Advertisement

Fen Management and Research Perspectives: An Overview

  • Beth Middleton
  • Ab Grootjans
  • Kai Jensen
  • Harry Olde Venterink
  • Katalin Margóczi
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 191)

Abstract

A fen has vegetation that is actively forming peat and is fed by ground-or sur- face water (Joosten and Clarke 2002). In Europe a “fen meadow” is a ground- or surface water-fed mown grassland that does not form peat, since it was formed after modest drainage of a fen or it developed on a predominantly moist soil (Grootjans and Van Diggelen 1995). Therefore, fens and fen mead- ows are considered to be different ecosystems by most European authors. Others do not make a distinction between fens and fen meadows because the species composition of both ecosystems may overlap considerably (Wheeler et al.1995). In North America, fens dominated by tussock-forming sedges are referred to as ‘sedge meadows’, which are often grazed. Since there is not yet scientific agreement on whether sedge meadows are fens or fen meadows, we will refer to them as fens in this chapter.

Keywords

Seed Bank Seed Dispersal Soil Seed Bank Dune Slack Sedge Meadow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adema EB, Grootjans AP, Petersen J, Grijpstra J (2002) Alternative stable states in a wet calcareous dune slack in The Netherlands. J Veg Sci 13:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersson E, Nilsson C (2002) Temporal variation in the drift of plant litter and propagules in a small boreal river. Freshwater Biol 47:1674–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakker JP, Poschlod P, Strykstra RJ, Bekker RM, Thompson K (1996) Seed banks and seed dispersal: important topics in restoration ecology. Acta Bot Neer 45:461–490Google Scholar
  4. Bedford BL, Godwin KS (2003) Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientific connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands 23:608–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekker RM, Verweij GL, Smith REN, Reine R, Bakker JP, Sneider S (1997) Soil seed banks in European grasslands: does land use affect regeneration perspectives? J Appl Ecol 34:1293–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bekker RM, Verweij GL, Bakker JP, Fresco LFM (2000) Soil seed bank dynamics in hayfield succession. J Ecol 88:594–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bill HC, Poschlod P, Reich M, Plachter H (1999) Experiments and observations on seed dispersal by running water in an alpine floodplain. Bull Geobot Inst ETH 65:13–28Google Scholar
  8. Bobbink R, Roelofs JGM (1995) Nitrogen critical loads for natural and semi-natural ecosystems: The empirical approach. Water Air Soil Pollut 85:2413–2418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boedeltje G, Bakker JP, Bekker RM, Van Groenendael JM, Soesbergen M (2003) Plant dispersal in a low-land stream in relation to occurrence and three specific life-history traits of the species in the species pool. J Ecol 91:855–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brändel M (2004a) The role of temperature in the regulation of dormancy and germination of two related summer-annual mudflat species. Aquat Bot 79:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brändel M (2004b) Dormancy and germination of heteromorphic achenes of Bidens frondosa. Flora 199:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bullock JM, Moy IL, Pywell RF, Coulson SJ, Nolan AM, Caswell H (2002) Plant dispersal and colonization processes at local and landscape scales. In: Bulock JM, Kenward RE, Hails RS (eds) Dispersal ecology. Blackwell Science, London, pp 297–302Google Scholar
  13. Ellenberg H (1986) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen. Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: implication for plant conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 234:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erisman JW, Draaijers GPJ (1995) Atmospheric deposition in relation to acidification and eutrophication. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer M, Stöcklin J (1997) Local extinctions of plants in remnants of extensively used calcareous grasslands 1950–1985. Conserv Biol 11:727–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer M, Stöcklin J (1999) Plants with longer-lived seeds have lower local extinction rates in grassland remnants. Oecologia 120:539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galatowitsch SM, Valk AG van der (1996) The vegetation of restored and natural prairie wetlands. Ecol Appl 6:102–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Galatowitsch SM, Anderson NO, Ascher PD (1999) Invasiveness in wetland plants in temperate North America. Wetlands 14:733–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García A (1992) Conserving the species-rich meadows of Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 40:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grime JP (1979) Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  22. Grootjans AP, Diggelen R van (1995) Assessing the restoration prospects of degraded fens. In: Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Foyt WJ, Robertson RA (eds) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, Chichester, pp 73–90Google Scholar
  23. Grootjans AP, Van Wirdum G, Kemmers RF, Van Diggelen R (1996) Ecohydrology in The Netherlands; principles of an application driven interdiscipline. Acta Bot Neerl 45:491–516Google Scholar
  24. Grootjans AP, Bakker JP, Jansen AJM, Kemmers RM (2002) Restoration of brook valley meadows in The Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grootjans AP, Alserda A, Bekker RM, Janáková M, Kemmers RF, Madaras M, Stanova V, Ripka J, Van Delft B, Wolejko L (2005) Calcareous spring mires in Slovakia; jewels in the crown of the mire kingdom. In: Steiner G (ed) Moore von Sibirien bis Feuerland. Biologiezentrum, Linz-Dornach, pp 97–116Google Scholar
  26. Jansen AJM, Grootjans AP, Jalink M (2000) Hydrology of Dutch Cirsio-Molinietum meadows: prospects for restoration. Appl Veg Sci 3:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jensen K (1998) Species composition of soil seed bank and seed rain of abandoned wet meadows and their relation to aboveground vegetation. Flora 139:345–359Google Scholar
  28. Jensen K (2004a) Dormancy patterns, germination ecology, and seed-bank type of twenty temperate fen grassland species. Wetlands 24:152–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jensen K (2004b) Longevity of soil seed banks of fen species of Northwest Germany; a review (in German). Ber Reinhold Tuexen Ges 16:17–28Google Scholar
  30. Joosten H, Clarke D (2002) Wise use of peatlands. International Mire Conservation Group/International Peat Society, JyväskyläGoogle Scholar
  31. Koerselman W, Bakker SA, Blom M (1990) Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium budgets for two small fens surrounded by heavily fertilized pastures. J Ecol 78:428–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Komer SC (1994) Geochemistry and hydrology of a calcareous fen within the Savage Fen wetland complex, Minnesota, USA. Geochem Cosmochem Acta 58:3353–3367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kotowski W (2002) Fen communities; ecological mechanisms and conservation strategies. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Lájer K (1998) Introduction to the vegetation ecology of the Hungarian fens (in Hungarian). Tilia 6:84–238Google Scholar
  35. Lamers LPM, Tomassen HBM, Roelofs JGM (1998) Sulphate-induced eutrophication and phytotoxicity in freshwater wetlands. Environ Sci Technol 32:199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lamers LPM, Smolders AJP, Roelofs JGM (2002) The restoration of fens in the Netherlands. Hydrobiologia 478:107–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loos S, Schipper A (2003) Hydrological and hydrochemical system analysis of Ob valley mire (Western Siberia) (in Dutch with English summary). Landschap 20:33–37Google Scholar
  38. Lucassen ECHET, Crommenacker J van de, Roelofs JGM (2004a) Effects of stagnating sulphate-rich water on the mobility of phosphorus in freshwater wetlands: a field experiment. Arch Hydrobiol 160:117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lucassen ECHET, Smolders AJP, Van der Salm AL, Roelofs JGM (2004b) High groundwater nitrate concentrations inhibit eutrophication of sulphate-rich freshwater wetlands. Biochemistry 67:249–267Google Scholar
  40. Middleton BA (1999) Wetland restoration, flood pulsing and disturbance dynamics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Middleton BA (2000) Hydrochory, seed banks, and regeneration dynamics along the landscape boundaries of a forestered wetland. Plant Ecol 146:169–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Middleton BA (2002a) Nonequilibrium dynamics of sedge meadows grazed by cattle in southern Wisconsin. Plant Ecol 161:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Middleton BA (2002b) Winter burning and the reduction of Cornus sericea in sedge meadows in southern Wisconsin. Restor Ecol 10:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mitsch WJ, Dorge CL, Wiemhoff JR (1979) Ecosystem dynamics and phosphorus budget of an alluvial cypress swamp in southern Illinois. Ecology 60:1116–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muller S, Dutoit T, Alard D, Grevilliot F (1998) Restoration and rehabilitation of speciesrich grassland ecosystems in France: a review. Restor Ecol 6:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Munro DA (1988) Wetlands conservation — world wide. In: Zelazny J, Feierabend JS (eds) Increasing our wetland resources. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., pp 20–23Google Scholar
  47. Olde Venterink H, Vliet RE van der, Wassen MJ (2001) Nutrient limitation along a productivity gradient in wet meadows. Plant Soil 234:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Olde Venterink H, Pieterse NM, Belgers JDM, Wassen MJ, Ruiter PC de (2002) N, P and K budgets along nutrient availability and productivity gradients in wetlands. Ecol Appl 12:1010–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Olde Venterink H, Wassen MJ, Verkroost AWM, Ruiter PC de (2003) Species richness-productivity patterns differ between N-, P-and K-limited wetlands. Ecology 84:2191–2199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. P’Yavchenko NI (1976) Interrelations of forest and bog. Amerind Publishing, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  51. Ranwell DS (1959) Newborough Warren, Anglesay, I. The dune system and dune slack habitat. J Ecol 47:571–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Richert M, Dietrich O, Koppisch D, Roth S (2000) The influence of rewetting on vegetation development and decomposition in a degraded fen. Restor Ecol 8:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schot P, Dekker S, Poot A (2004) The dynamic form of rainwater lenses in drained fens. J Hydrol 293:74–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schrautzer J, Asshoff M, Müller F (1996) Restoration strategies for wet grasslands in northern Germany. Ecol Eng 7:255–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schult M (2002) The development of percolation mires; an example the Trebel valley mire near Kirch-Baggendorf in northern Germany (in German). MSc thesis, Botanical Institute, University of Greifswald, GreifswaldGoogle Scholar
  56. Schütz W (1997) Primary dormancy and annual dormancy cycles in seeds of six temperate wetland sedges. Aquat Bot 59:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schütz W (1998) Seed dormancy cycles and germination phenologies in sedges (Carex) from various habitats. Wetlands 18:288–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schütz W (1999) Germination responses of temperate Carex-species to diurnally fluctuating temperatures — a comparative study. Flora 194:21–32Google Scholar
  59. Schwaar J (1980) Sind die hygro-und xerokliner Phasen der Hochmoorbildung und bestimmte Phasen de Niedermoorbildung synchrone Vorgange gleicher Ursache? In: Wilmanns O, Tüxen R (eds) Epharmonie. Ber Int Symp Int Ver Vegetationsk 1980:95–116Google Scholar
  60. Smolders AJP, Nijboer RC, Roelofs JGM (1995) Prevention of sulphide accumulation and phosphate mobilization by the addition of iron (II) chloride to a reduced sediment: an enclosure experiment. Freshwater Biol 34:559–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soons MB, Nathan R, Katul GG (2004) Human effects on long-distance wind disperal and colonization by grassland plants. Ecology 85:3069–3079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Succow M (1988) Landschaftökologische moorkunde (Landscape ecological mire research). Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  63. Succow M, Joosten H (eds) (2001) Landschafsökologische moorkunde, 2nd edn. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  64. Szekendi F (1938) History of the drainage attempts of the Hanság and Fertő (in Hungarian). Spec Diss Fac Philos Reg Hung Univ Elisabethinae Quinqeecclesiensis 126Google Scholar
  65. Takács G, Margóczi K (2002) Biodiversity monitoring of the habitat reconstruction in South-Hansag (in Hungarian). Ferto-Hanság National Park, SarrodGoogle Scholar
  66. Tallowin JRB, Smith REN (2001) Restoration of a Cirsio-Molinietum fen meadow on an agricultural improved pasture. Restor Ecol 9:167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein G, Merriam G (1993) Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68:571–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Thompson K, Bakker JP, Bekker RM (1997) The soil seed banks of north west Europe: methodology, density and longevity. Cambridge University, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Andel J, Arondsen J (2005) Restoration ecology; the new frontier. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  70. Van Breemen N, Buurman P (2002) Soil formation, 2nd edn. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Diggelen R (1998) Moving gradients: assessing restoration prospects of degraded brookvalleys. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  72. Van Duren IC, Pegtel DM (2000) Nutrient limitations in wet, drained and rewetted fen meadows: evaluation of methods and results. Plant Soil 220:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Van Duren IC, Van Andel J (1997) Nutrient deficiency in disturbed, drained and rewetted peat soils tested with Holcus lanatus. Acta Bot Neerl 46:377–386Google Scholar
  74. Van Duren L, Bakker JP, Fresco LFM (1981) From intensively agricultural practices to hay-making without fertilization. Vegetatio 47:241–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Verhoeven JTA, Koerselman W, Meuleman AFM (1996) Nitrogen-or phosphorus-limited growth in herbaceous, wet vegetation: relations with atmospheric inputs and management regimes. Trends Evol Ecol 11:494–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vogt K, Rasran L, Jensen K (2004) Water-borne seed transport and seed deposition during flooding in a small river-valley in Northern Germany. Flora 1999:377–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wassen MJ, Joosten JHJ (1996) In search of a hydrological explanation for vegetation changes along a fen gradient in the Biebrza Upper Basin (Poland). Vegetatio 124:191–209Google Scholar
  78. Wassen MJ, Diggelen R van, Verhoeven JTA, Wolejko L (1996) A comparison of fens in natural and artificial landscapes. Vegetatio 126:5–26Google Scholar
  79. Wenger EL, Zinke A, Gutzweiler K-A (1990) Present situation of the European floodplain forests. For Ecol Manage 33/34:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Werner KJ, Zedler JB (2002) How sedge meadow soils, microtopography, and vegetation respond to sedimentation. Wetlands 22:451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wheeler BD, Shaw SC, Fojt W, Robertson RA (1995) Restoration of temperate wetlands. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  82. Wheeler BD, Money RP, Shaw SC (2002) Freshwater wetlands. In: Perrow MR, Davy AJ (eds) Handbook of ecological restoration, volume 2: restoration in practice. Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp 325–354Google Scholar
  83. Wolejko L, Aggenbach C, Diggelen R van, Grootjans AP (1994) Vegetation and hydrology in a spring mire complex in western Pomerania, Poland. Proc R Acad Sci 97:219–245Google Scholar
  84. Woo I, Zedler JB (2002) Can nutrients alone shift a sedge meadow towards dominance by the invasive Typha x glauca? Wetlands 22:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beth Middleton
    • 1
  • Ab Grootjans
    • 2
  • Kai Jensen
    • 3
  • Harry Olde Venterink
    • 4
  • Katalin Margóczi
    • 5
  1. 1.USGS National Wetlands Research CenterLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Community and Conservation Ecology groupUniversity of GroningenHarenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.AG Populations- und Vegetationsökologie, Biozentrum Klein Flottbek, Nutzpflanzenbiologie und Angewandte ÖkologieUniversität HamburgHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of EcologyUniversity of SzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations