Restoring species‐rich meadow by means of turf transplantation: long‐term colonization of ex‐arable land

Abstract

Question Do transplanted turfs of preserved meadow vegetation enrich ex‐arable land with species and promote meadow restoration? If so, can this ecologically non‐random process be predicted by plant functional traits? Are transplanted turfs stable over time while preserving their high species richness or do they change in composition, for instance, due to weeds expanding from the surrounding ex‐arable land? Methods In the experiment, 25 meadow turfs 40 cm × 40 cm × 30 cm in size were transplanted to ex‐arable land. Species composition and cover were monitored in the transferred turfs and their surroundings in three 40 cm × 40 cm plots positioned in a row (transplant, adjacent and distant surrounding area) for a period of 12 yrs. Location Bílé Karpaty Mts., SE Czech Republic. Results With the turfs, 80 species were transferred, 53 of which were recorded in the turf surrounding ex‐arable land. After 9 yrs, the number of species (on average 16 per plot) did not differ between the turf and its surroundings. Most of these species had been transferred and are typical of the local meadow vegetation, making up most of the plant cover. Weedy species, originally abundant on the ex‐arable land, did not penetrate the turf and retreated with time. The species composition converged between the turf and its surroundings, but it also changed from that of the turf source meadow. This was mainly due to the expansion of the strongly competitive grass Brachypodium pinnatum at the expense of Bromus erectus. The species that spread best to the arable land had a high leaf dry matter content. Species with the best performance in the turf had high ability for lateral clonal spread. Conclusion Turf transplantation promoted the establishment of target meadow species on ex‐arable land and supported restoration of meadow vegetation, but plant species composition changed from the turf source meadow, and expansion of target species from the turf into the surrounding area required a long time period.

Recovery of species richness lags behind functional recovery in restored grasslands

“…There are a number of postrestoration methods that are known to have this effect; so we can recommend testing their suitability and integrating them into standard restoration schemes. Possible suitable methods include moderate levels of grazing (Auffret, ), mechanically opening colonization windows (Valkó et al, ), transplanting blocks of turf (Mudrák, Fajmon, Jongepierová, & Doležál, ), or sowing hemiparasitic plant species such as Rhinanthus , Pedicularis , or Comandra species to reduce the vitality of populations potentially hindering recolonization (Davies, Graves, Elias, & Williams, ; DiGiovanni, Wysocki, Burke, Duvall, & Barber, ).…”

Transplanting turfs to facilitate recovery in a low‐alpine environment—What matters?

“…When extracting turfs, it is essential not to destroy nearby plant communities (Aradottir, ; Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ; Hagen & Evju, ; Kiehl et al., ). In cases where work is in progress, e.g., with turfs available from the construction site, this could be feasible (Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ; Bay & Ebersole, ; Kiehl et al., ; Mudrák et al., ), but it may be challenging in sites where turfs are not easily accessible (Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ; Krautzer et al., ).…”

“…Other studies, that have highlighted the importance of the turfs for promoting more rapid vegetation establishment in their surroundings (Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ; Bay & Ebersole, ; Hagen & Evju, ; Klimeš et al., ; Mudrák et al., ), were often limited to studying the survival of species in the turf transplants and if species spread from the turfs, but not the underlying factors responsible for the recovery around the turfs. Soil contains not only nutrients and water, but also microorganisms and nematodes that have a great influence on soil decomposition, nutrient cycles and water‐holding capacity (Baldock & Skjemstad, ; Conlin & Ebersole, ; Klimeš et al., ) and could, when transferred with the turfs, have a major influence on plant establishment around the turfs.…”

“…Turf transplants have been used in restoration projects in alpine hiking trails (Bay & Ebersole, ; Conlin & Ebersole, ), coalfields and opencast coal extraction sites (Bullock, ; Good et al., ), species‐rich meadows and grasslands (Good et al., ; Klimeš et al., ) and road sides (Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ), however, the definitions of success criteria vary. Turf transplanting has been evaluated as a successful measure in terms of protection against erosion (Krautzer et al., ), development of vegetation cover and species richness, difference from intact vegetation (Hagen & Evju, ) and occurrence of rare species in the transplants (Aradottir, ; Aradottir & Oskarsdottir, ; Bay & Ebersole, ; Conlin & Ebersole, ; Mudrák, Fajmon, Jongepierová, & Doležal, ). Nevertheless, when comparing species composition and occurrence of Red List species between donor site and turfs after transplantation, turf transplants have limitations (Bullock, ; Klimeš et al., ).…”

Data on different seed harvesting methods used in grassland restoration on ex-arable land

“…To assess the establishment and consequent performance of plant species differing in their life strategies on ex-arable land (receptor site), we classified each species into one of three functional groups: grasses ( Poaceae family), legumes (nitrogen-fixing Fabaceae family) and forbs (non-leguminous and non-woody dicots). To evaluate the establishment of target and undesired species, we also classified species as meadow and ruderal (or weedy) species based on [2] and expert knowledge of the authors [5] , [6] , [10] . Meadow species were the target species of this restoration project.…”