TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of sod-cutting and choppering on nutrient budgets of dry heathlands

AU - Niemeyer, Marion

AU - Niemeyer, Thomas

AU - Fottner, Silke

AU - Haerdtle, Werner

AU - Mohamed, Abdelmenam

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Heathlands are endangered by both atmospheric nutrient deposition and natural succession. High-intensity management measures are considered necessary, as low-intensity measures (e.g. mowing, prescribed burning) are not able to compensate for atmospheric nutrient loads. Choppering (i.e. the near-complete removal of the O-layer) has several advantages over sod-cutting, including less waste material, faster vegetation recovery and lower costs. This raises the question addressed in this study as to the extent to which choppering and sod-cutting affect nutrient budgets in dry heathlands. We compared the quantities of N, Ca, K, Mg, and P removed by choppering and sod-cutting in the Lueneburg Heath (NW Germany). Nutrient balances were calculated by analysing atmospheric inputs, elevated leaching rates following management, and output due to the removal of above-ground biomass and humus horizons. Nutrient loss was particularly high after removal of O- and A-horizons. In contrast, increased leaching after management was of minor importance for nutrient budgets. Although considerably more nutrients were removed by sod-cutting than by choppering (e.g. N: 1712/1008 kg ha -1), nutrient output by choppering was still sufficient to compensate for 60.7 years of net N-input. Choppering was able to remove more N per volume unit than sod-cutting due to higher N-contents in the organic layer than in the A-horizon. For this reason, choppering is more economical than sod-cutting and, thus, should be considered the preferable method at sites not dominated by Molinia caerulea. A combination of high-intensity measures with prescribed burning would appear to be suitable as this would ensure more selective removal of N.

AB - Heathlands are endangered by both atmospheric nutrient deposition and natural succession. High-intensity management measures are considered necessary, as low-intensity measures (e.g. mowing, prescribed burning) are not able to compensate for atmospheric nutrient loads. Choppering (i.e. the near-complete removal of the O-layer) has several advantages over sod-cutting, including less waste material, faster vegetation recovery and lower costs. This raises the question addressed in this study as to the extent to which choppering and sod-cutting affect nutrient budgets in dry heathlands. We compared the quantities of N, Ca, K, Mg, and P removed by choppering and sod-cutting in the Lueneburg Heath (NW Germany). Nutrient balances were calculated by analysing atmospheric inputs, elevated leaching rates following management, and output due to the removal of above-ground biomass and humus horizons. Nutrient loss was particularly high after removal of O- and A-horizons. In contrast, increased leaching after management was of minor importance for nutrient budgets. Although considerably more nutrients were removed by sod-cutting than by choppering (e.g. N: 1712/1008 kg ha -1), nutrient output by choppering was still sufficient to compensate for 60.7 years of net N-input. Choppering was able to remove more N per volume unit than sod-cutting due to higher N-contents in the organic layer than in the A-horizon. For this reason, choppering is more economical than sod-cutting and, thus, should be considered the preferable method at sites not dominated by Molinia caerulea. A combination of high-intensity measures with prescribed burning would appear to be suitable as this would ensure more selective removal of N.

KW - Biology

KW - Atmospheric nutrient deposition

KW - Calluna vulgaris

KW - Deschampsia flexuosa

KW - Leaching

KW - Nitrogen

KW - Nutrient removal

KW - Atmospheric nutrient deposition

KW - Calluna vulgaris

KW - Deschampsia flexuosa

KW - Leaching

KW - Nitrogen

KW - Nutrient removal

KW - Ecosystems Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547124948&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.013

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.013

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 134

SP - 344

EP - 353

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

IS - 3

ER -