Folia Geobotanica

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 225–238 | Cite as

How is Regeneration of Plants after Mowing Affected by Shoot Size in Two Species-Rich Meadows with Different Water Supply?

  • Jitka Klimešová
  • Štěpán Janeček
  • Alena Bartušková
  • Vojtěch Lanta
  • Jiří Doležal
Article

Abstract

Mowing a meadow is an example of an equalizing process that reduces differences among species by removing aboveground biomass approximately 5 cm above ground. This regular disturbance that affects all plants prevents competitive exclusion of small species and thus allows coexistence of numerous species differing in shoot size. In this paper we search for the mechanism behind this by comparing the shoot biomass of 41 common species in dry and wet species-rich meadows in mown and recently abandoned plots in June (before mowing) and in October. We asked the following questions: i) Do the plants differ in proportion of biomass lost by mowing? ii) Are the mown plants able to compensate for biomass lost by mowing? iii) Is the compensatory ability of mown plants related to their size? iv) Is the compensatory ability of plants related to severity of disturbance (removed biomass)? v) Does water availability in meadows affect these features? Our results revealed that the earlier explanation of equalization of meadow plants after mowing due to the proportionally larger biomass loss in larger plants than small plants does not represent the entire mechanism. Even when larger plants in the wet meadow lost more biomass, the proportion of lost biomass was not dependent on plant size, and compensation ability (growth of mown in comparison with unmown plants) was not related to the lost biomass in this meadow type. On the contrary, the observed pattern could be explained by different compensation abilities of small versus tall plants. In addition, according to our expectations, the compensation for lost biomass in the wet meadow was higher than in the dry one.

Keywords

Abandonment Coexistence Compensatory growth Mowing Shoot biomass Species-rich meadow 

Plant nomenclature

Kubát et al. (2002) 

