Plant Ecology

, Volume 208, Issue 2, pp 199–211 | Cite as

The seed banks of English lowland calcareous grasslands along a restoration chronosequence

  • Kate C. Fagan
  • Richard F. Pywell
  • James M. Bullock
  • Rob H. Marrs


We investigated whether the seed banks of ex-arable lowland calcareous grasslands underwent restoration similar to that of the above-ground restoration, and whether this was influenced by seed-sowing or environmental conditions. We compared 40 sites, where some form of restoration work had been implemented between 2 and 60 years previously, with 40 paired reference sites of good quality calcareous grassland with no history of ploughing or agricultural improvement. We analysed differences between sites and between above- and below-ground vegetation using both a multivariate approach and proportions of selected plant attributes. Seed banks of reference sites were more characteristic of late successional communities, with attributes such as stress tolerance, perenniality and a reliance on fruit as the germinule form more abundant than in restoration sites. In restoration sites, these tended to decrease with restoration site isolation and increase with restoration site age and where soil nutrient conditions were more similar to reference sites (i.e. with relatively low phosphorus and high nitrogen). Seed bank communities of all sites differed considerably from above-ground communities, however, and no overall significant responses to site age, isolation or soil nutrients were detected by multivariate analyses of similarity of species between pairs of sites. Responses to different seeding methods were also barely detectable. While there is some indication from the plant attribute data that the regeneration potential contained in the seed banks of restored sites increasingly resembles that of references sites over time, even seed banks of good quality calcareous grassland are dominated by ruderal species. It is likely, therefore, that permanent seed banks do not facilitate the restoration of ex-arable grasslands.


Chronosequence Ecosystem function Multivariate analysis Plant attributes Plant communities Target ecosystem 



We are grateful to many landowners and managers who provided access to sites and information about them, and to Dr. Tim Sparks for statistical assistance. Funding for this work was through a NERC studentship awarded to Kate Fagan.

Supplementary material

11258_2009_9698_MOESM1_ESM.xls (249 kb)
Supplementary material (XLS 249 kb)


  1. Allen SE (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Amiaud B, Touzard B (2004) The relationships between soil seed bank, aboveground vegetation and disturbances in old embanked marshlands of Western France. Flora 199:25–35Google Scholar
  3. Bakker JP, Berendse F (1999) Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities. Trends Ecol Evol 14:63–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker JP, Poschlod P, Strijkstra RJ, Bekker RM, Thompson K (1996) Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics for restoration ecology. Acta Bot Neerland 45:461–490Google Scholar
  5. Bekker RM, Schaminee JHJ, Bakker JP, Thompson K (1998) Seed bank characteristics of Dutch plant communities. Acta Bot Neerland 47:15–26Google Scholar
  6. Bossuyt B, Hermy M (2003) The potential of soil seedbanks in the ecological restoration of grassland and heathland communities. Belg J Bot 136:23–34Google Scholar
  7. Bullock JM, Hill BC, Dale MP, Silvertown J (1994) An experimental study of the effects of sheep grazing in vegetation change in a species-poor grassland and the role of seedling recruitment into gaps. J Appl Ecol 1994:493–507Google Scholar
  8. Bullock JM, Moy IL, Pywell RF, Coulson SJ, Nolan AM, Caswell H (2002) Plant dispersal and colonisation processes at local and landscape scale. In: Bullock JM, Kenward RE, Hails RS (eds) Dispersal ecology. British Ecological Society, Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Chancellor RJ (1986) Decline of arable weeds during 20 years in soil under grass and the periodicity of seedling emergence after cultivation. J Appl Ecol 23:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Critchley CNR, Chambers BJ, Fowbert JA, Sanderson RA, Bhogal A, Rose SC (2002) Association between lowland grassland plant communities and soil properties. Biol Conserv 105:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donelan M, Thompson K (1980) Distribution of buried viable seeds along a successional gradient. Biol Conserv 17:297–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ehrenfeld JG, Toth LA (1997) Restoration ecology and the ecosystem perspective. Restor Ecol 5:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagan KC, Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Marrs RH (2008) Do restored calcareous grasslands on former arable fields resemble ancient targets? The effect of time, methods and environment on outcomes. J Appl Ecol 45:1293–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghorbani J, Das PM, Das AB, Hughes J, McAllister HA, Pallai SK, Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH, Le Duc MG (2003) Effects of restoration treatments on the diaspore bank under dense Pteridium stands in the UK. Appl Veg Sci 6:189–198Google Scholar
  15. Ghorbani J, Le Duc MG, McAllister HA, Pakeman RJ, Marrs RH (2007) Temporal responses of propagule banks during ecological restoration in the UK. Restor Ecol 15:103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson CWD, Brown VK (1991) The nature and rate of development of calcareous grassland in Southern Britain. Biol Conserv 58:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gough MW, Marrs RH (1990) A comparison of soil fertility between semi-natural and agricultural plant communities: implications for the creation of species-rich grassland on abandoned agricultural land. Biol Conserv 51:83–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gränstrom A (1988) Seed banks at six open and afforested heathland sites in southern Sweden. J Appl Ecol 25:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Grime JP, Hodgson JC, Hunt R (2007) Comparative plant ecology: a functional approach to common British species. Castlepoint Press, Dalbeattie, KirkcudbrightshireGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill MO, Preston CD, Roy DB (2004) Plantatt. Attributes of British and Irish plants: status, size, life history, geography and habitats. Raven Marketing Group, CambridgeshireGoogle Scholar
  21. Hobbs RJ, Harris JA (2001) Restoration ecology: repairing the earth’s ecosystems in the new millennium. Restor Ecol 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 4:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodgson JG, Grime JP, Hunt R, Thompson K (1995) The electronic comparative plant ecology. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Hutchings MJ, Booth KD (1996) Studies on the feasibility of re-creating chalk grassland vegetation on ex-arable land. 1. The potential roles of the seed bank and the seed rain. J Appl Ecol 33:1171–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jongejans E, de Kroon H, Berendse F (2006) The interplay between shifts in biomass allocation and costs of reproduction in four grassland perennials under simulated successional change. Oecologia 147:369–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahmen S, Poschlod P (2004) Plant functional trait responses to grassland succession over 25 years. J Veg Sci 15:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalamees R, Zobel M (2002) The role of the seed bank in gap regeneration in a calcareous grassland community. Ecology 83:1017–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keihl K, Thormann A, Pfadenhauer J (2006) Evaluation of initial restoration measures during the restoration of calcareous grasslands on former arable fields. Restor Ecol 14:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kentula ME (2000) Perspectives on setting success criteria for wetland restoration. Ecol Eng 15:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirkham FW, Kent M (1997) Soil seed bank composition in relation to the above-ground vegetation in fertilized and unfertilized hay meadows on a Somerset peat moor. J Appl Ecol 34:889–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lepš J, Šmilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Maestre FT, Cortina J, Vallejo R (2006) Are ecosystem composition, structure, and functional status related to restoration success? A test from semi arid Mediterranean steppes. Restor Ecol 14:258–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Milberg P (1992) Seed bank in a 35-year-old experiment with different treatments of a semi-natural grassland. Acta Oecol 13:743–752Google Scholar
  34. Natural, England (2005) Environmental stewardship farm environment plan guidance 008. Available online at Cited 21st April 2009
  35. Ostus M, Zobel M (2002) Small-scale turnover in a calcareous grassland, its patterns and components. J Veg Sci 13:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Palmer MA, Ambrose RF, Poff NL (1997) Ecological theory and community restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 5:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poschlod P, Kiefer S, Traenkle U, Fischer S, Bonn S (1998) Species richness in calcareous grasslands is affected by dispersability in space and time. Appl Veg Sci 1:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prach K (2003) Spontaneous succession in Central-European man-made habitats: what information can be used in restoration practice? Appl Veg Sci 6:125–129Google Scholar
  39. Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Roy DB, Warman L, Walker KJ, Rothery P (2003) Plant traits as predictors of performance in ecological restoration. J Appl Ecol 40:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers WE, Hartnett DC (2001) Temporal vegetation dynamics and recolonization mechanisms on different-sized soil disturbances in tallgrass prairie. Am J Bot 88:1634–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smith RS, Shiel RS, Millward D, Corkhill P, Sanderson RA (2002) Soil seed banks and the effects of meadow management on vegetation change in a 10-year meadow field trial. J Appl Ecol 39:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stace C (1997) New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. ter Braak CJF, Šmilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CANODRAW for windows user’s guide version 4.5. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Thompson K, Bakker JP, Bekker RM (1997) The soil and seed banks of North West Europe: methodology, density and longevity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  45. Thompson K, Bakker JD, Bekker RM, Hodgson JG (1998) Ecological correlates of seed persistence in soil in the north-west European flora. J Ecol 86:163–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thórhallsdóttir ET (1990) The dynamics of a grassland community: a simultaneous investigation of spatial and temporal heterogeneity at various scales. J Ecol 78:884–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker KJ, Stevens PA, Stevens DP, Mountford JO, Manchester SJ, Pywell RF (2004) The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK. Biol Conserv 119:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilkins S, Keith DA, Adam P (2003) Measuring success: evaluating the restoration of a grassy eucalypt woodland on the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, Australia. Restor Ecol 11:489–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Willems JH, Bik LPM (1998) Restoration of high species density in calcareous grassland: the role of seed rain and soil seed bank. Appl Veg Sci 1:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willems JH, Peet RK, Bik L (1993) Changes in chalk-grassland structure and species richness resulting from selective nutrient additions. J Veg Sci 4:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zedler JB, Callaway JC (1999) Tracking wetland restoration: do mitigation sites follow desired trajectories? Restor Ecol 7:69–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kate C. Fagan
    • 1
    • 3
  • Richard F. Pywell
    • 2
  • James M. Bullock
    • 2
  • Rob H. Marrs
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Vegetation Dynamics Laboratory, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.CEH WallingfordWallingfordUK
  3. 3.Natural EnglandLincolnUK

Personalised recommendations