Abstract
How should the somewhat vague term of restoration success be measured? This is a critical question rooted in European law, where in fact the creation of proper replacement habitats is a prerequisite for permitting projects that trigger a loss of species or habitats. Previous studies have used indices that relied on a comparison to reference sites, for example the number of a predefined pool of target species or compositional similarity. However, since restoration sites have rarely the same biotic and abiotic conditions as reference sites, plant communities in restored sites will not perfectly match the reference sites. Furthermore, such indices fail when reference sites are lacking or degraded. Hence, there is a need for an alternative approach that evaluates the conservation value of a restored site independently from reference sites. We propose that naturalness indicator values can be an option to measure restoration success. The approach of using naturalness indicator values makes use of the fact that plants are able to indicate environmental parameters, including degradation and regeneration. We compared and measured the restoration success of three well-established methods for grassland restoration (sod transplantation, hay transfer, seeding) with three commonly used indices (diversity, number of target species, similarity to reference sites). The results verified earlier studies and showed that sod transplantation led to the highest restoration success followed by hay transfer and seeding of sitespecific seed mixtures. Further, we used those well-established indices for an evaluation of novel, naturalness-based indices (unweighted and cover-weighted mean naturalness indicator values, the sum of naturalness indicator values). While calculating the means of naturalness indicator values failed to offer conclusive information on restoration success, we could show that the sum of naturalness indicator values was highly correlated with the number of target species and compositional similarity to reference sites. Thus, our case study demonstrated that naturalness indices can be an excellent option to estimate success in grassland restoration.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Abbreviations
- CWMNN:
-
Cover-weighted mean Naturalness indicator values
- DSH:
-
Donor site for hay transfer
- DSS:
-
Donor site for sod transplantation
- FPFI:
-
Frequency positive fidelity index (Tichý 2005)
- Simpson:
-
Simpson’s Index
- SUMNN:
-
Sum of Naturalness indicator values
- TGSpN:
-
Number of target species
- UWMNN:
-
Unweighted Mean Naturalness indicator values
References
Alday, J.G. and R.H. Marrs. 2013. A simple test for alternative states in ecological restoration: the use of principal response curves. Appl. Veg. Sci. 17:302–311.
Bakker, J.P, A.P. Grootjans, M. Hermy and P. Poschlod. 2000. How to define targets for ecological restoration? — Introduction. Appl. Veg. Sci. 3:1–72.
Berg, C., A. Abdank, M. Isermann, F. Jansen, T. Timmermann and J. Dengler. 2014. Red Lists and conservation prioritization of plant communities — a methodological framework. Appl. Veg. Sci. 17:504–515.
Borhidi, A. 1995. Social behaviour types, the naturalness and relative indicator values of the higher plants in the Hungarian Flora. Acta Bot. Hung. 39:97–181.
Chytrý, M. and Z. Otýpková. 2003. Plot sizes used for phytosociological sampling of European vegetation. J. Veg. Sci. 14:563–570.
Conrad, M.K. and S. Tischew. 2011. Grassland restoration in practice: Do we achieve the targets? A case study from Saxony-Anhalt/Germany. Ecol. Eng. 37:1149–1157.
Cseresnyés, I., E. Cseresnyés-Bózsing, J. Tamás, Z. Barina and P. Csontos. 2014. Effect of Austrian pine on naturalness and succession of vegetation in reclaimed bauxite quarries. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 12:931–946.
Dengler, J., M. Chytrý and J. Ewald. 2008. Phytosociology. In: S.E. Jørgensen and B.D. Fath (eds.) General Ecology Vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of Ecology. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 2767–2779.
Dengler, J., M. Janišová, P. Török and C. Wellstein. 2014. Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: a synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 182:1–14.
de Snoo, G.R., N. Naus, J. Verhulst, J. van Ruijven and A.P Schaffers. 2012. Long-term changes in plant diversity of grasslands under agricultural and conservation management. Appl. Veg. Sci. 15:299–306.
Diekmann, M. 2003. Species indicator values as an important tool in applied plant ecology — a review. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4:493–506.
Ellenberg, H., H. Weber, R. Düll, V. Wirth, W. Werner and D. Paulißen. 1991. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scr. Geobot. 18:1–248.
Ellmauer, T. and L. Mucina. 1993. Molinia-Arrhenateretea. In: L. Mucina, G. Grabherr and T. Ellmauer (eds), Die Pflanzengesellschaften Österreichs. Teil 1: Anthropogene Vegetation, Gustav Fischer, Jena, Stuttgart, New York. pp. 297–401.
Erdős, L., Z. Bátori, K. Penksza, A. Dénes, B. Kevey, D. Kevey, M. Magnes, P. Sengl and C. Tölgyesi. 2017. Can naturalness indicator values reveal habitat degradation? A test of four methodological approaches. Pol. J. Ecol. 65:1–13.
European Commission (EC). 1992. Council directive 92/43/EEC of May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. O. J. L206:7–50.
European Commission (EC). 2014. Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. O. J. L124:1–18.
Fagan, K.C., R.F. Pywell, J.M. Bullock and R.H. Marrs. 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(4): 1293–1303.
Fischer, M.A., K. Oswald and W. Adler. 2008. Exkursionsflora für Österreich, Liechtenstein und Südtirol (3rd ed.). Oberösterreichische Landesmuseen, Linz.
Galvánek, D. and J. Lepš. 2008. Changes of species richness pattern in mountain grasslands: abandonment versus restoration. Biodivers. Conserv. 17:3241–3253.
Habel, J.C., J. Dengler, M. Janišová, P. Török, C. Wellstein and M. Wiezik. 2013. European grassland ecosystems: threatened hotspots of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 22:2131–2138.
Hájek, M., P. Hájková, D. Sopotlieva, I. Apostolova and N. Velev. 2008. The Balkan wet grassland vegetation: a prerequisite to better understanding of European habitat diversity. Plant. Ecol. 195:197–213.
Hermy, M., O Honnay, L. Firbank, C. Grashof-Bokdam and J.E. Lawesson. 1999. An ecological comparison between ancient and other forest plant species of Europe, and the implications for forest conservation. Biol. Conserv. 91:9–22.
Hobbs, R.J., E. Higgs and J.A. Harris. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24:599–605.
Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 6:65–70.
Kiehl, K., A. Thormann and J. Pfadenhauer. 2006. Evaluation of initial restoration measures during the restoration of calcareous grasslands on former arable fields. Restor. Ecol. 14:148–156.
Kiehl, K., A. Kirmer, T.W. Donath, L. Rasran and N. Hölzel. 2010. Species introduction in restoration projects — evaluation of different techniques for the establishment of semi-natural grasslands in Central and North-western Europe. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11:285–299.
Kilian, W., F. Müller and F. Starlinger. 1994. Die forstlichen Wuchsgebiete Österreichs — Eine Naturraumgliederung nach waldökologischen Gesichtspunkten. Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt, Vienna.
Kim, Y.-M., S. Zerbe and I. Kowarik. 2002. Human impact on flora and habitats in Korean rural settlements. Preslia 74:409–419.
Klimkowska, A., R. Van Diggelen, J.P. Bakker and A.P. Grootjans. 2007. Wet meadow restoration in Western Europe: A quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of several techniques. Biol. Conserv. 140:318–328.
Klotz, S. and I. Kiihn. 2002. Indikatoren des anthropogenen Einflusses auf die Vegetation. In: BIOLFLOR — Eine Datenbank mit biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen zur Flora von Deutschland. Schr.reihe Veg.kd. 38:241–246.
Kowarik, I. 1990. Some responses of flora and vegetation to urbanization in Central Europe. In: H. Sukopp, S. Hejný and I. Kowarik (eds.) Urban Ecology: Plants and Plant Communities in Urban Environments. SPB Academic, The Hague.
Lebensministerium. 2016. eBod. http://gis.lebensministerium.at/eBOD/frames/index.php?&gui_id=eBOD. Accessed 21 February 2016.
Lengyel, S., K. Varga, B. Kosztyi, L. Lontay, E. Deri, P. Török and B. Tóthmérész. 2012. Grassland restoration to conserve landscape-level biodiversity: a synthesis of early results from a large-scale project. Appl. Veg. Sci. 15(2):264–276.
Machado, A. 2004. An index of naturalness. J. Nat. Conserv. 12:95–110.
Martin, L.M., K.A. Moloney and B.J. Wilsey 2005. An assessment of grassland restoration success using species diversity components. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:327–336.
McCoy, E.D. and H.R. Mushinsky 2002. Measuring the success of wildlife community restoration. Ecol. Appl. 12:1861–1871.
Mitchley, J., I. Jongepierova and K. Fajmon. 2012. Regional seed mixtures for the re-creation of species-rich meadows in the White Carpathian Mountains: results of a 10-yr experiment. Appl. Veg. Sci. 15:253–263.
Oberdorfer, E. 2001. Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora für Deutschland und angrenzende Gebiete, 8th edn. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Pfadenhauer, J. 2001. Some remarks on the socio-cultural background of restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 9:220–229.
Poschlod, P., J.P. Bakker and S. Kahmen. 2005. Changing land use and its impact on biodiversity. Basic Appl. Ecol. 6:93–98.
Prach, K. 2007. Alluvial meadows under changing management: Their degradation and restoration. In: T. Okruszko, E. Maltby. J. Szatylowicz and W. Kotowski. (eds.), Wetlands: Monitoring, Modelling and Management. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 265–271.
