| Literature DB >> 35462761 |
Rea Maria Hall1, Bernhard Urban1, Hans-Peter Kaul1.
Abstract
The late goldenrod (Soldiago gigantea Aiton; Asteraceae) is one of the most abundant invasive species in various types of habitats. Its long-creeping plagiotropic rhizomes enable the plant to build up dense, monospecific stands within a short time. Particularly in nature conservation areas, the invasion of goldenrod can cause severe disruptions in the naturally occuring mutualims between plants, insects and higher trophic levels, subsequently impeding the achievement of nature conservation goals. As management options of goldenrod in nature conservation areas are limited, this three-year study aimed to test the effectiveness of three management treatments (two-time mowing, triticale cultivation, and reverse rotary cutting) on four different sites in the Austrian Donau-Auen National Park. The number and height of goldenrod shoots were recorded three times a year on twelve permanent trial plots on each site to test for the effectiveness of the treatments. In addition, vegetation surveys were performed to observe the recovery potential of native plant species. Even though the three-years mowing and the triticale cultivation reduced goldenrod by 95.6% and 97.2% resp., we could find no relation between the effectiveness of the treatment and the intensity of disturbance created by the control option. On the contrary, with a reduction of only 5.4% in goldenrod density the most intensive treatment, the rotary cutting, showed the lowest efficiency. The highest positive effect on the re-establishment of native plant species was recorded with two mowing events per year. Even though the study revealed that certain management options have the potential to effectively reduce goldenrod and to simultaneously increase the establishment success of native species, results can only be seen as so-called snapshots. For example, as shown on site EJW one unforeseeable wild boar digging event transformed a 84.5% reduction into a 4.7% increase in goldenrod density. Therefore, a proper and regular monitoring is essential to be able to react to the effects of unpredictable events that can have severe impact on vegetation dynamics. ©2022 Hall et al.Entities:
Keywords: Biodiversity loss due to invasion; Invasion in national parks; Land use change; Late goldenrod; Management intensitiy; Mowing regimes; Rotary tillage
Year: 2022 PMID: 35462761 PMCID: PMC9029358 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.13161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 3.061
Zoning of the Donau-Auen National Park.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| Nature reserve zone | No landuse and no measures which would have impact on environment, landscape or ecological inventory |
| Temporary measures are only allowed if they support the natural development | |
| Nature reserve zone with management actions | In general, there are no measures taken, except they support the achievement of nature conservation aims ( |
| Outer zones | All water ways and canals, touristic areas as well as cultivated areas (field) and buildings like administrative offices or flood protections dams |
Figure 1Map of the three trial sites in Donau-Auen National Park.
Overview of trial sites, management regimes, and treatment dates 2016–2018.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heustadlwiese (HW) | 48°08′20, 4″N 16°40′53, 3″E | 2,4 | 1st mowing | June, 2 | May, 31 | May, 22 |
| 2nd mowing | September, 6 | August, 31 | August, 27 | |||
| Erzherzog Johann Wiese (EJW) | 48°08′13, 9″N 16°47′05, 8″E | 1,5 | 1st mowing | May, 31 | May, 30 | May, 22 |
| 2nd mowing | September, 1 | August, 30 | August, 24 | |||
| Gegenwörth-West (GW) | 48°08′05, 3″N 16°44′54, 9″E | 5,4 | 1st Tritcale sowing | November, 9 | ||
| 1st Tritcale harvest | July, 10 | |||||
| 2nd Triticale sowing | October, 10 | |||||
| 2nd Triticale harvest | July, 4 | |||||
| Gegenwörth-Ost (GO) | 48°08′06, 3″N 16°45′13, 1″E | 2,5 | Reverse Rotary Cutting | November, 11 |
Monthly Average temperature (C°) and precipitation sum (mm) in the course of the vegetation period (March–October) in the trial years 2016–2018.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Month | Month | Month | |||||||||
| March | 6.4 | 19.4 | 10 | March | 7.4 | 22.7 | 6 | March | 2.4 | 29.4 | 10 |
| April | 11.0 | 67.8 | 13 | April | 10.5 | 47.6 | 12 | April | 14.7 | 10.9 | 4 |
| May | 14.7 | 95.5 | 12 | May | 14.5 | 32.9 | 14 | May | 17.7 | 64.5 | 6 |
| June | 19.7 | 73.1 | 17 | June | 20.7 | 31.1 | 7 | June | 21.2 | 93.5 | 10 |
| July | 21.7 | 101.5 | 14 | July | 21.7 | 53.5 | 16 | July | 21.5 | 71.7 | 11 |
| August | 20.9 | 42.6 | 7 | August | 22.4 | 20.5 | 7 | August | 24.1 | 22.8 | 8 |
| September | 18.5 | 28.2 | 4 | September | 16.5 | 71.9 | 11 | September | 19.0 | 78.8 | 8 |
| October | 11.3 | 49.8 | 15 | October | 12.5 | 36.6 | 11 | October | 14.3 | 4.2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 2Development of the goldenrod density (2016–2018).
Number of goldenrod shoots in dependency of the factor treatment on (A) HW South, (B) HW North, (C) EJW, (D) GW, (E) GO; n = 12; different letters indicate significant differences; boxes extend from the 25th to the 75th percentile of each groups distribution of values; vertical extending lines denote adjacent values within 1.5 interquartile range of the 25th and 75th percentile of each group; crosses denote observations outside the range of adjacent values.
Average coverage percentage of the most abundant species on HW, devided into Southern part (dry grassland conditions) and northern part (nutrient-rich humid conditions), recorded on 1 × 1 m plots according to Braun-Blanquet, n = 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Southern part (dry grassland conditions) | |||
|
| 62.1 ± 24.6 |
| 66.6 ± 18.2 |
|
| 53.3 ± 36.5 |
| 52.9 ± 30.3 |
|
| 50.9 ± 31.4 |
| 53.6 ± 24.9 |
|
| 25.1 ± 30.6 |
| 32.0 ± 23.4 |
|
| 21.2 ± 23.4 |
| 27.6 ± 21.5 |
| Norther part (nutrient-rich humid conditions) | |||
|
| 89.9 ± 13.5 |
| 66.9 ± 12.7 |
|
| 25.7 ± 22.1 |
| 41.7 ± 16.1 |
|
| 21.8 ± 22.1 |
| 38.4 ± 18.0 |
|
| 11.8 ± 17.3 |
| 26.7 ± 15.4 |
|
| 10.7 ± 11.2 |
| 20.2 ± 10.6 |
Average coverage percentage of the most abundant species on EJW, recorded on 1 × 1 m plots according to Braun-Blanquet, n = 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 63.4 ± 24.4 |
| 59.5 ± 13.4 |
|
| 58.6 ± 26.7 |
| 50.5 ± 17.2 |
|
| 55.3 ± 24.4 |
| 48.6 ± 18.7 |
|
| 37.4 ± 30.5 |
| 43.1 ± 41.3 |
|
| 33.5 ± 42.5 |
| 31.3 ± 24.2 |
Figure 3Distribution of goldenrod on site EJW in relation to fence distance.
Average coverage percentage of the most abundant species on GW, recorded on 1 × 1 m plots according to Braun-Blanquet, n = 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 85.8 ± 10.5 |
| 85.3 ± 18.4 |
|
| 68.2 ± 26.8 |
| 22.0 ± 16.7 |
|
| 45.2 ± 21.7 |
| 12.6 ± 12.1 |
|
| 39.9 ± 16.9 |
| 9.9 ± 13.0 |
|
| 37.1 ± 18.0 |
| 4.2 ± 8.1 |
Average coverage of the most abundant species on GO, recorded on 1 × 1 m plots according to Braun-Blanquet, n = 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 94.6 ± 8.4 |
| 87.1 ± 13.7 |
|
| 46.3 ± 34.3 |
| 58.4 ± 22.7 |
|
| 23.5 ± 26.2 |
| 41.1 ± 35.3 |
|
| 9.2 ± 12.5 |
| 9.3 ± 15.3 |
|
| 8.5 ± 12.9 |
| 6.8 ± 7.9 |