4.7 Review

The impact of reed management on wildlife: A meta-analytical review of European studies

Journal

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
Volume 141, Issue 2, Pages 364-374

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.11.006

Keywords

reedbeds; Phragmites australis; invertebrates; birds; meta-analysis; management; conservation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We reviewed European studies on the effect of reed management (harvesting, burning, mowing and grazing) on reedbed wildlife, and in addition, on the performance of re-growing reed (Phraymites australis). Our database consisted of 21 studies conducted on 10 plant species, 17 taxonomic groups of invertebrates and 11 bird. species, and published between 1982 and 2006. We found that reed management modifies the structure of re-growing reed stands: reed stems were shorter and denser in managed sites than in unmanaged sites. However, harvesting does not have an impact on aboveground biomass. Plant species richness increased by 90% in managed stands in fresh water marshes, but not in saline water marshes. Overall, reed management had a significant negative impact on invertebrate community, but the duration of management was an important factor determining the magnitude of the effect. Short-term management (1-2 years) had no effect on invertebrates, whereas management for longer period significantly reduced invertebrate abundance. Reed harvesting and burning reduced abundance of passerine birds by about 60%. This was probably associated with food limitation as the numbers of butterflies, beetles and some spiders were reduced. Therefore, the optimal reed management regime to preserve number of birds and invertebrates in reedbeds could be a rotation of short-term management (1-2 years). However, the optimal interval between management applications should be established in future studies. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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