The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis
Abstract Active grassland restoration has gained importance in mitigating the dramatic decline of farmnland biodiversity. While there is evidence that such operations are generally effective in promoting plant diversity, little is known about the effectiveness of the different methods applied. Resto...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | Ecological Solutions and Evidence |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12221 |
| _version_ | 1797784045086572544 |
|---|---|
| author | Daniel Slodowicz Aure Durbecq Emma Ladouceur René Eschen Jean‐Yves Humbert Raphaël Arlettaz |
| author_facet | Daniel Slodowicz Aure Durbecq Emma Ladouceur René Eschen Jean‐Yves Humbert Raphaël Arlettaz |
| author_sort | Daniel Slodowicz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Active grassland restoration has gained importance in mitigating the dramatic decline of farmnland biodiversity. While there is evidence that such operations are generally effective in promoting plant diversity, little is known about the effectiveness of the different methods applied. Restoration methods can differ in intensity of seed bed preparation, seed source and method of seed application. In this systematic literature search and meta‐analysis, we screened the literature for studies of the restoration of mesic grasslands in temperate Europe. We focused on active restoration experiments that included a treatment and lasted for more than 3 years. We evaluated the influence of restoration factors on plant species richness relative to non‐restored controls. We found 187 articles that investigated the outcome of operations aimed at actively restoring mesic temperate grasslands. Most articles focused on plants, with only 9.6% dealing with other organisms (e.g. beetles, pollinating insects). Many papers had to be excluded due to incomplete data, too short study duration and/or lack of an adequate control. This resulted in 13 articles fulfilling our criteria for inclusion, yielding a total of 56 data points for the meta‐analysis. Restoration actions increased plant species richness by, on average, 17.4%, compared to controls. The seed source explained a significant amount of variation in plant species richness: seeds originating from a speciose donor grassland had a positive effect. This effect was even enhanced when combined with a commercial seed mix, whereas commercial seed mixes alone had no significant effect. We did not observe any effect of other factors, such as the type of seed bed preparation or the seed application method. A seed‐source obtained from species‐rich grasslands seems to be key to efficient grassland restoration in mesic grasslands of temperate Europe. Even though seeds from a speciose donor grassland should be preferred over commercial seeds, associating natural and commercial seed mixes increases plant species richness. This systematic literature search further revealed two major research gaps in grassland restoration ecology: a deficit in long‐term investigations as well as a deficit in studies focusing on non‐plant organisms. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T00:34:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f6a4978077f94a0097e3fbd00db7b5b2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2688-8319 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T00:34:25Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecological Solutions and Evidence |
| spelling | doaj.art-f6a4978077f94a0097e3fbd00db7b5b22023-07-10T07:36:35ZengWileyEcological Solutions and Evidence2688-83192023-04-0142n/an/a10.1002/2688-8319.12221The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysisDaniel Slodowicz0Aure Durbecq1Emma Ladouceur2René Eschen3Jean‐Yves Humbert4Raphaël Arlettaz5Division of Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution University of Bern Bern SwitzerlandMediterranean Institute of Biodiversity and Ecology (IMBE) Avignon University, CNRS, IRD, Aix Marseille University Avignon FranceGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig GermanyCABI Delémont SwitzerlandDivision of Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution University of Bern Bern SwitzerlandDivision of Conservation Biology, Institute of Ecology and Evolution University of Bern Bern SwitzerlandAbstract Active grassland restoration has gained importance in mitigating the dramatic decline of farmnland biodiversity. While there is evidence that such operations are generally effective in promoting plant diversity, little is known about the effectiveness of the different methods applied. Restoration methods can differ in intensity of seed bed preparation, seed source and method of seed application. In this systematic literature search and meta‐analysis, we screened the literature for studies of the restoration of mesic grasslands in temperate Europe. We focused on active restoration experiments that included a treatment and lasted for more than 3 years. We evaluated the influence of restoration factors on plant species richness relative to non‐restored controls. We found 187 articles that investigated the outcome of operations aimed at actively restoring mesic temperate grasslands. Most articles focused on plants, with only 9.6% dealing with other organisms (e.g. beetles, pollinating insects). Many papers had to be excluded due to incomplete data, too short study duration and/or lack of an adequate control. This resulted in 13 articles fulfilling our criteria for inclusion, yielding a total of 56 data points for the meta‐analysis. Restoration actions increased plant species richness by, on average, 17.4%, compared to controls. The seed source explained a significant amount of variation in plant species richness: seeds originating from a speciose donor grassland had a positive effect. This effect was even enhanced when combined with a commercial seed mix, whereas commercial seed mixes alone had no significant effect. We did not observe any effect of other factors, such as the type of seed bed preparation or the seed application method. A seed‐source obtained from species‐rich grasslands seems to be key to efficient grassland restoration in mesic grasslands of temperate Europe. Even though seeds from a speciose donor grassland should be preferred over commercial seeds, associating natural and commercial seed mixes increases plant species richness. This systematic literature search further revealed two major research gaps in grassland restoration ecology: a deficit in long‐term investigations as well as a deficit in studies focusing on non‐plant organisms.https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12221active restorationliterature reviewmesic grasslandsplantsseed additionsoil disturbance |
| spellingShingle | Daniel Slodowicz Aure Durbecq Emma Ladouceur René Eschen Jean‐Yves Humbert Raphaël Arlettaz The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis Ecological Solutions and Evidence active restoration literature review mesic grasslands plants seed addition soil disturbance |
| title | The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis |
| title_full | The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis |
| title_fullStr | The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis |
| title_short | The relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods: A systematic literature search and meta‐analysis |
| title_sort | relative effectiveness of different grassland restoration methods a systematic literature search and meta analysis |
| topic | active restoration literature review mesic grasslands plants seed addition soil disturbance |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12221 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danielslodowicz therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT auredurbecq therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT emmaladouceur therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT reneeschen therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT jeanyveshumbert therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT raphaelarlettaz therelativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT danielslodowicz relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT auredurbecq relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT emmaladouceur relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT reneeschen relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT jeanyveshumbert relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis AT raphaelarlettaz relativeeffectivenessofdifferentgrasslandrestorationmethodsasystematicliteraturesearchandmetaanalysis |