4.7 Article

Changes in wet meadow vegetation after 20 years of different management in a field experiment (North-West Germany)

Journal

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
Volume 134, Issue 1-2, Pages 108-114

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.06.004

Keywords

Mowing; Fertilizing; Fallow; Productivity; NMS; Succession; Permanent plots

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conservation and restoration of semi-natural wet grasslands often suffer from poor knowledge on successional pathways of respective habitats under different mowing treatments to derive profound management concepts. in this study, we present the results of a 20-year experiment in sixsemi-natural wet grassland sites in NW Germany including mowing with and without fertilizer addition and fallow. Succession was recorded by permanent plots. The studied wet grassland communities responded quite similar underequal management. Fallow resulted in the most significant changes in floristic and functional composition facilitating highly competitive rushes and tall forbs. The changes were more pronounced the more the experimental management treatment differed from the former use. For all mowing treatments without fertilizer application, we still observed directed changes in the floristic composition even after 20 years. In particular mowing twice led to a shift in floristic composition towards stress-tolerant plants with low nutrient demands, which was paralleled by decreasing productivity and strongly diminishing Ellenberg nutrient values. Our results documented that restoration of low-yielding target communities by regular mowing is possible - even in an area with high atmospheric nitrogen inputs. However, our results also show that succession did not come to an end even after 20 years, most obviously due to the continuous but very slow immigration and spread of new species. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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