceae
Viola sagittata Aiton Arrow-leaved Violet Forb Violaceae
Seriocarpus asteroides (L.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. Toothed Whitetop Aster Ford Asteraceae
Northeastern Naturalist
65
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017 Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Species name and authority Common name Functional group Family
Agrostis perennans (Walter) Tuck. Upland Bentgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Agrostis stolonifera L. Creeping Bentgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Anthoxanthum odoratum L. Sweet Vernalgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Carex pensylvanica Lam. Pennsylvania Sedge Graminoid Cyperaceae
Cyperus lupulinus (Spreng.) Marcks Great Plains flatsedge Graminoid Cyperaceae
Danthonia spicata (L.) P.Beauv. Ex Roem. & Schult. Poverty Oatgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Dichanthelium spp. (Hitchc. & Chase) Gould Panic Grass Graminoid Poaceae
Festuca ovina L. Sheep Fescue Graminoid Poaceae
Holcus lanatus L. Common Velvetgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Juncus greenei Oakes & Tuck. Greene's Rush Graminoid Juncaceae
Panicum virgatum L. Switchgrass Graminoid Poaceae
Poa spp. Bluegrass Graminoid Poaceae
Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash Little Bluestem Graminoid Poaceae
Cladonia spp. Hill ex P. Browne Reindeer Lichen Lichen Cladoniaceae
Corylus cornuta Marshall Beaked Hazelnut Woody Corylaceae
Gaylussacia baccata (Wangenh.) K. Koch Black Huckleberry Woody Ericaceae
Ilex verticillata (L.) A. Gray Common Winterberry Woody Aquifoliaceae
Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle Woody Caprifoliaceae
Morella caroliniensis (Mill.) Small Bayberry Woody Myricaceae
Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia Creeper Woody Vitaceae
Prunus serotina Ehrh. Black Cherry Woody Rosaceae
Quercus ilicifolia Wangenh. Scrub Oak Woody Fagaceae
Rhus copallinum L. Winged Sumac Woody Anacardiaceae
Rosa virginiana Mill. Virginia Rose Woody Rosaceae
Rubus flagellaris Willd. Northern Dewberry Woody Rosaceae
Rubus hispidus L. Bristly Dewberry Woody Rosaceae
Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees Sassafras Woody Lauraceae
Smilax glauca Walter Sawbrier Woody Smilacaceae
Smilax rotundifolia L. Greenbrier Woody Smilacaceae
Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Poison Ivy Woody Anacardiaceae
Northeastern Naturalist
K.C. Beattie, J.M. Karberg, K.A. Omand, and D.I. O’Dell
2017
66
Vol. 24, Special Issue 8
Species name and authority Common name Functional group Family
Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton Lowbush Blueberry Woody Ericaceae
Vaccinium corymbosum L. Highbush Blueberry Woody Ericaceae
Viburnum dentatum L. Arrowwood Woody Caprifoliaceae
Vitis labrusca L. Fox Grape Woody Vitaceae