hay meadow restoration (conserve and sustain 280612)

Hay meadow restoration

Don GambleHay Time Project Manager

don.gamble@ydmt.org

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