<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Stephen Faulkner</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Bobby D. Keeland</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>M.J. Baldwin</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>John W. McCoy</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Steven C. Hughes</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Diane De Steven</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2015</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;In the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley (MAV), complete alteration of river-floodplain hydrology allowed for widespread&lt;br /&gt;conversion of forested bottomlands to intensive agriculture, resulting in nearly 80% forest loss. Governmental programs have&lt;br /&gt;attempted to restore forest habitat and functions within this altered landscape by the methods of tree planting (afforestation)&lt;br /&gt;and local hydrologic enhancement on reclaimed croplands. Early assessments identified factors that influenced whether&lt;br /&gt;planting plus tree colonization could establish an overstory community similar to natural bottomland forests. The extent&lt;br /&gt;to which afforested sites develop typical understory vegetation has not been evaluated, yet understory composition may be&lt;br /&gt;indicative of restored site conditions. As part of a broad study quantifying the ecosystem services gained from restoration&lt;br /&gt;efforts, understory vegetation was compared between 37 afforested sites and 26 mature forest sites. Differences in vegetation&lt;br /&gt;attributes for species growth forms, wetland indicator classes, and native status were tested with univariate analyses;&lt;br /&gt;floristic composition data were analyzed by multivariate techniques. Understory vegetation of restoration sites was generally&lt;br /&gt;hydrophytic, but species composition differed from that of mature bottomland forest because of young successional age and&lt;br /&gt;differing responses of plant growth forms. Attribute and floristic variation among restoration sites was related to variation&lt;br /&gt;in canopy development and local wetness conditions, which in turn reflected both intrinsic site features and outcomes of&lt;br /&gt;restoration practices. Thus, understory vegetation is a useful indicator of functional progress in floodplain forest restoration.&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1111/rec.12210</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>Society for Ecological Restoration</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Understory vegetation as an indicator for floodplain forest restoration in the Mississippi River Alluvial Valley, U.S.A.</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>