Study

Does harvesting sustain plant diversity in central Mexican wetlands?

  • Published source details Hall S.J., Lindig-Cisneros R. & Zedler J.B. (2008) Does harvesting sustain plant diversity in central Mexican wetlands? Wetlands, 28, 776-792

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

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

Action Link
Marsh and Swamp Conservation
  1. Cut/mow herbaceous plants to maintain or restore disturbance: freshwater marshes

    A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2006–2007 in a freshwater marsh in central Mexico (Hall et al. 2008) found that resuming cutting altered the plant community composition and increased plant richness and diversity, but had no lasting effect on dominance, height or density of southern cattail Typha domingensis. After one year, the overall plant community composition significantly differed between cut and uncut plots (data not reported). Cut plots had higher plant species richness (12.4–14.8 species/4 m2) than uncut plots (11.0 species/4 m2) and had greater plant diversity (data reported as a diversity index). In contrast, cut and uncut plots contained a similar relative abundance of southern cattail (data not reported) with similar height (harvested: 164–291; abandoned: 178–299 cm) and shoot density (harvested: 4–20; abandoned: 5–25 ramets/m2). Before intervention, community composition, richness, diversity, cattail height and cattail density were similar in all plots (richness: 8.8–9.9 species/4 m2; other data not reported). Methods: In May 2006, thirty-two 3 x 7 m plots were established in a degraded marsh (historically harvested and grazed, but both activities “minimal” since 2002). The plots were split across two areas with different water levels. In 24 random plots (12 plots/area), vegetation was cut to 20 cm above the soil surface. In 16 of these plots, cattail was cut for up to five months afterwards. All cuttings were removed. The final eight plots (4 plots/area) were not cut. Plant species, plant cover and cattail height were recorded before (May 2006) and one year after (May 2007) the initial cut, in four 1-m2 quadrats/plot.

    (Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)

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 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