References

  1. Aarssen LW (1983) Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants – towards a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. Amer Naturalist 122:707–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarssen LW, Laird RA, Pither J (2003) Is the productivity of vegetation plots higher or lower when there are more species? Variable predictions from interaction of the ‘sampling effect’ and ‘competitive dominance effect’ on the habitat templet. Oikos 102:427–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Mufti MM, Sydes CL, Furness SB. Grime JP, Band SR (1977) Quantitative analysis of shoot phenology and dominance in herbaceous vegetation. J Ecol 65:759–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (1996) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer program manual]. Stat Soft, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  5. Barot S, Gignoux J (2004) Mechanisms promoting plant coexistence: can all the proposed processes be reconciled? Oikos 106:185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Belsky AJ (1986) Does herbivory benefit plants – A review of the evidence. Amer Naturalist 127:870–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boege K (2005) Influence of plant ontogeny on compensation to leaf damage. Amer J Bot 92:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bredenkamp GJ, Spada F, Kazmierczak E (2002) On the origin of northern and southern hemisphere grasslands. Pl Ecol 163:209–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caswell H, Cohen JE (1991) Communities in patchy environments: a model of disturbance, competition and heterogeneity. In Kolasa J, Pickett JTA (eds) Ecological heterogeneity. Springer, New York, pp 48–65Google Scholar
  10. del Val EK, Crawley MJ (2004) Interspecific competition and tolerance to defoliation in four grassland species. Canad J Bot 82:871–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. del Val EK, Crawley MJ (2005) Are grazing increaser species better tolerators than decreasers? An experimental assessment of defoliation tolerance in eight British grassland species. J Ecol 93:1005–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falster DS, Westoby M (2003) Plant height and evolutionary games. Trends Ecol Evol 18:337–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falster DS, Warton DI, Wright IJ (2006) SMATR: Standardised major axis tests and routines. Version 2.0. Available at: http://www.bio.mq.edu.au/ecology/SMATR/
  14. Ferraro DO, Oesterheld M (2002) Effect of defoliation on grass growth A quantitative review. Oikos 98:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Futák P, Šimša M, Piro Z, Jongepierová I (2008) Historie obhospodařování (History of farming). In Jongepierová I. (ed) Louky Bílých Karpat (Grasslands of the White Carpathian Mountains). ZO ČSOP Bílé Karpaty, Veselí nad Moravou, pp 38–45Google Scholar
  16. Gigon A, Leutert A (1996) The dynamic keyhole-key model of coexistence to explain diversity of plants in limestone and other grasslands. J Veg Sci 7:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Givnish TJ (1995) Plant stems: biomechanical adaptation for energy capture and influence on species distribution. In Gartner BL (ed) Plant stems: Physiology and functional morphology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 3–49Google Scholar
  18. Grubb PJ (1977) The maintenance of species richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol Rev 52:107–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herben T, Krahulec F, Hadincová V, Pecháčková S, Wildová R (2003) Year-to-year variation in plant competition in a mountain grassland. J Ecol 91:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hochwender CG, Marquis RJ, Stowe KA (2000) The potential for and constraints on the evolution of compensatory ability in Asclepias syriaca. Oecologia 122:361–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huhta AP, Hellström K, Rautio P, Tuomi J (2003) Grazing tolerance of Gentianella amarella and other monocarpic herbs: why is tolerance highest at low damage levels? Pl Ecol 166:49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isselstein J, Jeangros B, Pavlů V (2005) Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe – a review. Agron Res 3:139–151Google Scholar
  23. Janeček Š, Lepš J (2005) Effect of litter, leaf cover and cover of basal internodes of the dominant species Molinia caerulea on seedling recruitment and established vegetation. Acta Oecol 28:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Juenger T, Lennartsson T (2000) Tolerance in plant ecology and evolution: toward a more unified theory of plant-herbivore interaction – Preface. Evol Ecol 14:283–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahmen S, Poschlod P (2004) Plant functional trait responses to grassland succession over 25 years. J Veg Sci 15:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klimeš L (1995) Small-scale distribution of species richness in a grassland (Bílé Karpaty Mts, Czech Republic). Folia Geobot Phytotax 30:499–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klimeš L (1999) Small-scale plant mobility in a species-rich grassland. J Veg Sci 10:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klimeš L, Klimešová J (2001) The effects of mowing and fertilization on carbohydrate reserves and regrowth of grasses: do they promote plant coexistence in species-rich meadows? Evol Ecol 15:363–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klimeš L, Jongepier JW, Jongepierová I (1995) Variability in species richness and guild structure in two species-rich grasslands. Folia Geobot Phytotax 30:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Klimeš L, Jongepier JW, Jongepierová I (2000) The effect of mowing on a previously abandoned meadow: a ten-year experiment. Příroda 17:7–24Google Scholar
  31. Klimešová J, Sosnová M, Martínková J (2007) Life-history variation in the short-lived herb Rorippa palustris: effects of germination date and injury timing. Pl Ecol 189:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kohyani PT, Bossuyt B, Bonte D, Hoffmann M (2009) Differential herbivory tolerance of dominant and subordinate plant species along gradients of nutrient availability and competition. Pl Ecol 201:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kubát K et al. (eds) (2002) Klíč ke květeně České republiky (Key to the Flora of the Czech Republic). Academia, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  34. Kull K, Zobel M (1991) High species richness in an Estonian wooded meadows. J Veg Sci 2:711–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lepik M, Liira J, Zobel K (2005) High shoot plasticity favours plant coexistence in herbaceous vegetation. Oecologia 145:465–474CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lepš J (1999) Nutrient status, disturbance and competition: an experimental test of relationships in a wet meadow. J Veg Sci 10:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lepš J (2004) Variability in population and community biomass in a grassland community affected by environmental productivity and diversity. Oikos 107:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maschinski J, Whitham TG (1989) The continuum of plant responses to herbivory – the influence of plant association, nutrient availability, and timing. Amer Naturalist 134:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martínková J, Šmilauer P, Mihulka S (2002) Phenological pattern of grassland species: relation to the ecological and morphological traits. Flora 197:290–302Google Scholar
  40. Martínková J, Klimešová J, Mihulka S (2008) Compensation of seed production after severe disturbance in the short-lived herb Barbarea vulgaris. Basic Appl Ecol 9:44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maurer K, Weyand A, Fischer M, Stöcklin J (2006) Old cultural traditions, in addition to land use and topography, are shaping plant diversity of grasslands in the Alps. Biol Conservation 130:438–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McNaughton SJ (1992) Laboratory-simulated grazing – interactive effects of defoliation and canopy closure on Serengeti grasses. Ecology 73:170–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mitchley J (1988) Control of relative abundance of perennials in chalk grassland in southern England. III. Shoot phenology. J Ecol 76:607–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moora M, Öpik M, Zobel K, Zobel M (2009) Understory plant diversity is related to higher variability of vegetative mobility of coexisting species. Oecologia 159:355–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer MW (1994) Variation in species richness: towards a unification of hypotheses. Folia Geobot Phytotax 29:511–530Google Scholar
  46. Pärtel M, Helm A, Reitalu T, Liira J, Zobel M (2007) Grassland diversity related to the Late Iron Age human population density. J Ecol 95:574–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tolasz R et al. (2007) Atlas podnebí Česka (Climate atlas of Czechia). Český hydrometeorologický ústav, Praha & Univerzita Palackého, OlomoucGoogle Scholar
  48. Warton DI, Wright IJ, Falster DS, Westoby M (2006) Bivariate line-fitting methods for allometry. Biol Rev 81:259–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wegener C, Odasz AM (1997) Effect of laboratory simulated grazing on biomass of the perennial Arctic grass Dupontia fisheri from Svalbard: evidence of overcompensation. Oikos 79:496–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weis AE, Simms EL, Hochberg ME (2000) Will plant vigor and tolerance be genetically correlated? Effects of intrinsic growth rate and self-limitation on regrowth. Evol Ecol 14:331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2007) Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: A review and assessment of three opposing models. Amer Naturalist 169:443–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wise MJ, Carr DE (2008) On quantifying tolerance of herbivory for comparative analyses. Evolution 62:2429–2434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhao W, Chen SP, Lin GH (2008) Compensatory growth responses to clipping defoliation in Leymus chinensis (Poaceae) under nutrient addition and water deficiency conditions. Pl Ecol 196:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zobel M (1992) Plant species coexistence – the role of historical, evolutionary and ecological factors. Oikos 65:314–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jitka Klimešová
    • 1
  • Štěpán Janeček
    • 1
  • Alena Bartušková
    • 1
  • Vojtěch Lanta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiří Doležal
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Botany, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Section of Plant EcologyTřeboňCzech Republic
  2. 2.Section of Ecology, Department of BiologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations