Restoration Potential in Seed Banks of Acidic Fen and Dry‐Mesophilous Meadows: Can Restoration Be Based on Local Seed Banks?
Identifieur interne : 000451 ( Main/Merge ); précédent : 000450; suivant : 000452Restoration Potential in Seed Banks of Acidic Fen and Dry‐Mesophilous Meadows: Can Restoration Be Based on Local Seed Banks?
Auteurs : Orsolya Valk [Hongrie] ; Péter Török [Hongrie] ; Béla T Thmérész [Hongrie] ; Gábor Matus [Hongrie]Source :
- Restoration Ecology [ 1061-2971 ] ; 2011-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
A crucial question in ecological restoration is whether target species that are missing from aboveground vegetation are represented in the seed bank. We evaluated the role of persistent seed banks in the restoration of species richness, and the relative value of managed and unmanaged grasslands, by studying closely located and floristically similar mown and abandoned stands of fen and dry‐mesophilous meadows. We found that a higher proportion of the target species detected in aboveground vegetation possessed persistent seed banks in fen meadows than in dry‐mesophilous ones (44 and 29%, respectively). The proportion of target species found exclusively in the seed bank was much lower (11% for both meadow types). Conversely, common rushes (Juncus conglomeratus and J. effusus), mostly missing from the vegetation, dominated the seed banks in all fen meadow plots (50–94% of total seed densities) and were also detected in seed banks of dry‐mesophilous meadows. We found that resumed mowing on previously abandoned meadows has promoted species richness and the flowering success of several species in comparison with unmanaged ones in both meadow types. Vegetation type had a stronger influence on seed bank richness and density than management status and we detected much higher seed bank densities in fen meadows (64,000–94,000 seeds/m2) than in dry‐mesophilous ones (4,400–6,300 seeds/m2). Therefore, restoration of former richness could not be based exclusively on the local seed banks in the studied meadow types. Further management, such as hay transfer or seeding of target species, is required to increase species richness.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00679.x
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Istex, to step Corpus: 001494
- to stream Istex, to step Curation: 001487
- to stream Istex, to step Checkpoint: 000187
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:818FC9CC90D0AE5DDB84E98EA17C5050E6FCA8B0Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Restoration Potential in Seed Banks of Acidic Fen and Dry‐Mesophilous Meadows: Can Restoration Be Based on Local Seed Banks?</title><author><name sortKey="Valk, Orsolya" sort="Valk, Orsolya" uniqKey="Valk O" first="Orsolya" last="Valk">Orsolya Valk</name></author><author><name sortKey="Torok, Peter" sort="Torok, Peter" uniqKey="Torok P" first="Péter" last="Török">Péter Török</name></author><author><name sortKey="T Thmeresz, Bela" sort="T Thmeresz, Bela" uniqKey="T Thmeresz B" first="Béla" last="T Thmérész">Béla T Thmérész</name></author><author><name sortKey="Matus, Gabor" sort="Matus, Gabor" uniqKey="Matus G" first="Gábor" last="Matus">Gábor Matus</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:818FC9CC90D0AE5DDB84E98EA17C5050E6FCA8B0</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00679.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/818FC9CC90D0AE5DDB84E98EA17C5050E6FCA8B0/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001494</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001494</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Curation">001487</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Checkpoint">000187</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Checkpoint">000187</idno><idno type="wicri:doubleKey">1061-2971:2011:Valk O:restoration:potential:in</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Merge">000451</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Restoration Potential in Seed Banks of Acidic Fen and Dry‐Mesophilous Meadows: Can Restoration Be Based on Local Seed Banks?</title><author><name sortKey="Valk, Orsolya" sort="Valk, Orsolya" uniqKey="Valk O" first="Orsolya" last="Valk">Orsolya Valk</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Hongrie</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:noRegion></affiliation><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Hongrie</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 14</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 14</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Torok, Peter" sort="Torok, Peter" uniqKey="Torok P" first="Péter" last="Török">Péter Török</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Hongrie</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:noRegion></affiliation><affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="T Thmeresz, Bela" sort="T Thmeresz, Bela" uniqKey="T Thmeresz B" first="Béla" last="T Thmérész">Béla T Thmérész</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Hongrie</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Ecology, University of Debrecen, H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 71</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Matus, Gabor" sort="Matus, Gabor" uniqKey="Matus G" first="Gábor" last="Matus">Gábor Matus</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><country xml:lang="fr">Hongrie</country><wicri:regionArea>Department of Botany, University of Debrecen, H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 14</wicri:regionArea><wicri:noRegion>H‐4010 Debrecen PO Box 14</wicri:noRegion></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Restoration Ecology</title><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno><idno type="eISSN">1526-100X</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-01">2011-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">19</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">101</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="9">9</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="15">15</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno></series><idno type="istex">818FC9CC90D0AE5DDB84E98EA17C5050E6FCA8B0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00679.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">REC679</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1061-2971</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Brachypodium</term><term>Juncus</term><term>Molinia</term><term>abandonment</term><term>grassland</term><term>mowing</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">A crucial question in ecological restoration is whether target species that are missing from aboveground vegetation are represented in the seed bank. We evaluated the role of persistent seed banks in the restoration of species richness, and the relative value of managed and unmanaged grasslands, by studying closely located and floristically similar mown and abandoned stands of fen and dry‐mesophilous meadows. We found that a higher proportion of the target species detected in aboveground vegetation possessed persistent seed banks in fen meadows than in dry‐mesophilous ones (44 and 29%, respectively). The proportion of target species found exclusively in the seed bank was much lower (11% for both meadow types). Conversely, common rushes (Juncus conglomeratus and J. effusus), mostly missing from the vegetation, dominated the seed banks in all fen meadow plots (50–94% of total seed densities) and were also detected in seed banks of dry‐mesophilous meadows. We found that resumed mowing on previously abandoned meadows has promoted species richness and the flowering success of several species in comparison with unmanaged ones in both meadow types. Vegetation type had a stronger influence on seed bank richness and density than management status and we detected much higher seed bank densities in fen meadows (64,000–94,000 seeds/m2) than in dry‐mesophilous ones (4,400–6,300 seeds/m2). Therefore, restoration of former richness could not be based exclusively on the local seed banks in the studied meadow types. Further management, such as hay transfer or seeding of target species, is required to increase species richness.</div></front></TEI></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Bois/explor/CheneBelgiqueV2/Data/Main/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000451 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 000451 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Bois
|area= CheneBelgiqueV2
|flux= Main
|étape= Merge
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:818FC9CC90D0AE5DDB84E98EA17C5050E6FCA8B0
|texte= Restoration Potential in Seed Banks of Acidic Fen and Dry‐Mesophilous Meadows: Can Restoration Be Based on Local Seed Banks?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.27. |  |