Study

Nematode community responses to a moisture gradient and grazing along a restored riparian corridor

  • Published source details Briar S.S., Culman S.W., Young-Mathews A., Jackson L.E. & Ferris H. (2012) Nematode community responses to a moisture gradient and grazing along a restored riparian corridor. European Journal of Soil Biology, 50, 32-38

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Soil: Exclude grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Other biodiversity: Exclude grazers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A controlled study in 2000–2008 along a stream on a farm in the Central Valley, California, USA, found different nematode communities in a restored area, compared to an unrestored area. Soil organisms: Different nematode communities were found in the restored and unrestored areas (data reported as ordination results: restoration explained 3% of the variation in nematode communities). Methods: Part of the streambank was restored: graded to create a floodplain (4 m width) and planted with native perennial grasses, sedges, forbs, shrubs, and trees. Soil samples were collected from the restored area and the unrestored area in December 2007 and March–April 2008 (0–30 cm depth).

     

  2. Soil: Exclude grazers

    A controlled study in 2005–2008 in restored riparian habitat on a farm in the Central Valley, California, USA, found more nematodes overall, more bacteria-feeding nematodes, and more diverse communities of nematodes, in plots without grazers, compared to plots grazed by goats and sheep. Soil organisms: More nematode biomass and higher nematode diversity were found in plots without grazers, compared to plots with grazers (831 vs 557 µg/100 g soil; diversity reported as Shannon diversity index). More bacteria-feeding nematodes were found in plots without grazers, compared to plots with grazers (178 vs 86 nematodes/100 g soil), but similar numbers of fungus-feeding (168 vs 194), omnivorous and predatory (29 vs 21), and plant-feeding (180 vs 176) nematodes were found in plots with or without grazers. Methods: Grazers were introduced to half of a streambank in 2005 (14 animals/ha), but they were excluded by a fence from the other half. Soil samples were collected from the grazed area and the ungrazed area in December 2007 and March–April 2008 (0–30 cm depth).

     

  3. Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses

    A controlled study in 2000–2008 along a stream on a farm in the Central Valley, California, USA, found different plant communities in a restored area, compared to an unrestored area. Plants: Different plant communities were found in the restored and unrestored areas (data reported as ordination results: restoration explained 12% of the variation in plant communities). Methods: Part of the streambank was graded to create a floodplain (4 m width) and planted with native perennial grasses, sedges, forbs, shrubs, and trees. Herbaceous biomass was collected in the restored area and the unrestored area in October 2007 and April–May 2008 (0.25 x 0.5 m plots).

     

  4. Other biodiversity: Exclude grazers

    A controlled study in 2005–2008 in restored riparian habitat on a farm in the Central Valley, California, USA, found more plant biomass in plots without grazers, compared to plots grazed by goats and sheep. Plants: More plant biomass was found in plots without grazers, compared to plots with grazers (data reported as model results: grazing explained 21% of the variation in biomass). One-third of the identified plant species were planted during restoration (21 of 68 species), and 47 of 68 species were non-natives. Methods: Grazers were introduced to half of a streambank in 2005 (14 animals/ha), but they were excluded by a fence from the other half. Herbaceous biomass was collected in the ungrazed area and the grazed area in October 2007 and April–May 2008 (0.25 x 0.5 m plots).

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

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