uu.seUppsala universitets publikationer
Ändra sökning
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Mowing for biodiversity: grass trimmer and knife mower perform equally well
Linkoping Univ, Conservat Ecol Grp, IFM Biol, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden..
Linkoping Univ, Conservat Ecol Grp, IFM Biol, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden..
Linkoping Univ, Conservat Ecol Grp, IFM Biol, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden..
Uppsala universitet, Teknisk-naturvetenskapliga vetenskapsområdet, Biologiska sektionen, Centrum för biologisk mångfald. Swedish Univ Agr Sci, Swedish Biodivers Ctr, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden.;Uppsala Univ, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden..
Visa övriga samt affilieringar
2014 (Engelska)Ingår i: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 23, nr 12, s. 3073-3089Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat) Published
Abstract [en]

Mowing of semi-natural grasslands is an important management method to maintain the conservation value and species-richness of this habitat. Mowing using cutting instruments, e.g. sickle bar mowers, is thought to be superior by practitioners compared with other mechanical instruments that tears off the plant material, e.g. grass trimmers. However, almost no studies exist that supports this assumption. We analysed a 12-year field trial in a semi-natural grassland in south-eastern Sweden, with the aim of determining which mowing technique best maintains the conservation value of semi-natural grasslands. Two mowing techniques were compared: mowing using a hand-pushed sickle bar mower (a type of knife mower), or mowing using a grass trimmer at a 5-cm or 0-cm cutting height. The odds that a recorded species belongs to a group of indicator species were calculated for sample plots, and odds ratios were calculated contrasting treatments. Three types of indicator species classification systems were used: (i) indicators of management for species richness, (ii) indicators of excess nitrogen and (iii) indicators of lack of management. The odds ratios were calculated for years 1-5, 7 and 12 of the trial. In addition, Principal Response Curve analysis was performed to analyse the change in vegetation composition over time and ANOVA for plant species richness in plots. The results showed that over time there were no differences in the odds of finding indicators of any of the three types, for any of the mowing techniques. Furthermore, there were no apparent change in vegetation composition and only a small effect on richness. These results suggest that mowing using a sickle bar mower or a grass trimmer had the same effect on the floristic composition of grasslands, and both techniques can be recommended for use in semi-natural grasslands.

Ort, förlag, år, upplaga, sidor
2014. Vol. 23, nr 12, s. 3073-3089
Nyckelord [en]
Indicators, Management, Meta-analysis, Mowing techniques, Odds ratio, Semi-natural grassland, Sweden
Nationell ämneskategori
Miljövetenskap
Identifikatorer
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-306322DOI: 10.1007/s10531-014-0765-8ISI: 000343908600010OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-306322DiVA, id: diva2:1049494
Tillgänglig från: 2016-11-24 Skapad: 2016-10-27 Senast uppdaterad: 2017-11-29Bibliografiskt granskad

Open Access i DiVA

Fulltext saknas i DiVA

Övriga länkar

Förlagets fulltext

Sök vidare i DiVA

Av författaren/redaktören
Westerberg, LarsMilberg, Per
Av organisationen
Centrum för biologisk mångfald
I samma tidskrift
Biodiversity and Conservation
Miljövetenskap

Sök vidare utanför DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetricpoäng

doi
urn-nbn
Totalt: 412 träffar
RefereraExporteraLänk till posten
Permanent länk

Direktlänk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf