Vegetatio

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 171–180 | Cite as

Species composition and above ground phytomass in chalk grassland with different management

  • J. H. Willems
Article
Accepted:

Abstract

During the last decades chalk grasslands lost their agricultural importance in the greater part of their distribution area in W Europe. Due to their botanical richness a number of chalk grassland sites were established as Nature Reserve. As a consequence of the semi-natural character of these grasslands an appropriate management is necessary to maintain or to re-create this vegetation including a great number of rare and endangered species.

This paper deals with the results of three different management practices, viz. mowing in autumn, sheep grazing and abandoning, of a medium term (8–11 yr) permanent plot experiment. Sheep grazing was considered the best management since it resulted in the highest number of species, phanerogams as well as bryophytes, and the highest number of characteristic chalk grassland species. Abandoning resulted in a decrease in species number and a dominance of a few species only.

The changes in species number are related to the above ground biomass. Under the canopy in the abandoned plot light intensity and the Red/Far-red ratio are very low, which partly explains the decrease in species number as such conditions are not favourable to seedling emergence and survival.

Keywords

Chalk grassland Diversity Experimental plot Grazing Management Mowing Phytomass Succession 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakker, J. P., Dekker, M. & de, Vries, Y., 1980. The effect of different management practices on a grassland community and the resulting fate of seedlings. Acta Bot. Neerl. 29: 469–482.Google Scholar
  2. Barkman, J. J., 1966. Systematiek en gegevens van de kenmerken en de standplaats. In: J., Landwehr, Atlas van de Nederlandse Bladmossen. K.N.N.V., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Barkman, J. J., Doing, H. & Segal, S., 1964. Kritische Bemerkungen und Vorschläge zur quantitativen Vegetationsanalyse. Acta Bot. Neerl. 13: 394–419.Google Scholar
  4. Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964. Pflanzensoziologie 3e Aufl. Springer, Wien-New York.Google Scholar
  5. Braun-Blanquet, J. & Moor, M., 1938. Verband des Bromion erecti. In: Prodromus der Pflanzengesellschaften 5: 1–64. S.I.G.M.A., Montpellier.Google Scholar
  6. Ellenberg, H., 1974. Zeigerwerte der Gefässpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Scripta Geobot. 9. Univ. Göttingen.Google Scholar
  7. Ellenberg, H., 1978. Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen 2. Aufl. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  8. Grime, J. P., 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processess. Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  9. Grubb, P. J., 1977. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. 52: 107–145.Google Scholar
  10. Heukels, H. & Ooststroom, S. J.van, 1975. Flora van Nederland, 17 ed. Noordhoff, Groningen.Google Scholar
  11. Huston, M., 1979. A general hypothesis of species diversity. Amer. Natur. 113: 81–101.Google Scholar
  12. Kruijne A. A., de Vries D. M. & Mooi H., 1967. Bijdrage tot de oecologie van de Nederlandse graslandplanten. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz., 696. L.H., Wageningen.Google Scholar
  13. Margadant, W. & During, H. J., 1976. Voorlopige tabellen. Beknopte blad-en levermossenflora van Nederland. K.N.N.V. Hoogwoud.Google Scholar
  14. Meusel, H., Jäger, E. & Weinert, E., 1965. Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora I. Fischer, Jena.Google Scholar
  15. Meusel, H., Jäger, E., Rauschert, S. & Weinert, E., 1978. Vergleichende Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora II. Fischer, Jeha.Google Scholar
  16. Müller, T., 1966. Die Gebüsch-, Saum-, Troeken-und Halb-trockenrasengesellschaften. In: Der Spitzberg bei Tübingen. Ludwigsburg. pp. 428–475.Google Scholar
  17. Oberdorfer, E., 1970. Pflanzensoziologische Exkursions Flora für Süddeutschland. 3e Aufl. Ulmer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  18. Oberdorfer, E., 1978. Suddeutsche Pflanzengesellschaften II. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart-New York.Google Scholar
  19. Pottier-Alapetite, G., 1943. Recherches phytosociologiques et historiques sur la végétation du Jura central et sur les origines de la flore jurassienne. S.I.G.M.A. comm. 81. Tunis.Google Scholar
  20. Reichhoff L., 1974. Untersuchungen über den Aufbau und die Dynamik des Orchideen-Halbtrockenrasens im Naturschutzgebiet ‘Leutratal’ bei Jena/Tübingen. Mitt. Sekt. Geobot. Phytotax. Biol. Gesellsch. D.D.R. pp. 115–125.Google Scholar
  21. Rosén, E., 1980. Application of permanent sample plots for conservation of vegetation on the alvar heath of Öland. Phytocoenosis 7: 317–332.Google Scholar
  22. Rosén, E., 1982. Vegetation development and sheep grazing in limestone grasslands of South Öland, Sweden. Acta Phytogeographica 72, Uppsala, 180 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Scherrer, M., 1925. Vegetationsstudien im Limmattal. Veröff. Geob. Inst. Rübel 2, 116 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Silvertown, J., 1980. Leaf-canopy-induced seed dormancy in a grassland flora. New Phytol. 85: 109–118.Google Scholar
  25. Stebler, F. G. & Schröter, C., 1893. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Matten und Weiden der Schweiz, 10. Landw. Jrb. Schweiz, 6: 95–212. Bern.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, A. S., 1063. Further changes in vegetation since the advent of myxomatosis. J. Ecol. 51: 151–183.Google Scholar
  27. Wells, T. C. E., 1971. A comparison of the effects of sheep grazing and mechanical cutting on the structure and botanical composition of chalk grassland. In: E., Duffey (ed.), The Scientifle management of Animal and Plant communitles for conservation. pp. 497–515. Blackwell Scientific Publ. Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Westhoff, V. & Held, H. A.den, 1969. Plantengemeenschappen in Nederland. Thieme, Zutphen.Google Scholar
  29. Westhoff, V. & Maarel, E.van der, 1973. The Braun-Blanquet approach. In: R. H., Whittaker (ed.), Ordination and Classification of Communities. Handb. Vegetation Science 5: 617–726. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
  30. Willems, J. H., 1973. Limestone grassland vegetation in the central part of the French Jura, South of Champagnôle (dept. Jura). Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Ser. C., 76: 231–244.Google Scholar
  31. Willems, J. H., 1980a. Limestone grasslands in North-West Europe. Thesis, Utrecht. 144 pp.Google Scholar
  32. Willems, J. H., 1980b. An experimental approach to the study of species diversity and above-ground biomass in chalk grassland. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Series C, 83: 279–306.Google Scholar
  33. Willems, J. H., 1982. Phytosociological and geographical survey of Mesobromion communities in Western Europe. Vegetatio 48: 227–240.Google Scholar
  34. Wolkinger, F. & Plank, S., 1980. Dry grasslands of Europe. Chalk grasslands. Inst. Umw. Wiss. Öster. Ak. Wiss., Graz (Final version), 50 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Wijk, R.van der, Margadant, W. D. & Florschütz, P. A., 1959–1969. Index Muscorum, I.A.P.T., Utrecht. Vol. I–IVGoogle Scholar
  36. Zimmerman, R., 1979. Der Einflusz des kontrollierten Brennens auf Esparcetten-Halbtrockenrasen und Folgegesellschaften im Kaiserstuhl. Phytocoenologia 5: 447–523.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Dr W. Junk Publishers 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Willems
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Ecology and Vegetation ScienceState UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations