Heathland and acid grassland creation on arable soils at Minsmere: identification of potential problems and a test of cropping to impoverish soils

Marrs, Rob H.; Snow, C.S.R.; Owen, K.M.; Evans, Ceri E.

doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(97)00139-0

Cited by 44 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a remedy, Marrs (1985) suggested topsoil removal, deep ploughing or post-restoration management such as regular harvesting of biomass to reduce high nutrient loads or the high cover of the few dominants. However, Marrs et al (1998) showed that the amount of available nutrients was not significantly changed in a 7 year study of cropping, suggesting that this method may work only in the long run (likely more than 10 years, see also Hrevušová et al 2009). …”

Section: Restoration Success After Seed Sowing and Spontaneous Succesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Topsoil removal and community transfer are even more costly. The costs of topsoil removal can exceed 10,000 €/ha, which can be partly recovered by selling the removed topsoil (Marrs et al 1998;Klimkowska et al 2010b). In community translocation, the costs can be astronomical if we try to transfer also the deeper soil layers (Table 3).…”

Section: Cost Of Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands used to be vital landscape elements throughout Europe. Nowadays, the area of grasslands is dramatically reduced, especially in industrial countries. Grassland restoration is widely applied to increase the naturalness of the landscape and preserve biodiversity. We reviewed the most frequently used restoration techniques (spontaneous succession, sowing seed mixtures, transfer of plant material, topsoil removal and transfer) and techniques used to improve species richness (planting, grazing and mowing) to recover natural-like grasslands from ex-arable lands. We focus on the usefulness of methods in restoring biodiversity, their practical feasibility and costs. We conclude that the success of each technique depends on the site conditions, history, availability of propagules and/or donor sites, and on the budget and time available for restoration. Spontaneous succession can be an option for restoration when no rapid result is expected, and is likely to lead to the target in areas with high availability of propagules. Sowing low-diversity seed mixtures is recommended when we aim at to create basic grassland vegetation in large areas and/or in a short time. The compilation of high-diversity seed mixtures for large sites is rather difficult and expensive; thus, it may be applied rather on smaller areas. We recommend combining the two kinds of seed sowing methods by sowing low-diversity mixtures in a large area and high-diversity mixtures in small blocks to create species-rich source patches for the spontaneous colonization of nearby areas. When proper local hay sources are available, the restoration with plant material transfer can be a fast and effective method for restoration.

show abstract

Section: Restoration Success After Seed Sowing and Spontaneous Succesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cost Of Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biomass removal may be preferable in many cases, however, to avoid undesired eVects of topsoil removal. In restoration of highly disturbed areas, planting and harvesting arable crops before beginning the restoration could remove considerable quantities of N (Marrs 1993;Marrs et al 1998). Many arable crops have high productivity, high N requirements, high tissue N concentrations, and high allocation to aboveground tissue, which make them good candidates for rapid N removal (Chapin 1980).…”

Section: Biomass Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many arable crops have high productivity, high N requirements, high tissue N concentrations, and high allocation to aboveground tissue, which make them good candidates for rapid N removal (Chapin 1980). The few tests of this approach, however, have found that while cropping removed considerable quantities of N, it resulted in small to no reductions in plantavailable, inorganic N (Marrs et al 1998;McCrea et al 2001). EVects of cropping on restoration success and weed abundance have rarely been examined (but see Jones 1993).…”

Section: Biomass Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immobilizing nitrogen to control plant invasion

Blumenthal²,

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased soil N availability may often facilitate plant invasions. Therefore, lowering N availability might reduce these invasions and favor desired species. Here, we review the potential efficacy of several commonly proposed management approaches for lowering N availability to control invasion, including soil C addition, burning, grazing, topsoil removal, and biomass removal, as well as a less frequently proposed management approach for lowering N availability, establishment of plant species adapted to low N availability. We conclude that many of these approaches may be promising for lowering N availability by stimulating N immobilization, even though most are generally ineffective for removing N from ecosystems (excepting topsoil removal). C addition and topsoil removal are the most reliable approaches for lowering N availability, and often favor desired species over invasive species, but are too expensive or destructive, respectively, for most management applications. Less intensive approaches, such as establishing low-N plant species, burning, grazing and biomass removal, are less expensive than C addition and may lower N availability if they favor plant species that are adapted to low N availability, produce high C:N tissue, and thus stimulate N immobilization. Regardless of the method used, lowering N availability sufficiently to reduce invasion will be difficult, particularly in sites with high atmospheric N deposition or agricultural runoff. Therefore, where feasible, the disturbances that result in high N availability should be limited in order to reduce invasions by nitrophilic weeds.

show abstract

“…As heathlands are special ecosystems dependent on acidic, nutrient poor soils, all methods seek to reverse the key edaphic changes effected during agricultural improvement (i.e. increased soil pH and nutrient availability) so that ericaceous species are not out-competed by mesotrophic grasses [11,12]. This can be achieved by physically removing the improved topsoil [13,14] or by chemically amending it to reduce pH and macronutrient concentrations [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modifying Soil Chemistry to Enhance Heathland Recreation: A Use for Sulphur Captured During Oil Refining

Green

Evans

Díaz

2015

IJPSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The overall aim of this paper is to evaluate potential new modifications to methods for re-creating heathland habitats. Heathlands need acidic soils so the specific objectives are to evaluate the effectiveness of a new method for heathland re-creation by soil acidification using a sulphur soil amendment and to explore the benefits for re-creation of applying a soil stripping treatment in conjunction with soil acidification. A new source of sulphur was recovered from oil refinery towers and applied over agricultural sites covering a total of 13 ha on Trehill Farm, Marloes, Pembrokeshire, Wales, UK in 2004. In the summer of 2011 we compared soil chemistry and plant communities on sites subjected to different sulphur treatments (sulphur applied to the existing soil Green et al.; IJPSS, 6(5): 272-282, 2015; Article no.IJPSS.2015.117 273 surface and sulphur applied after top soil had been stripped) with those on an adjacent untreated control and on a nearby established heathland. Each of the four treatment sites and the control and heath site was surveyed using 10 random locations measuring 4 m x 4 m. The total above ground % cover was measured for each plant species and a bulk soil sample was taken in a 'W' shape from within each 4 m x 4 m quadrat. pH and all chemical parameters of the soil showed highly significant differences amongst the sampled sites (P>0.01 in all cases) and produced even greater abundance of ericaceous species on some of the treated sites than occurred in the established heath. However, soil stripping had no significant additional effect on either edaphic factors or plant species abundances. Sulphur recovered from oil refinery is a potentially useful tool in heathland recreation, but soil stripping prior to sulphur amendment did not enhance success. We propose that sulphur application drives success through increasing H + toxicity reducing the availability of base cations and creating Fe-induced Mn deficiency in plants. Short Research Article

show abstract

Heathland and acid grassland creation on arable soils at Minsmere: identification of potential problems and a test of cropping to impoverish soils

Cited by 44 publications

References 14 publications

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

Immobilizing nitrogen to control plant invasion

Modifying Soil Chemistry to Enhance Heathland Recreation: A Use for Sulphur Captured During Oil Refining

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About