Study

Restoration of flooded meadows in Estonia – vegetation changes and management indicators

  • Published source details Metsoja J., Neuenkamp L., Pihu S., Vellak K., Kalwij J.M. & Zobel M. (2012) Restoration of flooded meadows in Estonia – vegetation changes and management indicators. Applied Vegetation Science, 15, 231-244

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, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 2000–2010 of three wet meadows in Estonia (Metsoja et al. 2012) found that annual mowing typically affected the overall plant community composition, but had no significant effect on plant richness or diversity. In three of five cases, mown plots had a significantly different overall plant community composition to unmown plots after 5–10 years, despite having a similar community composition before mowing began (data reported as graphical analyses). In ≥5 of 7 comparisons, mown and unmown plots had statistically similar plant species richness (mown: 2.1-7.0; unmown: 2.0-6.0 species/m2) and diversity (data reported as a diversity index). Before intervention, plots destined for each treatment had statistically similar richness and diversity in seven of seven comparisons. Mowing also had no clear effect on the proportion of grass-like plants in five of seven comparisons (similar change or lack of change over time in mown and unmown plots; see original paper for data). Methods: The study used three floodplain wet meadows that had been abandoned since the mid-1980s. From 2000 (two meadows) or 2005 (one meadow), parts of each meadow were mown each summer. Cuttings were typically not removed. Other parts were left unmown. Vascular plants were surveyed in the summer before mowing (2000) and after 5–10 years of mowing (2010), in 1-m2 quadrats in 2–3 plant community types/meadow.

    (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