Using a two‐phase sowing approach in restoration: sowing foundation species to restore, and subordinate species to evaluate restoration success

Coiffait-Gombault, Clémentine; Buisson, Élise; Dutoit, Thierry

doi:10.1111/j.1654-109x.2012.01182.x

Cited by 25 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alternative techniques such as topsoil, hay, and turf transplantation or direct seeding of target species have been successfully applied to restore different types of temperate grassland ecosystems (e.g. dry grasslands, wet grasslands, swamps, and steppes) (Vécrin & Muller ; Török et al ; Coiffait‐Gombault et al ). These studies have provided support for temperate‐grassland restoration on a large scale (Kiehl ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Native remnants can be sources of plants and topsoil to restore dry and wet cerrado grasslands

Pilon

Assis

Souza

et al. 2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neotropical grasslands have undergone intensive degradation by land conversion or biological invasion, but their restoration is still challenging. Here, we integrated two approaches to (1) assess the resilience of pristine dry and wet cerrado grasslands after removal of plants and topsoil and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of different treatments based on the material extracted from pristine grasslands to restore degraded dry and wet grasslands after pine invasion. We used old-growth cerrado grasslands in southeastern Brazil as donor ecosystems and assessed their resilience after the removal of all plants and the upper 5-cm soil layer. To restore both wet and dry grasslands, we tested topsoil translocation, plant transplantation, direct seeding, topsoil translocation + direct seeding, and needle layer removal. Both wet and dry grasslands were resilient to plants and topsoil removal, as evidenced by their fast recovery. The major mechanisms promoting resilience were seed germination in the wet grasslands and resprouting from underground organs in the dry grasslands. Transplantation was the most successful treatment to restore vegetation cover, species richness, and composition in both wet and dry grasslands, especially for herbaceous species. Restoration of the herbaceous layer of cerrado grasslands can be successful using natural ecosystems as donor sites without impairing their resilience in the studied scale. Improving the resilience of degraded dry and wet cerrado grasslands depends on reestablishing the condition to seed germination in the wet grasslands and reintroducing species with the ability to resprout after disturbance in the dry grasslands, attributes that explained the quick recovery of the donor ecosystems. Implications for Practice• Donor ecosystems can quickly recover from uprooting plants and removing topsoil at a small scale in both dry and wet grasslands. • As topsoil translocation and transplantation of mature grasses and forbs proved to be viable techniques to restore dry and wet cerrado grasslands, once restored these grasslands can be turned into sources of material for grassland restoration elsewhere. • Transplantation during the rainy season is a promising way to quickly recover the ground layer of degraded dry and wet grasslands with low potential for natural regeneration in the Cerrado. • Reestablishing the ground cover, plant species richness, and species composition is much faster and easier in wet than in dry degraded grasslands. • Removal of the pine needle layer is mandatory before the application of restoration techniques in either dry or wet grasslands.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Native remnants can be sources of plants and topsoil to restore dry and wet cerrado grasslands

Pilon

Assis

Souza

et al. 2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Grasslands around the Mediterranean Basin suffer the same types of degradation and their resilience is particularly low (Römermann et al ; Buisson et al 2006 a ; Coiffait‐Gombault et al 2012 a ). The restoration of such grasslands is of increasing interest, particularly in southeastern France where several large‐scale projects have been implemented (Coiffait‐Gombault et al 2012 b ; Dutoit et al 2013 a , 2013 b ; Bulot et al ; Jaunatre et al 2014 a , 2014 b ). In these projects, soil and hay transfer have led to positive results on plant species richness and composition, but some perennial species remain highly underrepresented in restored plots as compared to the reference ecosystem (Coiffait‐Gombault et al 2012 b ; Jaunatre et al 2014 a , 2014 b ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of this study was to reintroduce two perennial plant species, Thymus vulgaris (Lamiaceae, chamaephyte) and Brachypodium retusum (Poaceae, hemicryptophyte) to degraded abandoned fields as a first step toward the restoration of Mediterranean grasslands. We chose these two perennial species because (1) they are common species in the western Mediterranean Basin, (2) they are dominant in the reference ecosystem (Buisson & Dutoit ), (3) they may improve habitat quality for other species (Buisson & Dutoit ; Coiffait‐Gombault et al 2012 b ) and (4) they are usually not reintroduced via soil and hay transfer (Coiffait‐Gombault et al ; Jaunatre et al 2014 a , 2014 b ). The main objective of this study was therefore to test the main limiting factors to reintroduce these perennial species by manipulating the microenvironment (rock cover) and biotic interactions (directly or via grazing).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limiting processes for perennial plant reintroduction to restore dry grasslands

