Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:57:23.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short-Term Effects on Diversity and Biomass on Grasslands from Artificial Dykes under Grazing and Mowing Treatments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2018

Cannelle Moinardeau ,
François Mesléard ,
Hervé Ramone  and
Thierry Dutoit
Cannelle Moinardeau
Affiliation:
Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et Ecologie, UMR CNRS-IRD, Avignon Université, Aix-Marseille Université, IUT d’Avignon, 337 chemin des Meinajariés, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911Avignon, cedex 09, France
François Mesléard
Affiliation:
Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et Ecologie, UMR CNRS-IRD, Avignon Université, Aix-Marseille Université, IUT d’Avignon, 337 chemin des Meinajariés, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911Avignon, cedex 09, France Institut de Recherche de la Tour du Valat, Le Sambuc, 13200Arles, France
Hervé Ramone
Affiliation:
Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et Ecologie, UMR CNRS-IRD, Avignon Université, Aix-Marseille Université, IUT d’Avignon, 337 chemin des Meinajariés, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911Avignon, cedex 09, France
Thierry Dutoit
Affiliation:
Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et Ecologie, UMR CNRS-IRD, Avignon Université, Aix-Marseille Université, IUT d’Avignon, 337 chemin des Meinajariés, Site Agroparc BP 61207, 84911Avignon, cedex 09, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Few studies document the impacts of conservation management practices such as extensive grazing or mowing on the new ecosystems created by industrial conversions. In southern France, the Rhône channelling led to the construction of dykes to protect the Tricastin industrialized area from floods. Aiming to control plant dynamics for safety reasons and to favour plant biodiversity, mowing or extensive grazing by cattle were recently tested. Monitoring from both permanent plots and aerial photographs shows that three years of extensive grazing and annual mechanical mowing have modified plant composition, significantly increasing plant species richness, evenness and heterogeneity. The increase in evenness and beta-diversity from grazing was significantly higher than from mowing. Only grazing was able to reduce the height and cover of the dominant tussock perennial grass species (Brachypodium phoenicoides), while increasing bare soil cover and thus the contribution of annual species. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) obtained through aerial photographic analyses confirmed the correlation between NDVI, aboveground biomass and plant species richness for the grazed site alone, allowing the results obtained from quadrats to be generalized to the scale of the grazed site. On the Rhône’s artificial dykes, extensive grazing appears to be a better management tool than mowing to enhance plant biodiversity and meet safety objectives.

Keywords

anthropized ecosystemscattle grazingalpha-diversitybeta-diversityvegetation index
Type
Non-Thematic Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 46 , Special Issue 2: Thematic Section: Forests in Flux , June 2019 , pp. 132 - 139
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, LE (1965) Organic carbon. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, ed. CABlack, pp. 1367–1378. Madison, WI, USA: ASA.Google Scholar
Baize, D (2000) Guide des Analyses en Pédologie. Paris, France: INRA.Google Scholar
Barradas, I Cohen, JE (1994) Disturbances allow coexistence of competing species. Journal of Mathematical Biology 32: 663–676.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y Hochberg, Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 57: 289–300.Google Scholar
Borcard, D, Gillet, F Legendre, P (2011) Numerical Ecology with R. New York, NY, USA: Springer.Google Scholar
Bray, JR Curtis, JT (1957) An ordination of upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 27: 325–349.Google Scholar
Bremner, JM (1996) Nitrogen total. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 – Chemical Methods, Soil Science Society of America Book Series, 5, eds. DL Sparks, AL Page, PA Helmke, RH Loeppert, PN Soltanpour and MATabatabai, et al., pp. 1085–1121. Madison, WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Caldeira, MC, Hector, A, Loreau, M Pereira, JS (2005) Species richness, temporal variability and resistance of biomass production in a Mediterranean grassland. Oikos 110: 115–123.Google Scholar
Carboni, M, Dengler, J, Mantilla-Contreras, J, Venn, S Török, P (2015) Conservation value, management and restoration of Europe’s semi-natural open landscapes. Hacquetia 14: 5–17.Google Scholar
Collins, SL, Knapp, AK, Briggs, JM, Blair, JM Steinauer, EM (1998) Modulation of diversity by grazing and mowing in native tallgrass prairie. Science 280: 745–747.Google Scholar
Cousens, R, Dytham, C Law, R (2008) Dispersal in Plants: A Population Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, P (1992) Horses and Grasses: The Nutritional Ecology of Equids and Their Impact on the Camargue . New York, NY, USA: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
ESRI (2004) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.Google Scholar
Eversham, BC, Roy, DB Telfer, MG (1996) Urban, industrial and other manmade sites as analogues of natural habitats for Carabidae. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 149–156.Google Scholar
Firn, J, House, APN Buckley, YM (2010) Alternative states models provide an effective framework for invasive species control and restoration of native communities. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 96–105.Google Scholar
Flynn, ES (2006) Using NDVI as a Pasture Management Tool. Master’s thesis. Lexington, KY, USA: University of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Garrigues, S (2004) Hétérogénéité Spatiale des Surfaces Terrestres en Télédétection: Caractérisation et Influence sur l’Estimation des Variables Biophysiques. Rennes, France: Agrocampus – École nationale supérieure d’agronomie de Rennes.Google Scholar
Girerd, B (1991) La Flore du Département de Vaucluse. Avignon, France: Editions Alain Barthélémy.Google Scholar
Grumbine, RE (1997) Reflections on ‘What is ecosystem management?’. Conservation Biology 11(1): 41–47.Google Scholar
Guinochet, M (1973) Phytosociologie. Paris, France: Masson.Google Scholar
Hautier, Y, Niklaus, PA Hector, A (2009) Competition for light causes plant biodiversity loss after eutrophication. Science 324(5927): 636–638.Google Scholar
Hayes, GF Holl, KD (2003) Cattle grazing impacts on annual forbs and vegetation composition of mesic grasslands in California. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1694–1702.Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Arico, S, Aronson, J, Baron, JS, Bridgewater, P Cramer, VA et al. (2006) Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 1–7.Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Higgs, ES Hall, CM (2013) Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the New Ecological World Order. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jensen, K, Trepel, M, Merritt, D Rosenthal, G (2006) Restoration ecology of river valleys. Basic and Applied Ecology 7: 383–387.Google Scholar
Jensen, RR Hardin, PJ (2007) Using satellite data to estimate urban leaf area index. In: Geo-Spatial Technologies in Urban Environments, eds. RR Jensen, JD Gatrell and D McLean, pp. 93–107. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Kowarik, I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environmental Pollution 159: 1974–1983.Google Scholar
Mafhoud, I (2009) Cartographie et Mesure de la Biodiversité du Mont Ventoux. Approche par Système d’Information Géographique et Télédétection, Préconisations Méthodologiques et Application pour l’Aménagement Forestier. Avignon, France: University of Avignon.Google Scholar
Marriot, CA, Hood, K, Fischer, JM Pakeman, RJ (2009) Long-term impacts of extensive grazing and abandonment on the species composition, richness, diversity and productivity of agricultural grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 134: 190–200.Google Scholar
Metson, AJ (1956) Methods of Chemical Analysis for Soil Survey Samples. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.Google Scholar
Middleton, BA, Holsten, B van Diggelen, R. (2006) Biodiversity management of fens and fen meadows by grazing, cutting and burning. Applied Vegetation Science 9: 307–316.Google Scholar
Moinardeau, C, Mesléard, F Dutoit, T (2016) Using different grazing practices for increasing plant biodiversity in the dykes and embankments along the Rhone river (Southern France). Environmental Management 58: 984–997.Google Scholar
Mulholland, B Fullen, MA (1991) Cattle trampling and soil compaction on loamy sands. Soil Use and Management 7(4): 189–193.Google Scholar
Olsen, SR, Cole, CV, Watanabe, FS Dean, LA (1954) Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. Washington, DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Pettorelli, N, Vik, JO, Mysterud, A, Gaillard, JM, Tucker, CJ Stenseth, NC (2005a) Using the satellite-derived NDVI to assess ecological responses to environmental change. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(9): 504–510.Google Scholar
Pettorelli, N, Ryan, S, Mueller, T, Bunnefeld, N, Bogumiła, J, Lima, M Kausrud, K (2011) The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Climate Research 46: 15–27.Google Scholar
Pielou, EC (1969) An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Poschlod, P Wallis De Vries, MF (2002) The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands – lessons from the distant and recent past. Biological Conservation 104: 361–376.Google Scholar
Purevdorj, TS, Tateishi, R, Ishiyama, T Honda, Y (1998) Relationships between percent vegetation cover and vegetation indices. International Journal of Remote Sensing 19(18): 3519–3535.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2012) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, G, Schrautzer, J Eichberg, C (2012) Low-intensity grazing with domestic herbivores: a tool for maintaining and restoring plant diversity in temperate Europe. Tuexenia 32: 167–205.Google Scholar
Roux, D, Roux, JP Debiesse, L (2007) Donzère-Mondragon: La Nature aux Portes de l’Urbain…. Paris, France: Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage.Google Scholar
Stephens, DW Krebs, JR (1986) Foraging Theory. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tälle, M, Deák, B, Poschlod, P, Valkó, O, Westerberg, L Milberg, P (2016) Grazing vs. mowing: a meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 222: 200–212.Google Scholar
Tälle, M (2018) Conservation of Semi-Natural Grasslands: Effects of Different Management Methods on Biodiversity. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, GW (1996) Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3 – Chemical Methods, Soil Science Society of America Book Series 5, eds. DL Sparks, AL Page, PA Helmke, RH Loeppert, PN Soltanpour and MA Tabatabai, et al., pp. 475–490. Madison, WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Tison, JM, Jauzein, P Michaud, H (2014) Flore de la France Méditerranéenne Continentale. Turriers, France: Naturalia Publications.Google Scholar
Todd, SW, Hoffer, RM Milchunas, DG (1998) Biomass estimation on grazed and ungrazed rangelands using spectral indices. International Journal of Remote Sensing 19: 427–438.Google Scholar
Tucker, CJ (1979) Red and photographic infrared linear combination for monitoring vegetation. Remote Sensing of Environment 8: 127–150.Google Scholar
Turner, W, Spector, S, Gardiner, N, Fladeland, M, Sterling, E Steininger, M (2003) Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(6): 306–314.Google Scholar
Van Diggelen, R, Middleton, B, Bakker, J, Grootjans, AP Wassen, M (2006) Fens and floodplains of the temperate zone: present status, threats, conservation and restoration. Applied Vegetation Science 9: 157–162.Google Scholar
Van Wieren, SE Bakker, JP (1998) Grazing for conservation in the 21st century. In: Grazing and Conservation Management. Conservation Biology Series 11 , eds. MFWallis De Vries, JPBakker and SEVan Weiren, pp. 349–363. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Wallis De Vries, MF, Parkinson, AE, Dulphy, JP, Sayer, M Diana, E (2007) Effects of livestock breed and grazing intensity on biodiversity and production in grazing systems. 4. Effects on animal diversity. Grass and Forage Science 62(2): 185–197.Google Scholar
Weiss, SB (1999) Cars, cows, and checkerspot butterflies: nitrogen deposition and management of nutrient‐poor grasslands for a threatened species. Conservation Biology 13(6): 1476–1486.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.2 MB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 45.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 29.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Figure S3

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 78.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 302.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 254.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Moinardeau et al. supplementary material

Appendix S2

Download Moinardeau et al. supplementary material(File)
File 7.2 MB