, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 349–355 | Cite as

Restoration mowing of a calcareous fen — response of species to re-applied management measures

  • Dobromil GalvánekEmail author
  • Marta Mútňanová
  • Daniel Dítě


Calcareous fens are habitats that are well-adapted to extreme ecological conditions (water with a very high calcium content). The vegetation response following the application of restoration measures (mowing, removal of shrubs) in a calcareous fen (site Sliačske travertíny, western Carpathians) was observed over six years in six permanent plots. Three plots were established in an area strongly invaded by reeds (Phragmites australis), where restoration mowing was introduced, and three plots were established in an area overgrown by willows, where the shrubs were partly removed at the beginning and no other management measures were subsequently applied. Indirect and direct gradient analyses (Principal Component Analysis and Redundancy Analysis) and General Linear Models showed that species composition in the mown reed area evolved towards the typical composition of calcareous fens, although reeds were still dominant in the canopy. The overall species richness, as well as number of fen indicator species increased here, especially on the most-detailed scale of 0.25 × 0.25 m. In contrast, the species composition in the unmown area with willows developed towards a higher abundance of wetland generalists. The species richness of vascular plants increased on the scale of 2 × 2 m, but the number of bryophyte species decreased on the scale of 0.25 × 0.25 m and the number of fen indicators species remained unchanged. Our survey showed that mowing can be used for the restoration of calcareous fens invaded by reed, but the total supression of reed can not be achieved in short time period. Furthermore, the occasional removal of shrubs on overgrown calcareous fens is not a feasible method of habitat management.

Key words

Caricion davallianae invasion mineral-rich spring sub-halophytes Slovakia 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We would like to thank J. Janoviak and A. Devečka for help with sampling and we are also grateful to M. Jasík and P. Turis for their assistance with the establishment of monitoring plots. We thank Petra Hájková for comments on a previous version of the manuscript. The study was partly financed by the State Nature Conservancy of the Slovak Republic and was supported by VEGA project 2/0999/13. The preparation of the manuscript was partly financed by the grant SK0115 through the European Economic Area Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism and from the state budget of the Slovak Republic.


  1. Bergamini A., Pauli D., Peintinger M. & Schmid B. 2001. Relationships between productivity, number of shoots and number of species in bryophytes and vascular plants. J. Ecol. 89: 920–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billeter R., Peintinger M. & Diemer M. 2007. Restoration of montane fen meadows by mowing remains possible after 4-35 years of abandonment. Bot. Helv. 117: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dítě D., Hájek M. & Hájková P. 2007. Formal definitions of Slo-vakian mire plant associations and their application in regional research. Biologia 62: 400–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Galvánek D. & Lepš J. 2008. Changes of species richness pattern in mountain grasslands: Abandonment vs. Restoration. Biodivers. Conserv. 17: 3241–3253.Google Scholar
  5. Grootjans A., Alserda A., Bekker R., Janáková M., Kemmers R., Madaras M., Stanová V., Ripka J., Van Delft B. & Wolejko L. 2005. Calcareous spring mires in Slovakia: Jewels in the Crown of the Mire Kingdom. pp. 97–115. In: Steiner G.M. (ed.), Moore von Sibirien bis Feuerland/Mires from Siberia to Tierra del Fuego. Stapfia 85, Zugleich Kataloge der Oberösterreichischen Landesmuseen, N.S. 35.Google Scholar
  6. Güsewell S. 2003. Management of Phragmites australis in Swiss fen meadows by mowing in early summer. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 11: 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Güsewell S. & Klötzli F. 1998. Abundance of common reed (Phragmites australis), site conditions and conservation value of fen meadows in Switzerland. Acta Bot. Nederl. 47: 113–129.Google Scholar
  8. Hájek M. & Háberová I. 2001. Scheuzerio-Caricetea fuscae. pp. 185–273. In: Valachovič M. (ed.), Rastlinné spoločenstvá 3. Vegetácia mokradí, Veda, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  9. Hájek M. & Hájková P. 2007. Hlavní typy rašelinišť ve střední Evropě z botanického hlediska. Zprávy Čes. Bot. Společn. 22: 19–28.Google Scholar
  10. Hájek M., Hájková P. & Rozbrojová Z. 2008. Impact of changes in mowing regime on species composition of wet grasslands. pp. 338–345. In: Jongepierrová I. (ed.), Grasslands of the White Carpathians Mountains) ZO ČSOP Bílé Karpaty, Veselí nad Moravou.Google Scholar
  11. Hájek M., Horsák M., Hájková P. & Dítě D. 2006. Habitat diversity of central European fens in relation to environmental gradients and an effort to standardise fen terminology in ecological studies. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 8: 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hájková P. & Hájek M. 2003. Species richness and above-ground biomass of poor and calcareous spring fens in the flysch West Carpathians and their relationships to water and soil chemistry. Preslia 75: 271–287.Google Scholar
  13. Hájková P., Hájek M. & Kintrová K. 2009. How can we effectively restore species richness and natural composition of a Molinia-invaded fen? J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halada Ľ., Ružičková H., David S. & Halabuk A. 2008. Semi-natural grasslands under impact of changing land use during last 30 years: Trollio-Cirsietum community in the Liptov region (N Slovakia). Community Ecol. 9: 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jarolímek I. & Šibík J. (eds.) 2008. Diagnostic, constant and dominant species of the higher vegetation units of Slovakia. Veda, Bratislava, 332 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Klimeš L. & Klimešová J. 2002. 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: 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Klimkowska A., van Diggelen R., Bakker J.P. & Grootjans A.P. 2007. Wet meadow restoration in Western Europe: A quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of several techniques. Biol. Conserv. 140: 318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klimkowska A., van Diggelen R., Grootjans A.P. & Kotowski W. 2010. Prospects for fen meadow restoration on severely degraded fens. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 12: 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lepš J. & Šmilauer P. 2003: Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 269 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mälson K., Backéus I. & Rydin H. 2008. Long-term effects of drainage and initial effects of hydrological restoration on rich fen vegetation. Appl. Veg. Sci. 11: 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Poschlod P. & Biewer H. 2005. Diaspore and gap availability are limiting species richness in wet meadows. Folia Geobot. 40: 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pywell R.F., Bullock J.M., Roy D.B., Warman L., Walker K.J. & Rothery P. 2003. Plant traits as predictors of performance in ecological restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 40: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stanová V. 2000. Súčasný výskyt rašelinísk na Slovensku a fak-tory ich ohrozenia. pp. 3–9. In: Stanová V. (ed.), Rašeliniská Slovenska. DAPHNE–Inštitút aplikovanej ekológie, Bratislava.Google Scholar
  24. ter Braak C. J. F. & Šmilauer P. 2002. CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide. Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). Biometris, Wageningen & České Budějovice, 500 pp.Google Scholar
  25. Underwood A.J. 1997: Experiments in Ecology: Their logical Design and Interpretation using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 504 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Valachovič M. (ed.) 2001. Rastlinné spoločenstvá Slovenska. 3. Vegetácia mokradí. Veda, Bratislava, 435 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Vinther E. & Hald A.B. 2000. Restoration of an abandoned species-rich fen-meadow in Denmark: changes in species richness and dynamics of plant groups during 12 years. Nord. J. Bot. 5: 573–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vítová A. & Lepš J. 2011. Experimental assessment of dispersal and habitat limitation in an oligotrophic wet meadow. Plant Ecol. 212: 1231–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Slovak Academy of Sciences 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dobromil Galvánek
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marta Mútňanová
    • 2
  • Daniel Dítě
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Botany of Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia
  2. 2.State Nature Conservancy of Slovak RepublicBanská BystricaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations