Premium
Seedling recruitment in flood‐meadow species: The effects of gaps, litter and vegetation matrix
Author(s) -
Hölzel Norbert
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
applied vegetation science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.096
H-Index - 64
eISSN - 1654-109X
pISSN - 1402-2001
DOI - 10.1111/j.1654-109x.2005.tb00636.x
Subject(s) - microsite , seedling , litter , vegetation (pathology) , biology , trampling , ecology , agronomy , habitat , biomass (ecology) , grazing , medicine , pathology
Question: Is the failure of establishment of rare flood‐meadow species in habitat restoration primarily due to seed or microsite limitation? How do sown species respond to artificially created gaps and added litter at two neighbouring sites with similar physical conditions but contrasting vegetation matrix (young arable fallow field vs species‐poor meadow sward)? Location: Upper Rhine valley, southwestern Germany, 85 m a.s.l . Methods: Seeds of six typical flood‐meadow species were sown in four treatment combinations of the factors gap creation and litter addition. Seedling recruitment was monitored for three years. Results: Five of the six species established successfully at both sites largely irrespective of treatments, indicating seed limitation. Only in the small‐seeded Arabis nemorensis , which was revealed to be strictly gap‐dependent at the meadow site, could an obvious microsite limitation be shown. The non‐significance of gap treatments in all other species at the relatively high productive meadow site is probably due to biomass removal by mowing in early summer. Only at the extremes of the seed size spectrum did the results meet predictions of plant ecological theory, such as the strict gap dependence of small‐seeded species in closed swards or the positive to neutral response of large‐seeded species to litter layers. Conclusions: Species identity was revealed to be the major factor influencing differences in recruitment. Due to the lack of a general trend in the response towards treatments the results support conceptual models that describe the interplay of facilitation and interference as a highly dynamic equilibrium, driven by variable abiotic and biotic marginal conditions.