Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five
techniques

J 2017

Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques

SENGL, Philipp, Martin MAGNES, Karin WEITENTHALER, Viktoria WAGNER, László ERDŐS et. al.

Basic information

Original name

Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques

Authors

SENGL, Philipp (40 Austria), Martin MAGNES (40 Austria), Karin WEITENTHALER (40 Austria), Viktoria WAGNER (276 Germany, guarantor, belonging to the institution), László ERDŐS (348 Hungary) and Christian BERG (40 Austria)

Edition

Basic and Applied Ecology, Jena, Germany, ELSEVIER GMBH, 2017, 1439-1791

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

10600 1.6 Biological sciences

Country of publisher

Germany

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

URL

Impact factor

Impact factor: 2.144

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14310/17:00098858

Organization unit

Faculty of Science

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.08.004

UT WoS

000416272400003

Keywords in English

Compensation measures; Hay transfer; Seeding; Sod transplantation; Topsoil removal

Abstract

V originále

European environmental policy mandates that biodiversity loss should be halted through restoration. However, knowledgeabout the efficacy of different restoration treatments for lowland meadows is still incomplete. Our study monitored two restorationprojects in South-East Austria that served as compensation measures for the loss of species-rich grassland. We compared theefficacy of five restoration techniques: (1) sod transplantation, (2) natural colonization, (3) hay transfer and additions of seedmixtures for (4) wet and (5) bare soils. Over three years, we measured species richness, number of target species, Shannondiversity and similarity to reference sites. We asked: (A) What is the most effective technique for the restoration of lowlandmeadows? and (B) Is the applied restoration method more important than abiotic site conditions? We included 66 plots (referenceand donor sites: 8 plots, restoration sites: 58 plots) in our study. We sampled data on species composition (4 m × 4 m plots)in three consecutive years since restoration initiation, estimated the slope inclination and analyzed soil parameters (K, P,pH). In general, species composition developed towards the reference vegetation for all techniques but sod transplantationproduced by far the best result in terms of species richness and similarity to reference sites. By comparison, hay transfer andnatural colonization produced intermediate results but performed better than seeding; the latter led to homogenous, species-poorswards. Soil preparation and abiotic site conditions played a minor role in this early stage of the restoration process, thoughthese factors may gain importance in a longer time frame. We found sod transplantation to be a superior method for lowlandmeadow restoration in our study area but managers must consider its destructive nature and high costs, which might outweighits benefits. In this light, hay transfer and natural colonization – or a combination of different techniques – could provide lessdestructive and more cost-effective alternatives.

Citovat

SENGL, Philipp, Martin MAGNES, Karin WEITENTHALER, Viktoria WAGNER, László ERDŐS and Christian BERG. Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques. Basic and Applied Ecology. Jena, Germany: ELSEVIER GMBH, 2017, vol. 24, November, p. 19-29. ISSN 1439-1791. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.08.004.

@article{1399943,
   author = {Sengl, Philipp and Magnes, Martin and Weitenthaler, Karin and Wagner, Viktoria and Erdős, László and Berg, Christian},
   article_location = {Jena, Germany},
   article_number = {November},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.08.004},
   keywords = {Compensation measures; Hay transfer; Seeding; Sod transplantation; Topsoil removal},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {1439-1791},
   journal = {Basic and Applied Ecology},
   title = {Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques},
   url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/basic-and-applied-ecology/vol/24/suppl/C},
   volume = {24},
   year = {2017}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 1399943
AU  - Sengl, Philipp - Magnes, Martin - Weitenthaler, Karin - Wagner, Viktoria - Erdős, László - Berg, Christian
PY  - 2017
TI  - Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques
JF  - Basic and Applied Ecology
VL  - 24
IS  - November
SP  - 19-29
EP  - 19-29
PB  - ELSEVIER GMBH
SN  - 14391791
KW  - Compensation measures
KW  - Hay transfer
KW  - Seeding
KW  - Sod transplantation
KW  - Topsoil removal
UR  - https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/basic-and-applied-ecology/vol/24/suppl/C
N2  - European environmental policy mandates that biodiversity loss should be halted through restoration. However, knowledgeabout the efficacy of different restoration treatments for lowland meadows is still incomplete. Our study monitored two restorationprojects in South-East Austria that served as compensation measures for the loss of species-rich grassland. We compared theefficacy of five restoration techniques: (1) sod transplantation, (2) natural colonization, (3) hay transfer and additions of seedmixtures for (4) wet and (5) bare soils. Over three years, we measured species richness, number of target species, Shannondiversity and similarity to reference sites. We asked: (A) What is the most effective technique for the restoration of lowlandmeadows? and (B) Is the applied restoration method more important than abiotic site conditions? We included 66 plots (referenceand donor sites: 8 plots, restoration sites: 58 plots) in our study. We sampled data on species composition (4 m × 4 m plots)in three consecutive years since restoration initiation, estimated the slope inclination and analyzed soil parameters (K, P,pH). In general, species composition developed towards the reference vegetation for all techniques but sod transplantationproduced by far the best result in terms of species richness and similarity to reference sites. By comparison, hay transfer andnatural colonization produced intermediate results but performed better than seeding; the latter led to homogenous, species-poorswards. Soil preparation and abiotic site conditions played a minor role in this early stage of the restoration process, thoughthese factors may gain importance in a longer time frame. We found sod transplantation to be a superior method for lowlandmeadow restoration in our study area but managers must consider its destructive nature and high costs, which might outweighits benefits. In this light, hay transfer and natural colonization – or a combination of different techniques – could provide lessdestructive and more cost-effective alternatives.
ER  -

SENGL, Philipp, Martin MAGNES, Karin WEITENTHALER, Viktoria WAGNER, László ERD$\backslash$H OS and Christian BERG. Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: A comparison of five techniques. \textit{Basic and Applied Ecology}. Jena, Germany: ELSEVIER GMBH, 2017, vol.~24, November, p.~19-29. ISSN~1439-1791. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.08.004.

Detailed Information on Publication Record