Study

The effect of summer harvesting of Phragmites australis on growth characteristics and rhizome resource storage

  • Published source details Asaeda T., Rajapakse L., Manatunge J. & Sahara N. (2006) The effect of summer harvesting of Phragmites australis on growth characteristics and rhizome resource storage. Hydrobiologia, 553, 327-335.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Change season/timing of vegetation harvest: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Change season/timing of cutting/mowing: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Change season/timing of vegetation harvest: freshwater marshes

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2001 of a riparian reedbed near Tokyo, Japan (Asaeda et al. 2006) reported that harvesting in June suppressed common reed Phragmites australis biomass and density more, over the second growing season after cutting, than harvesting in July. Unless specified, statistical significance was not assessed. Before harvest, common reed abundance was statistically similar in both plots (density: 91–102 shoots/m2; above-ground biomass: 40–660 g/m2). In the first growing season after harvest, common reed abundance showed similar responses in both June-harvested and July-harvested plots: initial decline, then recovery to similar levels (see original paper for data). In the second growing season after cutting, June-cut plots contained fewer reed shoots than July-cut plots at four of six time points (for which June-harvested: 140–156 shoots/m2; July-harvested: 168–218 shoots/m2) and less reed biomass at three of seven time points (for which June-harvested: 370–800 g/m2; July-harvested: 710–1070 g/m2). At all other times, reed abundance was similar in June- and July-harvested plots. Methods: In April 2000, two 6 x 10 m plots were established in a mature riparian reedbed. Reeds were cut in early June 2000 in one plot and early July 2000 in the other (20–30 cm above ground level). Cuttings were removed. Reed shoots were cut, counted, dried and weighed every 1–2 months between April and December 2000 and 2001 (three 0.125-m2 quadrats/plot/survey).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  2. Change season/timing of cutting/mowing: freshwater marshes

    A controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2001 of a riparian reedbed near Tokyo, Japan (Asaeda et al. 2006) reported that cutting in June suppressed common reed Phragmites australis biomass and density more, over the second growing season after cutting, than cutting in July. Unless specified, statistical significance was not assessed. Before cutting, common reed abundance was statistically similar in both plots (density: 91–102 shoots/m2; above-ground biomass: 40–660 g/m2). In the first growing season after cutting, common reed abundance showed similar responses in both June-cut and July-cut plots: initial decline, then recovery to similar levels (see original paper for data). In the second growing season after cutting, June-cut plots contained fewer reed shoots than July-cut plots at four of six time points (for which June-cut: 140–156 shoots/m2; July-cut: 168–218 shoots/m2) and less reed biomass at three of seven time points (for which June-cut: 370–800 g/m2; July-cut: 710–1070 g/m2). At all other times, reed abundance was similar in June- and July-cut plots. Methods: In April 2000, two 6 x 10 m plots were established in a mature riparian reedbed. Reeds were cut in early June 2000 in one plot and early July 2000 in the other (20–30 cm above ground level; cuttings removed). Reed shoots were cut, counted, dried and weighed every 1–2 months between April and December 2000 and 2001 (three 0.125-m2 quadrats/plot/survey).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

  3. Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2001 of a riparian reedbed near Tokyo, Japan (Asaeda et al. 2006) found that one summer cut reduced common reed Phragmites australis abundance in the first growing season, and reduced biomass but increased density in the second growing season. Before cutting, common reed abundance was statistically similar in all plots (above-ground biomass: 40–690 g/m2; density: 91–102 shoots/m2). In the first 3–4 months after cutting, reed abundance was lower in cut plots (biomass: 0–230 g/m2; density: 0–73 g/m2) than uncut plots (biomass: 690–1,010 g/m2; density: 103–113 shoots/m2). In the second growing season after cutting, reed biomass was lower in cut plots in 6 of 14 comparisons (for which cut: 260–910 g/m2; uncut: 520–1,040 g/m2; other comparisons no significant difference). In contrast, reed density was higher in cut plots in 12 of 12 comparisons (cut: 140–218 shoots/m2; uncut: 86–134 shoots/m2; statistical significance not assessed). Methods: In April 2000, three 6 x 10 m plots were established in a riparian reedbed. The site had been undisturbed for at least 10 years. Reeds were cut, 20–30 cm above ground level, from two of the plots (one in June 2000, one in July 2000). Cuttings were removed. The other plot was left undisturbed. Reed shoots were cut, counted, dried and weighed every 1–2 months between April and December 2000 and 2001 (three 0.125-m2 quadrats/plot/survey).

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

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 18

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