ovr.news

Ecosystems healing, species returning

Grassland recovery: even after centuries, differences remain

scitechdaily.com · 25 September 2026
Grassland recovery: even after centuries, differences remain
Photo: scitechdaily.com
2 related sources

Summary and headline written by AI from the source article. How we work

Scientists studying 742 plant species across six continents discovered that grasslands regrowing after farming or other disturbances often develop different plant communities than ancient, undisturbed grasslands.

Researchers from Michigan State University and collaborators compared old-growth and secondary grasslands, finding that recovering areas tend to favor taller, faster-growing plants. Old-growth grasslands support slow-growing perennials adapted to drought, fire, and grazing.

This pattern persists for extended periods, in some cases, for 300 years, meaning that simply letting farmland return to grass does not guarantee a fully restored ecosystem. The scientists found that when old grasslands are plowed, the tough perennials that thrive in stressful conditions struggle to compete with faster-growing species in the disturbed landscape. For example, wiregrass, common in southeastern US pine savannas, does not flourish in regrowing grasslands as often as annuals like white goosefoot do.

These lasting differences matter because grasslands play a vital role in carbon storage, erosion control, and supporting biodiversity, including livestock and wildlife like bison and wildebeest. With ancient grasslands disappearing due to agriculture and development, understanding how to best restore them is increasingly important. Researchers suggest that active intervention, such as seeding and transplanting, may be necessary to recreate the characteristics of old-growth grasslands.

Was this worth your time?
Read on scitechdaily.com
Surfaced by the Recovery lens — one of the vital signs ovr.news reads.
How we evaluated this

More in Recovery

Browse all Recovery articles

What made it worth it?

What's wrong with this article?