hay meadow restoration (conserve and sustain 280612)
Post on 20-Oct-2014
560 views
DESCRIPTION
Hay Meadow Restoration: Don Gamble, Yorkshire Dales Millenium TrustTRANSCRIPT
Hay Time projectManagement and restoration researchSeed harvesting methodsData analysis results
• May 2006 to December 2011• in partnership with YDNPA and supported by
farmers, Natural England, Flora locale, National Trust, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and others
• funded by NE, YDNPA, Rural Enterprise Scheme, Tubney Charitable Trust, charities and individuals
• Into the Meadows restoration and education project from May 2012 to October 2013, funded by LEADER, SDF and EOCA
• meadow projects in Bowland and Nidderdale
Hay TimeWorking with farmers to restore meadows across
the Dales
The missing ‘infrastructure’ to enable annual programmes of restoration schemes to happen:
An experienced project officer to:• identify and monitor seed donor and
receptor meadows• develop schemes with farmers and NE• coordinate seed harvesting and spreading• provide meadow management advice• run training events• promote understanding of hay meadows
What did Hay Time provide?
Machinery for seed harvesting and spreading• a range of specialised machinery
• choices made after extensive research
Trained contractors• Marsden AES Ltd, based in Hellifield
• operate, maintain and store machinery
• tendering processes in 2006 and 2009
What did Hay Time provide?
Smith et al. (1988 - present): long-term studies of the effects of management (cutting dates, fertiliser additions, grazing regimes), seed introduction and yellow rattle• all deviations from traditional management
result in loss of conservation value of upland meadows
• adding seed to existing swards increases species number
• species-rich grasslands are associated with high soil fungal:bacterial biomass ratios
• adding functional species increases soil fungi• phased seed introduction is likely to be most
successful• yellow rattle debilitates competitive grasses
Management and restoration research
Mortimer et al. (2002): testing efficacy of green hay spreading
• greater range of species than brush harvesting
• introduced species persist and expand populations
Trueman & Millett (2003): using green hay from SSSI meadows to create species-rich meadows• green hay more effective than seed mixtures
and dry hay
• after 3 years, mean species richness >20 per m2
Restoration research
Pywell et al. (2012): Restoring species-rich grassland: principles and techniques
• key abiotic constraint is residual soil fertility (P)∴ restoration sites need low nutrient status
• key biotic constraints are lack of seed sources and establishment niches∴ seed addition and sward disturbance
Restoration research
Bardgett et al. (2012): Plant-soil interactions and grassland diversity restoration
• belowground processes interact with management to influence species diversity
• fungal:bacterial ratio could be used to assess the restorability of a species-poor meadow
• expensive test, so could use Ellenberg fertility index as a surrogate
• species-rich grasslands store more C and N
Restoration research
Aspects of Applied Biology 115
Copies available from the Association of Applied
Biologists
www.aab.org.uk
Restoration research
Seed bank• 80% of desirable species produce short-
lived or transient seed• soil often only contains seeds of species
already present in the sward
Seed rain• severe fragmentation of species-rich
meadow resource• very short dispersal distances• changes in livestock movements and
management
Why does seed need to be added?
Depends on ‘starting point’ of receptor meadow
Meadow restoration:• seed addition and management
improvement to species-poor meadows that lack functional species
Meadow enhancement :• seed addition to traditionally-managed
meadows that are fairly species-rich but ‘missing’ some characteristic species
Restoration or enhancement?
Yellow rattleRhinanthus
minor
Meadow buttercupRanunculus acris
Sweet vernal grass
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Red cloverTrifolium pratense
Restoration donors
High abundance of functional species
Species-rich and high abundance of target species
Enhancement donors
Wood crane’s-bill
Geranium sylvaticum
Great burnetSanguisorba officinalis
GlobeflowerTrollius
europaeus
Lady’s mantle
Alchemilla spp.
Green hay, hay concentrate, brush harvesting, vacuum harvesting, hand harvesting• local provenance• optimal timing• ‘natural’ seed mix• potential introduction of fungal spores
Seed harvesting methods
Natural England and Flora locale recommendations:• harvest seed from no more than a third of
the meadow• harvested areas are left for at least 3 years• only harvest when conditions are suitable• monitoring indicates no impact
Impact on the donor meadow
• all methods have their pros and cons• no single method is suitable for all schemes• lots of factors to take into account• lots of factors affect the outcome• lots of factors are outside our direct control• field-scale seed addition whenever possible,
preferably using green hay • all except green hay rely on dry weather
and harvesting before the donor meadow is cut
Comparison of methods
Green hay
a large quantity of seed from the widest range of plants
only method that can be used in damp weather
flexible timings for operations
a large volume of material has to be transported and spread within an hour or so of being collected
Comparison of methods
Hay concentrate
removes the top third to a half of the hay crop so less bulk
seed can be dried and stored
misses shorter speciesneed to be able to harvest before the donor meadow is cutneed dry weather
Comparison of methods
Brush harvesting
only removes seed and small part of the hay crop
seed can be dried and stored
misses shorter speciesneed to be able to harvest before the donor meadow is cutneed dry weather
Comparison of methods
Vacuum harvesting
only removes seed so minimal impact on hay crop
can target particular species seed can be dried and stored
small amount of seed harvestedneed to be able to harvest before the donor meadow is cutneed dry weather
Comparison of methods
Receptor meadow:• ‘starting point’ (restore or enhance)• area, access• proximity to receptor• receptor farmer’s requirements
Donor meadow:• quality, area, access• donor farmer’s requirements
Other considerations:• weather• how it fits with the rest of the programme• funding
Choosing the best method
The receptor farmer needs to:• cut, field-dry, bale and remove the hay from
the site before seed addition• create >50% bare ground to aid germination
and establishment, through intensive grazing or mechanical disturbance• chain harrows• spring tines• power harrow• scarifier
Receptor meadow preparation
What was achieved?
• 69 schemes involving seed addition and/or management upgrade applied to 141 meadows at 52 farms
• 165 ha restoration + 114 ha enhancement = 279 ha
• field-scale seed addition on 170 ha (60% of area)
• over 450 meadows surveyed• management advice provided to over 120
farmers• Into the Meadows target = 40 ha• Bowland Hay Time target = 40 ha
• 76 meadows re-surveyed in 2011• data analysed by project staff, YDNPA and
Roger Smith
Data analysis
Key findings• all restoration methods have led to
statistically significant increases in species richness, diversity and composition
• green hay addition is associated with increased abundance or the introduction of a large number of species
• vegetation at a majority of sites is, with time, moving away from that associated with improved grassland
Data analysis
Seed addition is the start of a lengthy restoration processIf…• the receptor meadow is traditionally managed• the soil is neutral pH and low fertility• the right seeds are added in the right way • the existing vegetation is not too competitive• the sward is open enough for seeds to establish
then…some new species will be visible in the autumn, some need to over-winter, some can take several years, but some will fail to germinate
Summary
“...a full record of the meadows...that will have enduring value.”
George Peterken
British WildlifeOctober 2010
© David Hill