4.7 Article

Rapid restoration of a species-rich ecosystem assessed from soil and vegetation indicators: The case of calcareous grasslands restored from forest stands

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 724-733

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.007

关键词

Calcareous grasslands; Restoration monitoring; Soil conditions; Species composition

资金

  1. FRS-FNRS [FRFC 2.4556.05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Calcareous grasslands have long been recognized as biodiversity hotspots in Europe. However, in recent decades these ecosystems have seen rapid decline. In Belgium, more than 100 ha of calcareous grasslands have been restored from oak coppices and pine forests since the 1990s. The aim of the present study was to provide a quantitative assessment of the success of these restoration efforts, using two sets of indicators: one related to soil conditions, the other related to vascular plant communities. Soil conditions were evaluated by comparing soil samples from pre-restoration forest stands, restored grasslands (3-age classes: 2-4 years; 5-8 years, and 10-15 years) and reference grasslands. The analysis revealed no significant differences in soil N, P. and K contents between pre-restoration forests and restored and reference grasslands. We observed a decrease in the mineralization rate indicators in both pre-restoration forests and recent grassland restorations, which was resorbed in older restorations. Floristic surveys revealed that plant species composition of older restorations was most like reference grasslands. However, some differences in species composition persisted after 15 years. Moreover, a few rare species did not colonize restored grasslands despite a close seed source. Non-recolonization by a set of species expected on calcareous grasslands may be due to dispersal limitation and higher cover by native invasive grasses in restored parcels. These results were discussed in term of implications for management. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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