4.7 Article

Morphological diversity of plant barriers does not increase sediment retention in eroded marly gullies under ecological restoration

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 370, Issue 1-2, Pages 653-669

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-013-1738-5

Keywords

Artificial concentrated runoff; Sediment retention; Net biodiversity effect; Plant traits; Ecological restoration; Gully erosion

Funding

  1. Electricite de France (EDF)
  2. Agence de l'eau Rhone, Mediterranee et Corse
  3. Region Provence-Alpes-Cote-d'Azur
  4. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sediment retention by plant barriers initiates common strategies to conserve soil fertility or restore degraded terrains, including gullied ones. Differences in species performance for sediment retention have been studied but little is known about plant performance in retention when upscaling to plurispecific barriers. We investigated the role of morphological diversity of plant barriers in sediment retention in the context of eroded marly gullies. Fifteen plant barriers, composed of combinations of four morphologically contrasting species (grass, shrub, dwarf-shrub and juvenile tree) were tested for their sediment retention potential in an innovative life-size artificial concentrated runoff experiment. We studied the net effect of biodiversity and the role of morphological traits on sediment retention. We found that grass barriers performed best to retain sediment and morphological diversity significantly impaired sediment retention. This negative effect may be due to runoff concentrating in the least flow-resistant areas (shrubs or trees), resulting in a localized increase in flow velocity and thus an overall decrease in sediment deposition. To initiate gully restoration by increasing sediment retention in their bed, morphologically homogeneous plant barriers should be favored. Plant diversity, useful for mid- and long-term restoration goals, should be considered later in the process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available