Buisson

Corcket

Dutoit

2015

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceIn restored grasslands of southern Europe, perennial plants remain highly underrepresented compared with the reference ecosystems. We tested various treatments to reintroduce common perennial plant species (Brachypodium retusum, Poaceae, and Thymus vulgaris, Lamiaceae), which are usually not or poorly reintroduced via soil and hay transfer. Treatments included microenvironmental manipulations (rock cover and plant interactions) and two grazing intensities. Target perennial species were transplanted in 2002 in the reference grassland ecosystem (intact grassland area used as a control) and in two abandoned fields. Survival was assessed in June 2003 and June 2004. Target species shoot and root biomass were measured in June 2004. Grazing greatly reduced the survival and biomass of both target species and its effects were reinforced by summer drought: plants that did not establish well enough during the autumn and spring did not survive summer. The restored rock cover had a mild positive effect, particularly on B. retusum. There were no negative or positive plant neighbor interactions in the steppe, while there was competition in both abandoned fields. Competition was particularly intense in the abandoned melon field, composed of a dense sward of annual grasses (Bromus sp.). In order to reintroduce perennial species to dry grasslands, the ideal combination of treatments is to exclude or reduce grazing during the first year to allow seedlings to establish and to recreate adequate microenvironmental conditions. Reducing competition from arable weeds may help but is not essential in such dry grasslands

show abstract

“…The success of restoration activities can be enhanced by overcoming the two major limitations, by propagule addition to the target area (e.g. seed sowing, hay and topsoil transfer; Kiehl et al 2010;Török et al 2011) and by provision of microsites either by natural (animal perturbations or grazing by wild animals) or human-induced (mowing, tilling, grazing by livestock) disturbances (Bullock et al 1995;Coiffait-Gombault et al 2012;Valkó et al 2016b). Such gaps are competition free habitat patches which are important especially in the early and most vulnerable stages of plant establishment (Silwertown & Smith 1988;Grime 2001;Hölzel 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishment gaps in species-poor grasslands: artificial biodiversity hotspots to support the colonization of target species

Kiss

Deák

Tóthmérész³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sowing of grass seed mixtures is a feasible and cost-effective method for landscape-scale grassland restoration. However, sowing only grasses usually leads to species-poor and dense grass sward, where the establishment of target forbs is hampered both by microsite and propagule limitation. To overcome these limitations and increase the diversity of species-poor sown grasslands we developed a novel method by creating 'establishment gaps'. We used tillage to open gaps of 1 m 2 , 4 m 2 and 16 m 2 size in the dense grass sward of six species-poor sown grasslands in the Great Hungarian Plain. We sowed high-diversity seed mixtures of 35 native species into all gaps. We analyzed vegetation development during the first five years after setting up the trial. We also studied the colonization dynamics of the sown species along four 20-m transects around each gap, resulting in a total of 1440 plots of 1 m 2 size that were studied. Our results indicated that most of the sown species were able to establish permanently in the establishment gaps. The total cover and the cover of perennial sown species increased independently of gap size. Meanwhile the cover of short-lived sown species 2 decreased during the five years. There was only a moderate level of weed abundance in the gaps, and weed cover decreased over the years. The sown target species started to colonize the species-poor grasslands surrounding the establishment gaps within five years. The highest number of species and individuals dispersed from the 4 m 2 -sized gaps, as they had a more stable development than small gaps and were exposed to lower grazing pressure than large ones. Implications for practice Establishment gaps are widely applicable tools to increase the diversity of speciespoor grasslands. Gaps of 4 m 2 represent a more feasible solution compared to larger openings also for the farmers, because there is only a moderate level of weed encroachment and smaller soil disturbance occurs during their creation.  We recommend sowing high-diversity seed mixtures containing both short-lived species that can establish in the first year and perennial species, which guarantee a high cover of target species later on.  Gaps sown with high-diversity seed mixture are highly resistant to unfavorable climatic conditions: increasing grass abundance in dry years does not hamper the recovery of target grassland species in the following years.

show abstract

Using a two‐phase sowing approach in restoration: sowing foundation species to restore, and subordinate species to evaluate restoration success

Cited by 25 publications

References 61 publications

Native remnants can be sources of plants and topsoil to restore dry and wet cerrado grasslands

Native remnants can be sources of plants and topsoil to restore dry and wet cerrado grasslands

Limiting processes for perennial plant reintroduction to restore dry grasslands

Establishment gaps in species-poor grasslands: artificial biodiversity hotspots to support the colonization of target species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About