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/.
Rosenthal, G. 2003. Selecting target species to evaluate the success of wet grassland restoration. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98: 227–246.
Ruiz-Jaen, M.C and T.M. Aide. 2005. Restoration success: how is it being measured? Restor. Ecol. 13:569–577.
Scotton, M., P. Golinski, A. Baasch and S. Tischew. 2012. Management options and monitoring of restoration success. In: M. Scotton, A. Kirmer and B. Krautzer. (eds.), Practical Handbook for Seed Harvest and Ecological Restoration of Species-rich Grasslands. Cooperativa Libraria Editrice Universitá di Padova. pp. 59–64.
Sengl, P., M. Magnes, V. Wagner, L. Erdős and C. Berg. 2016. Only large and highly connected semi-dry grasslands achieve plant conservation targets in an agricultural matrix. Tuexenia 36:167–190.
Sengl, P., M. Magnes, K. Weitenthaler, V. Wagner, L. Erdős and C. Berg. 2017. Restoration of lowland meadows in Austria: a comparison of five techniques. Basic Appl. Ecol. 24: 19–29.
Sengl, P., V. Wagner and M. Magnes. 2015. Semi-dry grassland restoration in the SE Alpine foreland of Austria — a study of early spontaneous colonisation patterns. Hacquetia 14:97–112.
Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working group (SER). 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International.
Straškrabová, J. and K. Prach. 1998. Five years of restoration of alluvial meadows: A case study from Central Europe. In: C. Joyce and P. Wade, (eds.), European Wet Grasslands: Biodiversity, Management and Restoration. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 295–303.
Suding, K.N. 2011. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42:465–187.
Suding, K.N., K.L. Gross and G.R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19:46–53.
Sukopp, H. 1972. Wandel von Flora und Vegetation in Mitteleuropa unter dem Einfluß des Menschen. Berichte Landwirtschaft 50: 112–139.
Tichý, L. 2005. New similarity indices for the assignment of relevés to the vegetation units of an existing phytosociological classification. Plant Ecol. 179:67–72.
Tischew, S., A. Baasch, M.K. Conrad and A. Kirmer. 2010. Evaluating restoration success of frequently implemented compensation measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restor. Ecol. 18:467–480.
Török, K. and K. Szitár. 2010. Long-term changes of rock grassland communities in Hungary. Community Ecol. 11:68–76.
Török, P., E. Vida, B. Deák, S. Lengyel and B. Tóthmérész. 2011. Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs. Biodiv Conserv. 20:2311–2332.
Török, P., T. Miglécz, O. Valkó, A. Kelemen, B. Deák, A. Lengyel and B. Tóthmérész. 2012. Recovery of native grass biodiversity by sowing on former croplands: Is weed suppression a feasible goal for grassland restoration? J. Nature Conserv. 20:41–48.
Valkó, O., B. Deak, P. Török, A. Kelemen, T. Miglécz, K. Tóth and B. Tóthmérész. 2016. Abandonment of croplands: problem or chance for grassland restoration? Case studies from Hungary. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2 (2):e01208.
Valkó, O., B. Deák, P. Török, A. Kelemen, T. Miglécz and B. Tóthmérész. 2017. Filling up the gaps—Passive restoration does work on linear landscape elements. Ecol. Eng. 102:501–508.
van Diggelen, R. and R.H. Marrs. 2003. Restoring plant communities – Introduction. Appl. Veg. Sci. 6:106–110.
Vrahnakis, M., M. Janisova, S. Rusina, P. Torok, S. Venn and J. Dengler. 2013. The European Dry Grassland Group ( EDGG ): stewarding Europe’s most diverse habitat type. In: Baumbach, H. and S. Pfützenreuter (eds.), Steppenlebensräume Europas — Gefährdung, Erhaltungsmaßnahmen und Schutz. Thüringer Ministerium fur Landwirtschaft, Forsten, Umwelt und Naturschutz, Erfurt, pp. 417–434.
White, P.S. and J.L. Walker. 1997. Approximating nature’s variation: selecting and using reference information in restoration ecology. Restor. Ecol. 5:338–349.
Wilson, J.B. 2013. Biodiversity theory applied to the real world of ecological restoration. Appl. Veg. Sci. 16:5–7.
Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG). 2016. Klimadaten von Österreich 1981–2010. https://www.zamg.ac.at/cms/de/klima/informationsportal-klimawandel/daten-download/klimamittel Accessed 15 February 2016.
Zedler, J.B. 2005. Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Ecol. Restor. 25:162–168.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Sengl, P., Magnes, M., Erdős, L. et al. A test of naturalness indicator values to evaluate success in grassland restoration. COMMUNITY ECOLOGY 18, 184–192 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2017.18.2.8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1556/168.2017.18.2.8