Study

Vegetation re-development after fen meadow restoration by topsoil removal and hay transfer

  • Published source details Klimkowska A., Kotowski W., Van Diggelen R., Grootjans A.P., Dzierża P. & Brzezińska K. (2010) Vegetation re-development after fen meadow restoration by topsoil removal and hay transfer. Restoration Ecology, 18, 924-933.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting)

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

Action Link
Peatland Conservation

Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Restore or create traditional water meadows

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Exclude wild herbivores using physical barriers

    A replicated, paired, controlled study in 2004–2007 in a degraded fen meadow in Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) found that the effect of fencing (to exclude wild herbivores) on vegetation depended on other treatments applied to plots: hay addition and topsoil stripping. This was true for plant species richness, vascular plant cover, moss cover and vegetation biomass (reported as statistical model results). For example, amongst areas stripped of 20 cm of topsoil, fencing increased plant species richness if hay was not added, but reduced richness if hay was added. These comparisons were not tested for statistical significance. In 2004, eight pairs of plots (8 x 16 m) were established in a drained fen meadow grazed by wild boar and deer. Eight plots (one plot/pair) were fenced to exclude these herbivores. The other plots were not fenced. Additionally, all plots were stripped of topsoil (20 or 40 cm deep), and parts of each plot were sown with hay from a nearby fen meadow (details not clear). Vegetation cover and plant species were recorded annually between 2004 (after stripping and fencing) and 2007. Total vegetation biomass was measured from clippings taken in August 2006–2007.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Remove upper layer of peat/soil (without planting)

    A replicated site comparison study in 2004–2007 in a drained fen meadow in Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) reported that topsoil stripping changed the plant community composition, and that vascular plant cover and plant species richness increased over time after stripping. These results are not based on tests of statistical significance. Over three years following topsoil stripping, the overall plant community composition changed: it became less like degraded fen meadows, but also less like target fen meadow vegetation. The community also differed between plots stripped to different depths (data reported as a graphical analysis). Over the same time period, there were increases in vascular plant cover (from 2–3% to 58–75%) and plant species richness (from 5–8 species/4 m2 to 18–19 species/4 m2). In 2004, topsoil was stripped from eight 8 x 16 m plots in a drained fen meadow: 40 cm from four plots and 20 cm from the other four. All of these plots were left open to grazing by boar and deer, and were mown in 2006 and 2007. None of these plots were sown with hay. Vegetation cover and plant species were recorded annually between 2004 (after soil removal) and 2007, in each plot and in nearby degraded and target (reference) meadows.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Introduce seeds of peatland herbs

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after, site comparison study in 2004–2007 in a degraded fen meadow in Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) found that the effect of adding hay on the meadow vegetation depended on other treatments applied to the plots: topsoil stripping and fencing. Overall, plots with and without added hay developed different plant communities over three years. However, only plots where hay was added after deep soil stripping developed a plant community similar to a target fen meadow (data reported as a graphical analysis; similarity not tested for statistical significance). The effect of hay addition on plant species richness, vascular plant cover, moss cover and vegetation biomass also depended on the other treatments (reported as statistical model results). For example, hay addition increased plant species richness in fenced plots (hay added: 23 species; no hay added: 18 species/4 m2 after three years) but had no effect in unfenced plots (data not reported). In 2004 and 2005, fen meadow hay was spread (5–7 cm thick) onto 4 m2 plots (number not clear). Some additional plots did not receive hay. All plots were historically drained, but were stripped of topsoil (20 cm or 40 cm depth) before adding hay. Half of the plots were fenced to exclude boar and deer. Vegetation cover and plant species were recorded annually between 2004 (before adding hay but after stripping soil) and 2007. Total vegetation biomass was measured from clippings taken in August 2006–2007.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  4. Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland)

    A replicated, controlled study of a degraded species-poor meadow in Central Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) found that livestock exclusion had less of an effect on the restoration of plant community composition than topsoil removal and hay transfer. Deep soil removal (40 cm) with hay addition resulted in a community closest to the donor meadows, particularly where grazing was excluded. Species richness in grazed plots was slightly higher after hay transfer (23 vs 18 without transfer); in non-grazed plots hay transfer had no effect. Two plots (35 x 35 m) were subdivided to test combinations of the following treatments: topsoil removal (to 20 or 40 cm), hay transfer from a nearby meadow (collected mid-July 2004-2005, partly dried, stored for 1.5 months, spread in 5-7 cm layer) and livestock/exclusion. Data were obtained from plots on plant species distribution and abundance (2004-2007) and biomass (2006-2007); species composition of degraded meadows and donor meadow were also collected (2004, 2006 and 2007). The soil seed bank (top 5 cm) at the two topsoil removal depths and seed content of hay were also sampled in 2004.

     

  5. Restore or create traditional water meadows

    A replicated, controlled study in 2004-2007 of a degraded species-poor meadow in central Poland (Klimkowska et al. 2010) found that deep topsoil removal (40 cm), hay transfer from a species-rich meadow and exclusion of livestock resulted in a community most similar to the target vegetation. Shallow soil removal (20 cm) with hay transfer resulted in a community more similar to the degraded meadows. Hay transfer appeared to speed up the establishment of the target vegetation. Two plots (35 x 35 m) were subdivided to test combinations of the following treatments: topsoil removal (to 20 or 40 cm), hay transfer from a nearby meadow (collected mid-July 2004-2005, partly dried, stored for 1.5 months, spread in 5-7 cm layer) and livestock exclusion. Data were obtained from plots on plant species distribution and abundance (2004-2007) and biomass (2006-2007), species composition of degraded meadows and donor meadow were also collected (2004, 2006, 2007). The soil seed bank (top 5 cm) at the two topsoil removal depths and seed content of hay were also sampled in 2004.

     

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 21

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 ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust