3.8 Article

Restoration of montane fen meadows by mowing remains possible after 4-35 years of abandonment

期刊

BOTANICA HELVETICA
卷 117, 期 1, 页码 1-13

出版社

BIRKHAUSER VERLAG AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00035-007-0743-9

关键词

aboveground biomass; bryophytes; Carex davalliana; species richness; Succisa pratensis; wetland restoration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The abandonment of management in Swiss fen meadows has reduced their plant species diversity and the fitness of some typical fen species. We examined whether the resumption of mowing can reverse these effects, and if so, which mechanisms are responsible for community change; we also tested whether restoration success depends on the duration since abandonment. Experimental mowing was applied to 15 montane fen meadows of NE Switzerland that had been abandoned for 4-35 years. After two years of mowing, plant species richness was 11 % higher in mown plots (2 m(2)) than in fallow plots, approaching levels of neighbouring continuously managed fen meadows. In particular, experimental mowing significantly increased the number of fen indicator species (+15 %) as well as herbs and woody species (seedlings and saplings), while grass, sedge and rush species richness was not affected. Mowing had little effect on aboveground biomass, but strongly reduced litter mass (-50%) and canopy height (-20%). Seedling densities of two common species showed opposite responses to mowing: they increased in Carex davalliana and decreased in Succisa pratensis, approaching values of continuously mown fen meadows. Duration since abandonment had no significant effect on any of the variables. Our results demonstrate a rapid recovery of montane fen plant communities irrespective of the duration since abandonment (up to 35 years). We conclude that the restoration of pre-fallow plant community composition is likely to be successful if site conditions (hydrology, nutrient status) remain intact and if common habitat specialists are still present in the vegetation and/or seed bank.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据