Soil organism and plant introductions in restoration of species-rich grassland communities

  • Published source details Kardol P., Bezemer T.M. & Van Der Putten W.H. (2009) Soil organism and plant introductions in restoration of species-rich grassland communities. Restoration Ecology, 17, 258-269.


In semi-natural grassland restoration or creation projects, efficacy of introduction of soil communities by incorporating soil material from a donor site as a strategy to potentially enhance restoration success has received little investigation. In a 5-year experiment at the village of Lievelde (52°01′N, 5°36′E, the Netherlands) on a former arable field, effects of spreading hay and soil (alone and combined), and transplanting of turfs on plant and soil nematode community development were investigated.

In the winter of 2000-2001, topsoil (50 cm depth) was removed down to the mineral subsoil. In August 2001, treatments (randomized block design, five replicate 5 x 5 m plots/treatment) were applied:

1) spreading hay (fresh harvested shoots and seed capsules;
2) spreading soil;
3) spreading soil + hay;
4) transplanting turfs (containing soil and vegetation);
5) control (no treatment).
Material for the treatments was obtained from a species-rich fen grassland 250 m away. Percent cover of each vascular plant species was recorded in each plot annually (August 2003 to August 2006). In August 2003 and 2005, soil samples were taken and analysed, in the latter samples nematodes were extracted and allocated to feeding groups.

No differences in nematode abundance were apparent among treatments for any of the feeding groups.
Plots with hay and hay + soil addition had higher abundance of grasses and other monocots but the plant community gradually converged to that of the control after 2005. Spreading soil alone did not have beneficial effects in achieving the desired fen meadow community. Species composition of turfs became less similar to that of the donor site over time and most plants did not spread beyond the turf. No topsoil removal plots were dominated by ruderal and nitrophilous species, a community quite different from other treatments and most different to the donor site.
Note: If using or referring to this published study, please read and quote the original paper, this can be viewed at:

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 20

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust