Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Next Article in Journal
The Interaction of Wildfire with Post-Fire Herbivory on Arid and Semi-Arid U.S. Rangelands: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Ecogeography and Climate Change in Forage Grasses from Arid and Semi-Arid Regions of Mexico
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Grasses
Volume 3
Issue 3
10.3390/grasses3030009
grasses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Changes in Species Composition, Diversity, and Biomass of Secondary Dry Grasslands Following Long-Term Mowing: A Case Study in Hungary

by
Judit Házi
1,*,
Dragica Purger
2,
Károly Penksza
3 and
Sándor Bartha
4
1
Department of Botany, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, Rottenbiller utca 50., H-1077 Budapest, Hungary
2
Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacognosy, University of Pécs, Rókus utca 2., H-7624 Pécs, Hungary
3
Institute of Agronomy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, MKK, Páter Károly utca 1., H-2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
4
HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Alkotmány út 2–4., H-2163 Vácrátót, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Grasses 2024, 3(3), 130-142; https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses3030009
Submission received: 9 April 2024 / Revised: 10 July 2024 / Accepted: 12 July 2024 / Published: 17 July 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The focus of our study was the changes in the composition of semi-natural dry grasslands in Hungary. Maintaining the favorable condition of grasslands is not only important from a theoretical nature conservation point of view, but it also has important economic implications. Since these valuable habitats were created with the help of humans, their preservation also requires active treatment. Our current experiment was aimed at investigating the suppression of tall grass, Calamagrostis epigejos L. Roth. In Hungary, in the Cserhát Mountains, eight permanent plots were mown twice a year. We surveyed the vegetation twice a year between 2001 and 2011. The effects of treatment were studied with repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). After 10 years, the C. epigejos cover of the mown plots decreased significantly, from the initial average of 62.38 to 7.50%. Surprisingly, we noticed a decrease in the control plots as well. While percentage cover of C. epigejos decreased in all plots, the decrease was significantly stronger in the mown plots. Regular treatment caused an increase in the number of species and diversity. Species richness increased continuously in both treatment types, which indicates the combined effect of vegetation succession and treatment. The biomass growth of other Poaceae and Fabaceae species, which are important from a grassland management perspective, was also facilitated by mowing. Our results allow us to conclude that long-term regular mowing is recommended for preservation from the perspective of the richness and variety of grassland management functional groups and the functioning of the ecosystem in semi-arid regenerating grasslands.

1. Introduction

Grasslands are some of the most versatile ecosystems. Climatic factors have played a role in the development of natural grasslands, while semi-natural grasslands have been created by human activity since the Neolithic Age. The traditional agricultural practices used for several centuries have helped the formation and survival of these grasslands [1,2].
For the maintenance of grasslands, traditional land use is needed, such as regular burning, grazing, or mowing and making hay [3,4]. These human activities have contributed to species exchange between grasslands, balancing propagule availability [5,6] and they have created plant communities that are today the most important sites of European biodiversity [7]. Maintaining the favorable condition of grasslands is not only important from a theoretical nature conservation point of view, but it also has important economic implications. Many aspects of ecosystem services are associated with grasslands, e.g., the maintenance of the populations of pollinating insects, making the preservation of grasslands a global priority [8]. The traditional management of abandoned vineyards and orchards has maintained the pattern and scale of the landscape, however, due to the intensification of agriculture, some areas are overused, while others are abandoned [9].
Land-use changes and land abandonment often cause a loss of diversity in man-made habitats [10,11,12,13]. The diversity of grasslands is significantly reduced by the abandonment of pastures and the decline of livestock [14,15]. Both overused and abandoned habitats are exposed to numerous risk factors. These include scrubbing, the advance of shrubs, and the rapid spread of invasive species [15]. Both processes significantly change the grassland structure and result in a decrease in diversity, which is one of the most important nature conservation problems today [16].
The rapid spread of non-native, invader species can be observed; however, native species, especially tall grasses, are also capable of monotonically growing, in an invasion-like expansion. Deschampsia [17], Sesleria [18], Brachypodium [19,20], and Molinia [21] species are widespread dominant grass species in Europe, whose fast colonization leads to changes in nutrient availability, as well as in temporal and spatial niche divisions. This significantly reduces the germination, establishment, and growth success of other plant species, which ultimately results in the loss of species richness [22,23].
One of the indigenous but invader grasses is Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth (see below C. epigejos), a strong, fast-spreading perennial grass species [24,25,26]. It spreads successfully in areas where previous human activity has been abandoned [27,28,29]. It has extremely high morphological and physiological plasticity [26] and resistance to various harmful environmental factors. C. epigejos is widespread in Europe, rarely occurring in undisturbed close-to-nature and natural grasslands; however, it can invade these habitats as well [30]. It occurs in forests [31,32], river floodplains [33,34], disturbed sites, barren wastelands, and in reclaimed mines [35,36,37]. It can be observed in many habitats [38], e.g., secondary habitats developing after deforestation or fallow lands and set-asides [39,40]. According to Rothmaler [41], it occurs mainly in forest clearings and often indicates soil degradation. The nutritional value of the species is extremely low, due to its strong leaves and high level of dead matter accumulation. Its use as fodder is extremely rare, although there have been trials, mainly with goats [42].
The most important goal of our present study was to investigate the effect of multi-year mowing on the restoration of the botanical composition and productivity of the grassland.
In the tenth year from the start of the continuously conducted experiment, we evaluated the effect of mowing on the dominant C. epigejos cover and the occurrence of subordinated grassland species, as well as the changes in species richness. From the point of view of grassland regeneration, grazing would have a more favorable effect, but there are currently no livestock. At the same time, if it becomes possible to supplement the treatment with grazing in the future, it will be important to gather information about the change in the productivity of the grassland.
We examined the following questions:
  • How can the spread of dominant grass be controlled? Can mowing reduce C. epigejos coverage, and if so, how long does it take?
  • How does the number of species and the Shannon diversity of the grassland change during the experiment?
  • Does the grassland productivity value change during the treatment? How is the distribution of the main grassland utilization groups changing?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The experimental area is located in the western part of the Cserhát Mountains, on the border of the villages of Vác, Rád, and Vácduka (Figure 1). It belongs to the territory of Duna-Ipoly National Park; the center coordinates are 47°45′38.23″ N, 19°12′47.53″ E.
The climate of the region is temperate. The annual precipitation is 520–590 mm and the average annual temperature is 8–10 °C [43].
The substrate is loess of various thicknesses deposited during the Tertiary period. Mountain ridges emerge from the loess layer, such as the Bükkös hill (190 m above sea level). The study sites are located on the west-facing slope (15 ha) of this hill.
The earlier natural grassland vegetation was Salvio nemorosae-Festucetum rupicolae Zólyomi ex Soó 1964 community [44], which corresponds to Natura 2000 habitat type 6240 “Sub-Pannonic steppic grasslands” [45].
In this mainly agricultural landscape, large areas were used for centuries as arable fields, vineyards, and orchards. These areas have been abandoned since the 1960s and 1970s for various economic reasons [46].
The present study is part of a larger series of experiments that are ongoing in three different areas ([46,47]). This article summarizes the results of the experiment performed on the western slope of the Bükkös hill, which is the largest of the three areas.

2.2. Experimental Design and Data Collecting

In our present work, we focused on the fast-spreading, perennial rhizome grass, which strongly changes the composition of the plant community. With the mowing treatment, we aimed to reduce the vegetative and generative growth potential of C. epigejos.
Eight quadrats were designated, the corners of which were permanently marked. These permanent plots were 3 × 3 m in dimension, positioned randomly along the west slope. In addition to each mown plot, we also designated a control plot, also with permanent marking, where no treatment took place. We arranged mown and control plots in a split-plot design. Vegetation data were monitored in 2 × 2 m large permanent quadrats placed in the middle of each plot, i.e., there was a 2 m buffer zone between the paired (mown and control) quadrats; (Figure 2).
This experimental layout was justified by two reasons: (1) avoidance of the forest edge effect and (2) selection of contiguous, homogeneous patches. The chosen small plot size allowed us to minimize topography, vegetation, and land-use heterogeneity, i.e., to ensure the most similar initial conditions. During our work, we performed stratified random sampling. We did not consider patches dominated by shrubs and Robinia pseudoacacia and ignored patches with less than 60% C. epigejos cover. All treated plots were mown with hand clippers (CMI Art Num. 234620, Emil Lux GmbH, Wermelskirchen, Germany), twice a year, in June and September. In each plot, we visually estimated the cover of the vascular plant species present, with an accuracy of 1 percent. After the plots were mown, the biomass was removed. The coenological survey and treatments were carried out every year between 2001 and 2011.
The removed biomass was subjected to further examination in 2009. The cut plant material was collected, always using the same method. The biomass tests were carried out twice a year, in June and September. After the coenological surveys were completed, the biomass was sampled from the central 1 × 1 m grassland area with a hand-held cutter. We left 4–5 cm high stubble. In the case of the control quadrats, the biomass cutting was not collected from the place of the coenological recording, but outside it, from the area of the buffer zone, from the corner of the square. The biomass collected in this way was sorted into groups important for grazing and the forage value of main species according to Klapp [48]. (Supplementary Materials Table S1). The values and designations of the grassland management categories were as follows:
  • Dominant grass species i.e.: C. epigejos;
  • Subordinate grass species important for grassland management;
  • Fabaceae species important for grassland management;
  • Other Dicotyledonous species neutral for grassland management;
  • Thorny, prickly plants;
  • Litter, (standing dead biomass, and lying dead biomass).
All samples were dried to constant weight at 80 °C in tray drayer (Pink WertheimVSD-EX-650-650-140-4, Pink GmbH Thermosysteme, Barneveld, Netherland). The dry biomass measured with digital laboratory scale (Shanghai Ruishan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. Shanghai, China. The biomass values of each grassland management category were given in grams).

2.3. Statistical Analyses

The effects of the mowing treatment on C. epigejos cover, number of species, and Shannon diversity were compared using analyses of variance (ANOVA) with treatments and years as fixed factors.
During the analysis of variance (ANOVA), we examine the differences between and within the groups, that is, we divide each sum of squares by the corresponding degrees of freedom. The result is actually a measure of variance. The F-ratio is then obtained by dividing MS (between) and MS (within). The p-value is the probability of obtaining an F-ratio greater than the observed one, assuming that the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the group means is true [49]. For post hoc test, the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) with corrections (adjusted p-values for the multiple tests) was used.
The diversity index is a mathematically expressed measure of the species diversity of a plant community. The Shannon diversity index (H) could be calculated from the species richness and number of species values of the individual coenological relevé. Diversity index reveal more information about the composition of the community than the number of species, as they also consider the relative abundance of different plant species. The diversity index theoretically depends not only on species richness, but also on how evenly each species is distributed in the same community [50].
The H index can be calculated as follows:
H = −∑ Pi(lnPi)
where pi is the proportion of species i in the community.
Most of the statistical analyses were performed with R statistical software (version 4.0.5, [51]). We used “vegan”, “tidyverse”, “ggpubr”, and “rstatix” packages. For Shannon diversity, values were calculated with PAST 3.11 statistical software [52].

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Mowing on the Cover of C. epigejos

C. epigejos was the most important plant species in all plots at the beginning of the investigation with similar average cover (62.38% in the plots that were assigned to be mowed and 69.38% in control plots). After two years of mowing treatment (in 2003), the difference became significant (p = 0.0019) (Figure 3). The significant difference that emerged in the third year of the study had remained throughout the experiment. If we compare it to the starting year as a control, we can conclude that the difference in the mown plots is also significant starting from the third year. At the same time, this is not the case with control plots.
After ten years of our study, in 2011, in the mown plots there was a considerable decline in the average cover of C. epigejos (from initial 62.38% to 7.50%). In the control plots, the average cover also decreased to 56.88%. The total cover of all species had not substantially altered. (Table 1).
In 2011, in the mown plots there was a considerable increase in the average cover of subordinate species (from the initial 33.16% to 104.41%). In the control plots, the average cover also increased from 38.71% to 54.85%.

3.2. Effects of Mowing on the Number of Species and Diversity

The total number of species increased during the study period. Comparing the data on the number of species on the study site, we found a significant difference between the mown and control plots only in the last year of the study, in 2011, p = 0.00726, 10 years after the start of the experiment (Figure 4).
A significant change in the control plots compared to the initial value in 2001 was first observed in 2009, p = 0.000328, and in 2011, p = 0.00592.
In the mown quadrats, the treatment in the first years did not bring significant changes in the number of species. However, a significant difference (p = 0.0396042) compared to the initial state was observed in 2006, and after that throughout the study (Figure 4).
The most important subordinate species characteristic of the study area is Bothriochloa ischaemum (Keng.), which became the fifth most dominant species with an average coverage of 7% in the mown plots after 10 years of the treatment. At the same time, it also reached the fourth rank in the control plots based on its average coverage, indicating a general drying and closing of the grassland in the entire study area.
At the same time, the Shannon diversity of mown plots increased only slightly. Comparing the control quadrats to 2001, we already noticed a significant difference in 2004, which, however, disappeared by the following year. It appeared again in 2007 and has been detectable since then. In the mown plots, the significant difference appeared as early as 2003, and remained throughout the entire period of the experiment (Figure 5).

3.3. Effects of Mowing on Biomass Composition

Regarding the distribution of the important groups from the point of view of grassland management, it can be said that on Bükkös hill, a large amount of thorny, unpalatable species such as Eryngium campestre and Carlina vulgaris rarely occur. Otherwise, this component, which occurs mainly in grazed areas, is not typical. Mowing for 8 years (until 2009) had uniformly removed it from the area, in contrast to the grazing animals, which leave it and can, thus, promote its reproduction. Debris accumulation is significant in the case of plots 4, 5, and 6, which are located in the central region of the mountain. Dorycnium herbaceum, Astragalus glycyphyllos, and Securigeria varia species of the Fabaceae family account for a large proportion, while in more disturbed conditions, Vicia cracca is the most abundant (Figure 6).
Festuca rupicola and Brachypodium pinnatum are the most important grass species that are present in greater proportions as a result of mowing. Since their forage value is greater than that of C. epigejos, (Table S1), the total value of the grassland also increases. The cover of Kop also increases, but this does not contribute to the usability of the grassland, as its forage value is the same as that of C. epigejos.
In the control samples, the large amount of litter (dead biomass) is noticeable, with the average measured amount being 256 g/m2 in the study site (Figure 7). Regarding the proportion of Dicotyledonous, the group of Fabaceae, and other Poaceae species, we measured a smaller biomass. In contrast, C. epigejos was present in large quantities in the control samples.

4. Discussion

In our mowing experiment, treatment twice a year effectively reduced the cover of C. epigejos. However, the significant decrease in the dominant species only occurred in the third year. A similar phenomenon was also reported from Germany, where Rebele and Lehmann [24] in their article wrote about a 2 year delay. The slow decline in C. epigejos coverage can be attributed to the nutrient reserves accumulated in the rhizomes [33,53,54]. The dominant species lost a large amount of its biomass and, thus, its competitiveness as a result of the frequent cutting [53]. Several studies have reported that C. epigejos becomes established in the early stages of succession [39,55,56,57]. These results suggest that regular mowing (twice a year) is likely to be a disturbance of sufficient magnitude to deplete storage organs and cause a state of nutrient deficiency.
In this study, we showed that mowing increased species number and Shannon diversity in regenerating, secondary grasslands. However, the response to the mowing treatment was slow: increases in species number occurred after several years and increases in Shannon diversity took even more years. We obtained similar results in another survey, where the exposition and other environmental conditions were different [47]. Most studies have reported that mowing increases the species richness of abandoned grasslands [58,59,60,61]. C. epigejos is a tall, clonally spreading grass with a large amount of standing dead matter. This dead biomass inhibits the germination and growth of other species. With the litter removed, subordinate species could grow. This is reflected in both the number of species and the values of diversity. Our results support the findings of previous similar studies and indicate that grasslands can adapt very successfully to different forms of human land use [57].
The functioning of the ecosystem is usually determined by the most important properties of the dominant species [58]. Thus, moderate disturbance plays a key role in favoring subordinate species [59] and, thus, in maintaining plant diversity [60].
A rapid rearrangement of the dominance ranking of the species could be observed in the treated plots [61,62,63]. The importance of long-term monitoring was highlighted also and has been previously reported [64,65]. Parallel to the suppression of the dominant species that make up the matrix of the grassland, we observed the spread of subordinate grass and dicotyledonous species. It is an interesting phenomenon that the increase in the absolute coverage of the other (subordinate) species is also observable in the control plots. This was mainly due to the increase in the cover of shrubs. Analyzing the change in the proportion compared to the total cover (relative cover), we revealed that the subordinate species occurred in relatively greater numbers in the mown plots (Table 1). Due to mowing, the microclimate of the area also changes; it becomes drier. Because of this, the broad-leaved grass species lose their dominance, so the cover of narrow-leaved species, e.g., Festuca, increased. This observation is consistent with the results of other studies, e.g., [66,67]. Due to regular mowing, the height of the grassland was reduced, and, therefore, more sunlight reached the soil surface, influencing drying [22,68].
Mowing twice a year significantly increased the number of plant species and, to a lesser extent, diversity. Several authors have reported similar results, e.g., Szépligeti et al. [69,70] and Piseddu et al. [71], suggesting that grassland vegetation has adapted to the traditional human land use. Other surveys show that moderate disturbance increases species richness [72]. Increasing diversity, species richness, and grassland yield are important elements in the usability of grasslands, and maintaining a healthy structure plays an important role in reducing the risk of invasion. In addition to mowing, grazing is another important disturbing factor. Depending on the duration and timing of grazing, this treatment can strongly influence the competitiveness of plant species [73].
A well-chosen mowing method allows plants to complete their reproductive cycle and achieve maximum productivity [74].
Mowing is non-selective, while grazing belongs to the selective type of moderate disturbance. Individual animal species use the opportunities offered by the lawn according to their own needs. According to Catorci et al., both treatment methods increased species diversity in sub-Mediterranean grasslands, but mowing increased this to a greater extent [22].
At the same time, our present experiment could also be extended to investigate the additional effects of grazing since animal trampling, excrement, and the spread of seeds affect the species composition of the lawn differently. As the fodder value of the lawn increased due to regular mowing, species with higher yields became more prominent. Therefore, in the future, the area may be suitable primarily for grazing with sheep.

5. Conclusions

With this study, we have confirmed our observation that the retraction of C. epigejos occurs spontaneously in later stages of succession. Although C. epigejos began to decline spontaneously, its dominance remained for a longer period without treatment.
In our 10 year experiment, we found a significant impact of mowing on the abundance and dominance of C. epigejos, along with considerable changes in species richness and species composition. Species richness increased faster during succession when plots were mown. Nevertheless, the Shannon diversity of mown plots increased only slightly, and the difference was not constant over time. Regular mowing is recommended for preservation from the perspective of the richness and variety of grassland management functional groups and the functioning of the ecosystem in semi-arid regenerating grasslands. In the course of our work, we highlighted the importance of long-term studies, because the operating rules of complex ecological systems can only be revealed through regular and systematic studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/grasses3030009/s1, Table S1: Forage value of plant species according to Klapp.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.B. and J.H.; methodology, S.B., D.P. and J.H.; software, S.B., K.P. and J.H.; formal analysis, J.H. and S.B.; investigation, S.B., D.P. and K.P.; data curation, K.P., J.H. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B., D.P. and J.H.; writing—review and editing: all authors; visualization, D.P. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank Margit Dávid for assistance during the field work, Bernadett Zsinka for helping with the statistical analysis, and Bernadett Júlia Török for proofreading the manuscript. We acknowledge the general support of the Duna-Ipoly National Park Directorate.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

For species nomenclature we used vascular plants of Hungary: ferns-flowering plants [75].

References

  1. Wallis De Vries, M.F.; Poschlod, P.; Willes, J.H. Challenges for the conservation of calcareous grasslands in Northwestern Europe: Integrating the requirements of flora and fauna. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 104, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dengler, J.; Janišová, M.; Török, P.; Wellstein, C. Biodiversity of Palaearctic grasslands: A synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 182, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Willner, W.; Kuzemko, A.; Dengler, J.; Chytrý, M.; Bauer, N.; Becker, T.; Biţă-Nicolae, C.; Botta-Dukát, Z.; Čarni, A.; Csiky, J.; et al. A higher-level classification of the Pannonian and western Pontic steppe grasslands (Central and Eastern Europe). Appl. Veg. Sci. 2017, 20, 143–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Morabito, A.; Musarella, C.M.; Spampinato, G. Diversity and Ecological Assessment of Grasslands Habitat Types: A Case Study in the Calabria Region (Southern Italy). Land 2024, 13, 719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Poschlod, P.; Wallis de Vries, M.F. The historical and socioeconomic perspective of calcareous grasslands–lessons from the distant and recent past. Biol. Conserv. 2002, 104, 361–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ruprecht, E.; Szabó, A.; Enyedi, M.Z.; Dengler, J. Steppe-like grasslands in Transylvania (Romania): Characterisation and influence of management on species diversity and composition. Tuexenia 2009, 29, 353–368. [Google Scholar]
  7. Pärtel, M.; Bruun, H.H.; Sammul, M. Biodiversity in temperate European grasslands: Origin and conservation. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2005, 10, 14. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bengtsson, J.; Bullock, J.M.; Egoh, B.; Everson, C.; Everson, T.; O’Connor, T.; O’Farrell, P.J.; Smith, H.G.; Lindborg, R. Grasslands—More important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 2019, 10, e02582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Newbold, T.; Hudson, L.N.; Hill, S.L.L.; Contu, S.; Lysenko, I.; Senior, R.A.; Börger, L.; Bennett, D.J.; Choimes, A.; Collen, B.; et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 2015, 520, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fiala, K.; Holub, P.; Sedláková, I.; Tůma, I.; Záhora, J.; Tesařová, M. Reasons and consequences of expansion of Calamagrostis epigejos in alluvial meadows of landscape affected by water control measures. Ekologia 2003, 22 (Suppl. S2), 242–252. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nadal-Romero, E.; Khorchani, M.; Gaspar, L.; Arnáez, J.; Cammeraat, E.; Navas, A.; Lasanta, T. How do land use and land cover changes after farmland abandonment affect soil properties and soil nutrients in Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems? CATENA 2023, 226, 107062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kozak, J.; Ostapowicz, K.; Szablowska-Midor, A.; Widacki, W. Land abandonment in the western Beskidy Mts and its environmental background. Ekologia 2004, 23, 116. [Google Scholar]
  13. Díaz, S.; Settele, J.; Brondízio, E.S.; Ngo, H.T.; Agard, J.; Arneth, A.; Balvanera, P.; Brauman, K.A.; Butchart, S.H.M.; Chan, K.M.A.; et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 2019, 366, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lindborg, R. Recreating grasslands in Swedish rural landscapes—Effects of seed sowing and management history. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 957–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mendenhall, C.D.; Karp, D.S.; Meyer CF, J.; Hadly, E.A.; Daily, G.C. Predicting biodiversity change and averting collapse in agricultural landscapes. Nature 2014, 509, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, D.; Semenchuk, P.; Essl, F.; Lenzner, B.; Moser, D.; Blackburn, T.M.; Cassey, P.; Biancolini, D.; Capinha, C.; Dawson, W.; et al. The impact of land use on non-native species incidence and number in local assemblages worldwide. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 2090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jendrišáková, S.; Kováčiková, Z.; Vargová, V.; Michalec, M. The impact of cattle and sheep grazing on grassland in Veľká Fatra National Park. J. Water Land. Dev. 2011, 15, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kuzmanović, N.; Šinžar-Sekulić, J.; Lakušić, D. Leaf anatomy of the Sesleria rigida Heuffel ex Reichenb. (Poaceae) in Serbia. Bot. Serbica 2009, 33, 51–67. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bonanomi, G.; Incerti, G.; Allegrezza, M. Assessing the impact of land abandonment, nitrogen enrichment and fairy-ring fungi on plant diversity of Mediterranean grasslands. Biodiv. Conserv. 2013, 22, 2285–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tardella, F.M.; Malatesta, L.; Goia, I.G.; Catorci, A. Effects of long-term mowing on coenological composition and recovery routes of a Brachypodium rupestre-invaded community: Insight into the restoration of sub-Mediterranean productive grasslands. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2018, 29, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hejcman, M.; Češková, M.; Schellberg, J.; Pätzold, S. The Rengen grassland experiment: Effect of soil chemical properties on biomass production, plant species composition and species richness. Folia Geobot. 2010, 45, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Catorci, A.; Ottaviani, G.; Ballelli, S.; Cesaretti, S. Functional differentiation of Central Apennine grasslands under mowing and grazing disturbance regimes. Pol. J. Ecol. 2011, 59, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  23. Sammon, J.G.; Wilkins, K.T. Effects of an invasive grass (Bothriochloa ischaemum) on a grassland rodent community. Tex. J. Sci. 2005, 57, 371–383. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rebele, F. Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth auf anthropogenen Standorten–ein Überblick. Verh. Ges. Okol. 1996, 26, 753–763. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rebele, F.; Lehmann, C. Biological Flora of Central Europe: Calamagrostis epigejos (L.). Roth. Flora 2001, 196, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gloser, V.; Košvancová, M.; Gloser, J. Changes in growth parameters and content of N-storage compounds in roots and rhizomes of Calamagrostis epigejos after repeated defoliation. Biol. Bratisl. 2004, 59, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
  27. Prach, K.; Pyšek, P. Using spontaneous succession for restoration of human-disturbed habitats: Experience from Central Europe. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 17, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huhta, A.; Pasi, R.; Tuomi, J.; Laine, K. Restorative mowing on an abandoned semi-natural meadow: Short-term and predicted long-term effects. J. Veg. Sci. 2001, 12, 677–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sedláková, I.; Fiala, K. Ecological degradation of alluvial meadows due to expanding Calamagrostis epigejos. Ekologia 2001, 20 (Suppl. S3), 226–333. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kompała-Bąba, A.; Sierka, E.; Dyderski, M.K.; Bierza, W.; Magurno, F.; Besenyei, L.; Błońska, A.; Ryś, K.; Jagodziński, A.M.; Woźniak, G. Do the dominant plant species impact the substrate and vegetation composition of post-coal mining spoil heaps? Ecol. Eng. 2020, 143, 105685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhukovskaya, O.; Ulanova, N.G. Influence of brushing frequency on birch population structure after felling. Ecoscience 2006, 13, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Csontos, P. Light ecology and regeneration on clearings of sessile oak-turkey oak forests in the Visegrád mountains, Hungary. Acta Bot. Hung. 2010, 52, 265–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fiala, K.; Tůma, I.; Holub, P. Effect of nitrogen addition and drought on aboveground biomass of expanding tall grasses Calamagrostis epigejos and Arrhenatherum elatius. Biologia 2011, 66, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Błońska, E.; Kempf, M.; Lasota, J. Woody debris as a substrate for the growth of a new generation of forest trees. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 525, 120566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Prach, K. Succession of vegetation on dumps from strip coal mining, N.W. Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Folia Geobot. Phytotax 1987, 22, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bartha, S. Preliminary scaling for multi-species coalitions in primary succession. Abstr. Bot. 1992, 16, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  37. Baasch, A.; Tischew, S.; Bruelheide, H. Twelve years of succession on sandy substrates in a post-mining landscape: A Markov chain analysis. Ecol. Appl. 2010, 20, 136–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hultén, E.; Fries, M. Atlas of North European Vascular Plants: North of the Tropic of Cancer I–III; Koeltz Scientific Books: Königstein, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  39. Csecserits, A.; Rédei, T. Secondary Succession on Sandy Old-Fields in Hungary. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2001, 4, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bartha, S.; Szentes, S.; Horváth, A.; Házi, J.; Zimmermann, Z.; Molnár, C.; Dancza, I.; Margóczi, K.; Pál, R.W.; Purger, D.; et al. Impact of midsuccessional dominant species on the diversity and progress of succession in regenerating temperate grasslands. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2014, 17, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rothmaler, W. Exkursionsflora von Deutschland; Aufl. n Volk und Wissen Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1988; Bd. 3. n 7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hajnáczki, S.; Pajor, F.; Péter, N.; Bodnár, A.; Penksza, K.; Póti, P. Solidago gigantea Ait. and Calamagrostis epigejos (L) Roth invasive plants as potential forage for goats. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2021, 49, 12197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Marosi, S.; Somogyi, S. (Eds.) Magyarország Kistájainak Katasztere (Cadastral of Microregions of Hungary); MTA Földrajztudományi Kutatóintézet: Budapest, Hungary, 1991; pp. 379–388. [Google Scholar]
  44. Borhidi, A.; Kevey, B.; Lendvai, G. Plant Communities of Hungary; Akadémiai Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 2012; 544p. [Google Scholar]
  45. European Environment Agency. 6250 Pannonic Loess Steppic Grasslands. Report under the Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Period 2007–2012. Available online: https://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats/10124#sites (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  46. Házi, J.; Bartha, S.; Szentes, S.; Wichmann, B.; Penksza, K. Seminatural grassland management by mowing of Calamagrostis epigejos in Hungary. Plant Biosyst. 2011, 145, 699–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Házi, J.; Purger, D.; Penksza, K.; Bartha, S. Interaction of Management and Spontaneous Succession Suppresses the Impact of Harmful Native Dominant Species in a 20-Year-Long Experiment. Land 2023, 12, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Klapp, E.; Boeker, P.; König, F.; Stählin, A. Wertzahlen der Grünlandpflanzen. Grünland 1953, 2, 38–40. [Google Scholar]
  49. Spellerberg, I.F.; Fedor, P.J. A Tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a Plea for More Rigorous Use of Species Richness, Species Diversity and the ‘Shannon–Wiener’ Index. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2003, 12, 177–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shannon, C.E. A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2018; ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available online: http://www.R-project.org (accessed on 20 February 2018).
  52. Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 1. Available online: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm (accessed on 20 February 2023).
  53. Klimeš, L.; Klimešova, J. The effects of mowing and fertilisation on carbohydrate reserves and regrowth of grasses: Do they promote plant coexistence in species-rich meadows? Evol. Ecol. 2002, 15, 363–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kavanová, M.; Gloser, V. The use of internal nitrogen stores in the rhizomatous grass Calamagrostis epigejos during regrowth after defoliation. Ann. Bot. 2005, 85, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mudrák, O.; Doležal, J.; Frouz, J. Initial species composition predicts the progress in the spontaneous succession on post-mining sites. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 95, 665–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wozniak, G.; Chmura, D.; Małkowski, E.; Zieleznik-Rusinowska, P.; Sitko, K.; Ziemer, B.; Błonska, A. Is the Age of Novel Ecosystem the Factor Driving Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Colonization in Poa compressa and Calamagrostis epigejos? Plants 2021, 10, 949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gerwin, W.; Raab, T.; Birkhofer, K.; Hinz, C.; Letmathe, P.; Leuchner, M.; Roß-Nickoll, M.; Rüde, T.; Trachte, K.; Wätzold, F.; et al. Perspectives of lignite post-mining landscapes under changing environmental conditions: What can we learn from a comparison between the Rhenish and Lusatian region in Germany? Environ. Sci. Eur. 2023, 35, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Díaz, S.; Lavorel, S.; McIntyre, S.; Falczuk, V.; Casanoves, F.; Milchunas, D.G.; Skarpe, C.; Rusch, G.; Sternberg, M.; Noy-Meir, I.; et al. Plant Trait Responses to Grazing—A Global Synthesis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 313–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Grime, J.P. Benefits of Plant Diversity to Ecosystems: Immediate, Filter and Founder Effects. J. Ecol. 1998, 86, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zhang, J.; Zuo, X.; Zhou, X.; Lv, P.; Lian, J.; Yue, X. Long-Term Grazing Effects on Vegetation Characteristics and Soil Properties in a Semiarid Grassland, Northern China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Bobbink, R.; Durink, H.; Schreurs, J.; Willems, J.; Zielman, R. Effects of selective clipping and mowing time on species diversity in chalk grassland. Folia Geobot. Phytotaxon. 1987, 22, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bobbink, R.; Willems, J.H. Impact of different cutting regimes on the performance of Brachypodium pinnatum in Dutch Chalk Grassland. Biol. Conserv. 1991, 56, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fenner, M.; Palmer, L. Grassland management to promote diversity: Creation of patchy sward by mowing and fertiliser regimes. Field Stud. 1998, 9, 313–324. [Google Scholar]
  64. Valkó, O.; Zmihorski, M.; Biurrun, I.; Loos, J.; Labadessa, R.; Venn, S. Ecology and conservation of steppes and semi-natural grasslands. Hacquetia 2016, 15, 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sierka, E.; Kopczynska, S. Participation of Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth in plant communities of the River Bytomka valley in terms of its biomass use in power industry. Environ. Socio-Econ. Stud. 2014, 2, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Neuhaus, R.A. A Comparison of the Effects of Burning, Haying and Mowing on Plants and Small Mammals in a Tallgrass Prairie Reconstruction. Master’s Thesis, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA, 2015. Available online: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/216 (accessed on 20 March 2024).
  67. Tardella, F.M.; Bricca, A.; Piermarteri, K.; Postiglione, N.; Catorci, A. Context-dependent variation of SLA and plant height of a dominant, invasive tall grass (Brachypodium genuense) in subMediterranean grasslands. Flora 2017, 229, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Oelmann, Y.; Broll, G.; Hölzel, N.; Kleinebecker, T.; Vogel, A.; Schwartze, P. Nutrient impoverishment and limitation of productivity after 20 years of conservation management in wet grasslands of north-western Germany. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2941–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Szépligeti, M.; Kőrösi, Á.; Szentirmai, I.; Házi, J.; Bartha, D.; Bartha, S. Evaluating alternative mowing regimes for conservation management of Central European mesic hay meadows: A field experiment. Plant Biosyst. 2018, 152, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tälle, M.; Deák, B.; Poschlod, P.; Valkó, O.; Westerberg, L.; Milberg, P. Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits for grassland management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 222, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Piseddu, F.; Bellocchi, G.; Picon-Cochard, C. Mowing and warming effects on grassland species richness and harvested biomass: Meta-analyses. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sheil, D.; Burslem, D.F.R.P. Defining and defending Connell’s intermediate disturbance hypothesis: A response to Fox. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 571–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Peltzer, D.A. Plant responses to competition and soil origin across a prairie–forest boundary. J. Ecol. 2001, 89, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kachler, J.; Benra, F.; Bolliger, R.; Isaac, R.; Bonn, A.; Felipe-Lucia, M.R. Felipe: Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity. Landsc. Ecol. 2023, 38, 4451–4465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Simon, T. Magyarország Edényes Flóra Határozója; Harasztok-Virágos Növények. (Vascular Plants of Hungary: Ferns-Flowering Plants); Tankönyvkiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1992; 976p. [Google Scholar]
Grasses 03 00009 g001
Figure 1. The study area location map (a), blue color represents Hungary in Europe (b), blue dot represents the Cserhát Mountains in Hungary.
Figure 1. The study area location map (a), blue color represents Hungary in Europe (b), blue dot represents the Cserhát Mountains in Hungary.
Grasses 03 00009 g001
Grasses 03 00009 g002
Figure 2. Sampling method and different treatment.
Figure 2. Sampling method and different treatment.
Grasses 03 00009 g002
Grasses 03 00009 g003
Figure 3. Change of cover of C. epigejos in the control and mown plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill, during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (grayish boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). Significant differences between mown and control plots in the same year are marked by ** (p < 0.01), *** (p < 0.001). The circles represent outliers.
Figure 3. Change of cover of C. epigejos in the control and mown plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill, during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (grayish boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). Significant differences between mown and control plots in the same year are marked by ** (p < 0.01), *** (p < 0.001). The circles represent outliers.
Grasses 03 00009 g003
Grasses 03 00009 g004
Figure 4. Change in the number of species in the mown and control plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (grayish boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). Significant differences between mown and control plots in the same year are marked by ** (p < 0.01). The circles represent outliers.
Figure 4. Change in the number of species in the mown and control plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (grayish boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). Significant differences between mown and control plots in the same year are marked by ** (p < 0.01). The circles represent outliers.
Grasses 03 00009 g004
Grasses 03 00009 g005
Figure 5. Change in Shannon diversity in the mown and control plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (red boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). The circles represent outliers.
Figure 5. Change in Shannon diversity in the mown and control plots on the west slopes of Bükkös hill during the 2001–2011 period, M = mown plot (red boxes), C = control plot (open boxes). The circles represent outliers.
Grasses 03 00009 g005
Grasses 03 00009 g006
Figure 6. Biomass composition of the mown plots in 2009, (g/m2).
Figure 6. Biomass composition of the mown plots in 2009, (g/m2).
Grasses 03 00009 g006
Grasses 03 00009 g007
Figure 7. Average biomass composition of the mown and control plots (g/m2).
Figure 7. Average biomass composition of the mown and control plots (g/m2).
Grasses 03 00009 g007
Table 1. Change of different parameters in mown and control plots. “Total cover absolute” = cover of all vascular plant species; “Cover of C. epigejos absolute” = the cover of Calamagrostis epigejos; “Cover of C. epigejos relative” = the cover of Calamagrostis epigejos relative to the overall coverage; “the cover of subordinate species absolute and relative” = cover of all species except Calamagrostis epigejos, “Number of species” = number of all vascular plant species. All coverage data are expressed as a percentage. For each variable, the same letter shows if the temporal difference between means is not statistically significant.
Table 1. Change of different parameters in mown and control plots. “Total cover absolute” = cover of all vascular plant species; “Cover of C. epigejos absolute” = the cover of Calamagrostis epigejos; “Cover of C. epigejos relative” = the cover of Calamagrostis epigejos relative to the overall coverage; “the cover of subordinate species absolute and relative” = cover of all species except Calamagrostis epigejos, “Number of species” = number of all vascular plant species. All coverage data are expressed as a percentage. For each variable, the same letter shows if the temporal difference between means is not statistically significant.
MOWN CONTROL
2001 2006 2011 2001 2006 2011
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Total cover absolute95.54a102.18a111.91b108.09a108.03a111.71
Cover of C. epigejos absolute62.38a20.00b07.50c69.38a62.50a56.88
Cover of C. epigejos relative00.65a00.19a00.06b00.64a00.58a00.51
Cover of subordinated species absolute33.16a82.18b104.41c38.71a45.53b54.84
Cover of subordinated species relative00.35a00.81b0.94a00.36a00.42a00.49
Number of species16.50a25.00b34.63c15.25a17.75b25.00
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Házi, J.; Purger, D.; Penksza, K.; Bartha, S. Changes in Species Composition, Diversity, and Biomass of Secondary Dry Grasslands Following Long-Term Mowing: A Case Study in Hungary. Grasses 2024, 3, 130-142. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses3030009

AMA Style

Házi J, Purger D, Penksza K, Bartha S. Changes in Species Composition, Diversity, and Biomass of Secondary Dry Grasslands Following Long-Term Mowing: A Case Study in Hungary. Grasses. 2024; 3(3):130-142. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses3030009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Házi, Judit, Dragica Purger, Károly Penksza, and Sándor Bartha. 2024. "Changes in Species Composition, Diversity, and Biomass of Secondary Dry Grasslands Following Long-Term Mowing: A Case Study in Hungary" Grasses 3, no. 3: 130-142. https://doi.org/10.3390/grasses3030009

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop