Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Growing Media Blends with Woody Green Composts: Optimizing the N Release with Organic Fertilizers and Interaction with Microbial Biomass
Next Article in Special Issue
A Sampling Strategy to Develop a Primary Core Collection of Miscanthus spp. in China Based on Phenotypic Traits
Previous Article in Journal
Primary Mechanical Modification to Improve Performance of Miscanthus as Stand-Alone Growing Substrates
Previous Article in Special Issue
Farmers’ Perceptions, Insight Behavior and Communication Strategies for Rice Straw and Stubble Management in Thailand
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Wood-Ash Fertiliser and Distance from Drainage Ditch Affect the Succession and Biodiversity of Vascular Plant Species in Tree Plantings on Marginal Organic Soil

1
Latvian State Forest Research Institute SILAVA, Riga St. 111, LV-2169 Salaspils, Latvia
2
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
3
Biobased Resources in the Bioeconomy (340b), Institute of Crop Science, University of Hohenheim, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(2), 421; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020421
Submission received: 20 December 2021 / Revised: 3 February 2022 / Accepted: 5 February 2022 / Published: 8 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social-Ecologically More Sustainable Agricultural Production)

Abstract

:
Cutaway peatland is a marginal land, which without further management is an unfavourable environment for plant growth due to low bearing capacity, high acidity and unbalanced nutrient composition of the soil. After wood-ash application, the soil becomes enriched with P and K, creating better conditions for tree growth. In addition to being economically viable, tree plantations ensure long-term carbon storage and promote habitat restoration. In a three-year term, we studied how distance from a drainage ditch and three different doses of wood-ash—5, 10, and 15 tons per hectare—affect the diversity of vascular plants in a tree plantation on a cutaway peatland. Plant species richness, vegetation cover and composition were positively affected by the distance from the drainage ditch and application with fertiliser, but in most cases, fertiliser dose had no significant effect. Both cover and species diversity were not affected by the planted tree species. In a tree plantation, herbaceous plants provide soil fertility by decay and recycling, and reduce mineral leaching in the long term. Since vascular plants play an important role in both the development of habitats and tree growth, it is important to know how multiple factors influence the development of vegetation in tree plantations.

1. Introduction

It is estimated that peatlands occupy 2.84 percent [1] of the land area globally. These areas provide long-term carbon storage because the existing environmental conditions prevent plant material from decaying, causing accumulation in the ecosystem of a large amount of vegetation debris relative to the proportion of primary production [2]. During peat extraction, biomass accumulated as peat is removed from storage and used for either horticulture or energy production purposes [3]. In recent years, peat has been extracted in Latvia only for horticulture purposes [4]. After peat extraction, the previous mire ecosystem is completely changed and, without further management, the potential for habitat recovery is very low [5]. Without vegetation in cutaway peatland, no further carbon accumulation occurs, while oxidation reactions occur in the peat [6]. In Latvia there are 18,000 ha of abandoned milled peatlands, and the licenses for extraction of peat in peatland requires that the area must be restored or reclaimed after cessation of extraction [7]. Marginal land management also helps to mitigate greenhouse gases and later it is possible to gain financial income from land with low agricultural value [8]. Suitable uses of cutaway peatland include afforestation, rewetting, and use for the cultivation of crops or fodder plants [9]. In areas where ecological restoration is not possible because the water table cannot be raised, tree stands after soil improvement can be grown [10,11,12]. This process can be carried out in two ways: either by establishing a financially valuable tree plantation that has already shown a significant increase in growth and survival after wood-ash application, or by letting the area to restore naturally after soil improvement [13,14].
Although peat has large nitrogen reserves, which are beneficial for biomass production, vegetation naturally develops in cutaway peatland very slowly due to the following factors: fluctuating water level, lack of a viable seed bank in the ecosystem and unfavourable soil chemical properties, such as low pH values, and low levels of phosphorus and potassium, which adversely affect the fertility of the soil [6,15]. Drainage ditch systems in peatlands lower the water table, but the water table is not even in all drained areas, depending on the distance to the drainage ditch [16,17]. In mechanically managed peat fields, vegetation is usually sparse, but the natural occurrence of vascular species can be supported by the application of phosphorus fertilisers or wood-ash fertilisers that increase phosphorus and potassium uptake by plants [13,18]. The application of wood-ash fertiliser in cutaway peatland firstly increases biological activity, thereby increasing CO2 emissions, but with a successful recovery of vegetation, a significant amount of carbon is accumulated in plants, thereby compensating for the emissions [19,20].
Many studies have shown that herbaceous plants are a key part of conservation of species diversity and maintaining the forest ecosystem [21,22,23]. In forest stands, understorey vegetation, together with tree litter, is the most important source of nutrients, which is particularly important during early ecosystem succession when there is a lack of nutrients in the soil and risk of soil erosion [24,25]. Herbaceous plants also play a key role in preventing nutrient leaching in tree stands after fertilisation [26]. In addition, perennial herbaceous plants have the highest mineral storage capacity in the spring period, which coincides with the time when mineral leaching from the soil is the highest [27]. It is important to add that plant composition mainly depends on soil properties, but forest soil properties are determined by the dominant tree species [28]. Understorey plant species’ richness and biomass productivity are also influenced by overstorey tree species [29]. In comparison to deciduous tree stands, the litter in the coniferous forests has lower pH and the top layer of soil has limited plant-available nutrient content, but the pH of deeper layers of the soil does not differ significantly between stands [30].
In the case of secondary succession, vegetation plays an important role, both at the very beginning of succession, to store nutrients and reduce their leaching, and in the further stages, as one of the main sources of nutrients. In the case of cutaway peatland, it is important to clarify how combinations of factors such as the dose of wood-ash fertiliser and the distance from a drainage ditch, change the composition of natural plant communities, as this information is needed to determine the best management in terms of financial income and afforestation quality. This study addresses the following research questions: (1) Does application of wood-ash fertiliser in cutaway peatland affect the abundance and richness of naturally colonising vascular plant species and does increasing the amount of the dose of fertiliser increase plant diversity? (2) Does the distance from a drainage ditch affect the number and composition of species? (3) Does the planted tree species affect the composition of ground vegetation within the same wood-ash fertiliser group? Based on previous studies, it was assumed that increasing the amount of wood-ash fertiliser applied per hectare would increase the richness of vascular plants. As the drainage ditch is associated with higher soil moisture, which is one of the limiting factors in cutaway peatland, we hypothesised that the highest plant species number and abundance will be closer to the ditch. It is known that, in forests, the chemical composition of tree litter affects the chemical properties of soil, and thus the composition of understorey plant communities should be related to tree species.

2. Materials and Methods

Study Site and Design

The study site is located in central Latvia (N 56°43′41.35′′ E 23°34′39.61′′) in a cutaway peatland where active peat extraction is still ongoing in other parts of the area. Peat extraction was for horticulture. The residual peat layer consisted of acidic raised bog, fen, and transitional mire peat with variable depth of at least 50 cm. The upper part of the peat was acidic, moderately decomposed, raised bog peat [14].
The research field was established within the “Sustainable and responsible management and re-use of degraded peatlands in Latvia” (LIFE14 CCM/LV/001103) project [31]. At the beginning of the vegetation season in 2016, the study site was prepared for tree planting by sequentially performing milling, cleaning of drainage ditches, and wood-ash application [31]. Milling was performed to remove all vegetation, which mainly consisted of sparse Phragmites australis. The forest stand adjacent to one side of the study site and large remnants of wood exposed after the removal of the upper peat layer suggest that the study site had been a forest ecosystem at some time. The applied wood-ash was unprocessed and had a small particle size. To prevent the effect of wind on the spread of ash, water was added before application. The wood-ash consisted of K 24.7, Mg 18.2, Ca 120.4 and P 6.6 g·kg−1 [14]. The study site was fertilised in sectors with three different doses (5, 10, and 15 tons per hectare), and one control sector left without fertilisation (control). After the application, soil pH value changed from 3.5 in the control group to 5.9 in sectors with 15 tons per hectare [14]. All sectors were established in three replicates with size of 236 × 20 m. Drainage ditches separated each sector along the two longest sides. Peat extraction for horticulture in this site was carried out by vacuum harvesting, which requires an extensive network of shallow drainage ditches. After cleaning, the ditch dimensions were 50 cm wide and 100 cm deep; Figure 1. The total study site area was 8 ha. Each sector was divided into five parts with size of 900 m2, where in four randomly selected parts, four economically significant tree species (Pinus sylvestris, Alnus glutinosa, Poplar clone Vesten (Biopoplar s.r.l., Cavallermaggiore, Italy) (Populus v. Vesten), and Betula pendula) were planted. In one part, no trees were planted, but natural reforestation from 2016 was observed. In each part, 95 trees were planted (equal to 1055 trees per hectare). In each part, three 2.5 × 3.5 m sampling plots were established—0.5 to 4 m, 4 to 7.5 m and 7.5 to 11 m from the drainage ditch. The total number of sampling plots was 180; Figure 2.
The vegetation was surveyed three times over a period of three years, identifying all species in the sampling plots once annually in the middle of the growing season. No vegetation management was implemented before and after the vegetation survey. The understorey species canopy cover (%) was recorded to the nearest 5% once during the vegetation season in July. We used Ellenberg’s indicator values [32] for the Czech Republic to determine plant functional traits such as light, temperature, moisture, reaction, nutrients, and salinity [33]. Experimental studies have found that Ellenberg’s indicator values for nutrients (N), moisture (M), and soil reaction (R) are well correlated with real field data, including for areas outside the Central Europe region [34], and therefore could be applied in this study. The LEDA Traitbase: A database of life-history traits of Northwest European flora was used to determine plant functional traits [35] for each species. Cover-weighted average Ellenberg’s indicator values F m were calculated by summing each species i indicator value F i and weight W i , calculated for species based on its percentage cover C i :   W i = f ( C i ) , for all species n in each sampling plot:
F m = i = 1 , n F i W i / i = 1 , n W i  
The species were divided into groups based on plant life form [36]: hemicryptophyte, therophyte, phanerophyte, geophyte; and Universal Adaptive Strategy Theory (UAST) [37]: competitor, stress-tolerant, and ruderal. The mean percentage cover for plant life forms and USAT classes was calculated for each sampling plot.
The computer package R Statistics 4.0.5 for Windows was used for two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Tukey HSD analyses [38,39]. The independent two-sample Student’s t-test was used to determine significant differences in plant functional traits between years. The effects of fertiliser dose, distance from the drainage ditch, and planted tree species on species richness were tested using ANOVA. Before preforming ANOVA, the Shapiro–Wilk test showed that the data did not differ significantly from a normal distribution. The Tukey HSD test was used to determine significant differences in variables between treatments. Each variable of plant functional trait data (plant growth form, ecological strategies) was analysed individually using ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test and visualised with PCA.
PCA was used to determine plant functional parameters that were significantly affected by fertiliser or ditch effect. All sampling plots, including the control group, were included in PCA analyses. Before analyses, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test for sampling adequacy was used to determine if the data fit the assumptions of PCA. The KMO test output was 0.6. The analyses were performed using the rda function from the vegan package [40]. The decostand function with the Hellinger method was used to standardise the data, as the data were not linear. The scaling method was used to observe differences between plots. The cumulative value of the eigenvalues for the first two axes was 63 percent. The ordiellipse function was used to visualise groups of plots by drawing polygons from standard error of the (weighted) average of scores.

3. Results

Over the three-year period, 84 herbaceous and woody plant species were observed in the study area (see Table A1). The overall trend shows that in most sectors, number of species (richness) continued to increase over the three-year period; Figure 3. In all three years of the study, both the distance from the ditch (2nd year p = 0.001; 3rd year p = 0.001; 4th year p = 0.001) and the fertiliser dose (2nd year p = 0.001; 3rd year p = 0.001; 4th year p = 0.001) had significant effects, but the planted tree species did not significantly affect species richness. The only exception was in the second year after the application of wood-ash, a higher number of species occurred in plots where Alnus glutinosa was planted compared to plots with Betula pendula (p = 0.02). During all three years, species richness was higher in the fertilised plots compared with the control group (2nd year p = 0.001, 3rd year p = 0.001, 4th p = 0.001), while it did not differ between fertiliser doses. In the third and fourth year of the study, species richness was significantly higher in the plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch than that at 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 m (0.5–4 and 7.5–11 m from the ditch 2nd p = 0.001, 3rd p = 0.001, 4th p = 0.001; 0.5–4 and 4–7.5 m from the ditch 2nd p = 0.001, 3rd p = 0.003, 4th p = 0.001), but no significant difference was observed between the sampling plots 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 m from the ditch.
The total vegetation cover continued to increase over the three-year period and, similar to the number of species, developed more quickly in fertilised groups, regardless of wood-ash fertiliser dose Figure 4. In the fourth year after fertilisation, vegetation cover was significantly higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch compared to 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 m from the ditch (p = 0.001)—Figure 4c.
Moreover, the structure of vegetation according to plant functional trait classes changed over the three-year ecological succession and was affected both by fertilisation and distance from the drainage ditch but was not affected by tree species; Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, Figure A4, Figure A5, Figure A6, Figure A7, Figure A8, Figure A9, Figure A10 and Figure A11. During the three-year period, the cover of ruderal species in the plant community decreased, and the cover of competitor species and species with no specific plant adaptive strategy (CSR) increased; Table 1 and Table 2. Higher cover of plants with the CSR strategy in the second year was found 0.5–4 m from the ditch, but during the three-year study, these strategies’ plant cover significantly increased in plots 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 m from the ditch; Table 2. There was a tendency for geophyte cover to be lower under the highest fertiliser dose, independent of location; Figure A1. Although no significant changes occurred, the mean hemicryptophyte cover was higher in the plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch.
Between the second and fourth research years, community weighted mean Ellenberg’s moisture values increased in all study areas, but significantly only in highest fertiliser doses. In the second year, the moisture value was higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch, but in the fourth year of research, it increased significantly in plots 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 from the ditch and was similar in all locations. The community weighted mean nitrogen indicator value was lower in the control group in the second year, but in the fourth year of the research it increased significantly in both control and fertilised groups, except for 5 t/ha. Nitrogen value was higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch in the second year, but significantly increased in plots 4–7.5 and 7.5–11 m from the ditch, and did not differ between locations in the fourth year of research. Overall, the relative cover of therophytes and plants with ruderal strategy decreased over time, whereas phanerophyte and hemicryptophyte cover and community weighed mean Ellenberg’s indicator moisture and nitrogen value increased.
In the control group, the changes in plant functional properties over time were less evident than in the fertilised plots. In general, vegetation in the control plots clearly differed from all fertilised plots; Figure 5a and Figure A12. Although here were some differences in plant functional traits between years and less frequently between fertiliser doses, the overall trend in the development of vegetation was similar in all fertilised plots. Greater relative cover of geophytes, plant species with high Ellenberg’s moisture indicator value, and relative cover of plants with a competitor strategy were found in the control plots. Distance from the drainage ditch was not as important in the formation of vegetation structure as the effect of fertiliser; Figure 5b.

4. Discussion

It was found that both the wood-ash treatment and distance from the drainage ditch had a significant effect on plant species richness. In all years, there were significant differences in species richness between non-treated sampling plots and treated sampling plots, which shows that wood-ash fertiliser had a significant positive effect on recolonising species richness, even when used at a low dose. During the three-year period, species richness was higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch, which is most likely due the higher soil moisture closer to the ditch, as water accessibility is one of the limiting factors for natural revegetation in cutaway peatland [6]. In meliorated peat soils in wet conditions, the soil moisture increases with distance to the ditch, but decreases in drier conditions [41]. As this area had been afforested, the hydrology of study area represented drier conditions. An abundant network of shallow drainage ditches, which were made during peat vacuum harvesting, may have a beneficial effect on revegetation in a tree stand because the water table depth is not as variable as in sites with a sparse ditch network. The effect of the dose of wood-ash fertiliser was greater than the effect of the distance from the ditch, as the effect of the latter was not very noticeable when fertilisation was applied. Natural revegetation can mitigate the negative effect of the melioration system, since plant root systems can decrease hydraulic conductivity and increase soil moisture [42,43]. The number of observed species also increased during the three-year period, which indicates that the vegetation structure is still changing from one ecosystem, a cutaway peatland, to a planted forest. To obtain a full picture of the revegetation under the influence of fertilisation and the distance from the ditch, it is necessary to observe vegetation over an even longer period, but with a wider interval of time between the surveys, since the changes will not be so noticeable within one growing season, but rather between several seasons.
Similar to the results for species richness, there were also major successional changes of plant functional traits in the treated plots, which were less evident in non-treated plots. Again, this confirms that wood-ash treatment accelerates the succession process in the cutaway peatland [18]. During all study times, phanerophyte cover was higher in the control plots, compared to the treated plots. In fertilised plots with higher dose (10 and 15 t/ha), plants with the CSR strategy, which are usually late successional species, had higher cover during all three years. In the control group and 5 t/ha, vegetation cover was sparser; therefore, in these plots, plants are exposed to a number of factors that may adversely affect revegetation—the erosion of the soil top layer, increased risk of the soil moisture level fluctuation, especially the top layers, and minerals leaching [6,26,44]. Wood-ash acts as a liming agent in acidic soils, therefore enhancing nutrient availability to plants. Wood-ash fertiliser may contribute understorey vegetation growth, which is more demanding for nutrients than phanerophytes and, after the first years, competes less with planted trees than naturally regrowing phanerophytes; Figure 6. In the control group, where vegetation was also sparse during the fourth season, geophytes such as Phragmites australis, Tussilago farfara, and Taraxacum officinale were more abundant than under higher fertiliser doses; Figure A1. These species indicate that, after four years, unfertilised cutaway peatland does not have optimal growth conditions because geophytes form underground organs for storage of water or nutrient reserves, thereby maintaining the availability of these stores under adverse environmental conditions [45]. This tendency was mostly significant in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch because a large number of geophytes found in the study area grow not only under poor nutrient growing conditions, but also on sites where water is not a limiting factor, as in plots closer to a ditch [46,47].
The community weighted mean Ellenberg’s indicator values showed significant differences between treated groups and the control group in moisture and nitrogen values, which both have a major role in natural vegetation formation in cutaway peatlands [6]. A higher Ellenberg’s moisture value was observed in the non-fertilised plots in the second and third study year, but in the last study year it was higher in plots fertilised with 10 and 15 t/ha. In the first years in control plots, there tended to be a few ruderal species with a high Ellenberg’s indicator value, such as Phragmites australis and Tussilago farfara, explaining the high moisture value in these plots. In fertilised plots with higher species richness, these values may be more reliable. As discussed before, vegetation cover development can raise soil moisture by decreasing water infiltration and soil conductivity. In fertilised plots, during the three-year period, species richness, total vegetation cover, and Ellenberg’s moisture value increased. In the second year, the nitrogen indicator value was higher in fertilised plots, but in the fourth year it significantly increased both in fertilised and control groups. The distance from the drainage ditch has a greater influence on Ellenberg’s nitrogen value than fertiliser. An experimental study showed that the Ellenberg’s nitrogen value had a fairly poor correlation with soil N content, but represented overall productivity [48]. In the study area, vegetation cover and species richness were higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch; Figure 4. It is possible that the Ellenberg’s nitrogen values did not represent the amount of nitrogen in the soil, but the total productivity, which was higher in plots 0.5–4 m from the ditch.
Wood-ash fertiliser and distance from the drainage ditch have a more significant impact on the species richness and vegetation cover, but ecological successions have a stronger impact on species composition. In all the treated groups, during the first vegetation survey season, the dominated functional traits were typical of the early stages of primary successions—a large number of therophytes (annual plant species), in addition to plants with ruderal and stress-tolerant strategies. Such vegetation structure is usually combined with barren vegetation, which explains the lower CSR plant cover. During the four-year succession, in many parts, a large number of the therophytes were replaced by hemicryptophytes. As the vegetation structure stabilised, more plants that have no special strategy (CSR), thus indicating a later stage of habitat succession, were more common. During the time between the 2nd and 4th years after application of wood-ash, in fertilised plots the Ellenberg’s moisture value increased due to the increase in the vegetation cover.

5. Conclusions

This study showed that both wood-ash fertiliser and distance from the drainage ditch, in addition to time after treatment application, have an impact on plant species richness, cover, and vegetation composition. Wood-ash fertiliser positively affects vascular plant species richness, but during the first growing years, there are no significant differences between treatment doses. Species richness is higher closer to the drainage ditch, most likely due to a higher water level, which is one of the limiting factors in a cutaway peatland. Consequently, it can be concluded that appropriate management of cutaway peatland provides the area with the nutrients it needs, thereby allowing colonisation of vegetation. In the first growing seasons, planted tree species have no significant effect on vegetation composition, richness, and distribution. Planted and naturally regrown trees on marginal land contribute to the overall development of the habitat by increasing the biodiversity due to interaction with other species. This restoration practice also increases the financial value of otherwise agronomically low-value land. Vascular plant diversity and cover is essential as it reduces nutrient leaching, thus improving growth conditions for planted trees. Along with the herbaceous species, tree species such as Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, and Salix spp. also naturally regrow in the area therefore the area has the potential to become a silvopastoral agroforestry system or naturally reforested site. Further research is needed to determine how different doses of fertiliser affect the development of vegetation over time and when planted tree species begin to affect the plant communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, D.L., S.N., A.Z.; methodology, D.L., S.N. and A.Z.; software, A.Z.; validation, D.L.; formal analysis, A.Z.; investigation, S.C., S.N., A.Z.; data curation, A.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, A.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.C., S.N., D.L., M.v.C.; visualisation, A.Z.; supervision, D.L., M.v.C.; project coordination, D.L.; funding acquisition, D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 727698, the project "Sustainable and responsible management and re-use of degraded peatlands in Latvia” (LIFE14 CCM/LV/001103) and the European Regional Development Fund project Elaboration of innovative White Willow - perennial grass agroforestry systems on marginal mineral soils improved by wood ash and less demanded peat fractions amendments (1.1.1.1/19/A/112). The article processing charge was funded by the European Regional Development Fund project Elaboration of innovative White Willow - perennial grass agroforestry systems on marginal mineral soils improved by wood ash and less demanded peat fractions amendments (1.1.1.1/19/A/112).

Data Availability Statement

Data generated from this study is available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank “Laflora” Ltd. for the chance to study the possibilities of improving the properties of peat soil with wood-ash.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Relative cover of plants with geophyte growth form of the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A1. Relative cover of plants with geophyte growth form of the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a1
Figure A2. Relative cover of plants with hemicryptophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A2. Relative cover of plants with hemicryptophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a2
Figure A3. Relative cover of plants with therophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A3. Relative cover of plants with therophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a3
Figure A4. Percentage of plants with phanerophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d, e) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A4. Percentage of plants with phanerophyte growth form from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d, e) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a4
Figure A5. Relative cover of plants with competitor/ruderal universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A5. Relative cover of plants with competitor/ruderal universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a5
Figure A6. Relative cover of plants with competitor/stress tolerant universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A6. Relative cover of plants with competitor/stress tolerant universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a6
Figure A7. Relative cover of plants with competitor/stress tolerant/ruderal (no-specific strategy) universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A7. Relative cover of plants with competitor/stress tolerant/ruderal (no-specific strategy) universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a7
Figure A8. Relative of plants with competitor universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A8. Relative of plants with competitor universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a8
Figure A9. Relative of plants with ruderal universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A9. Relative of plants with ruderal universal adaptive strategy from the total vegetation cover, depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a9
Figure A10. Community weighted mean Ellenberg’s indicator Moisture value depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A10. Community weighted mean Ellenberg’s indicator Moisture value depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a10
Figure A11. Community weighted mean Ellenberg’s indicator Nitrogen value depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Figure A11. Community weighted mean Ellenberg’s indicator Nitrogen value depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and the dose of wood-ash fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a11
Figure A12. Scree plot from PCA analyses.
Figure A12. Scree plot from PCA analyses.
Agronomy 12 00421 g0a12
Table A1. Observed species in study area during the three-year study.
Table A1. Observed species in study area during the three-year study.
No.Species201920182017No.Species201920182017
1.Agrostis capillarisxxx43.Luzula pilosa x
2.Arabidopsis thaliana xx44.Lycopus europaeusxxx
3.Arctium lappa xx45.Matricaria perforata xx
4.Arctium tomentosum x 46.Mycelis muralis x
5.Barbara strictax 47.Persicaria maculosax
6.Betula pendulaxxx48.Petasites hybridusx
7.Betula pubescensxxx49.Phragmites australisxxx
8.Bidens tripartitaxxx50.Picea abiesxxx
9.Brassica campestris xx51.Picris hieracioidesxxx
10.Calamagrostis canescensxxx52.Pinus sylvestrisxxx
11.Calluna vulgaris xx53.Plantago lanceolata x
12.Carex cespitosaxxx54.Plantago major xx
13.Carex hirtax 55.Poa palustrisxxx
14.carex pseudocyperusx 56.Polygonum sp. x
15.Carex vesicariax 57.Polytrihum sp. xx
16.Cerastium holosteoidesx x58.Populus tremulaxxx
17.Chamerion angustifoliumxxx59.Rubus idaeusxxx
18.Chenopodium albumx x60.Rumex acetosaxx
19.Cirsium arvensexxx61.Rumex acetosellaxxx
20.Cirsium aucalex 62.Rumex longifoliusx
21.Cirsium oleraceumx x63.sagina nodosa x
22.Cirsium palustre x64.Salix albax
23.Crepis biennis xx65.Salix capreaxxx
24.Echinochloa crusgalli xx66.Salix myrsinifoliax
25.Eirophorum polystachionx 67.Salix rosmarinifoliax
26.Epilobium parviflorumxxx68.Salix sp. xx
27.Equisetum arvense x69.Salix starkeanax
28.Equisetum fluviatilex 70.Salix triandrax
29.Equisetum sylvaticum x 71.Salix viminalisx
30.Erigon canadesisxxx72.Scirpus sylvaticus x
31.Eriophorum vaginatumxxx73.Senecio sylvaticusxx
32.Eupatorium cannabinumxxx74.Silene vulgaris x
33.Festuca rubrax 75.Solidago cannadensisxxx
34.Fragaria vescaxxx76.Sonchus asper xx
35.Frangula alnusxx 77.Stellaria media xx
36.Gnaphalium uliginosum x 78.Taraxacum officinalexxx
37.Hieracium pilosellaxxx79.Trifolium repens x
38.Juncus articulatusxxx80.Tripleurospermum inodorumx
39.Juncus effususxxx81.Tussilafgo farfaraxxx
40.Juncus tenuisxxx82.Typha latifoliaxxx
41.Lamium album xx83.Utrica dioica x
42.Linaria vulgarisxx 84.Valeriana officinalis x

References

  1. Xu, J.; Morris, P.J.; Liu, J.; Holden, J. PEATMAP: Refining Estimates of Global Peatland Distriubution Based on a Meta-Analysis. Catena 2018, 160, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Clymo, R.S. The Limits to Peat Bog Growth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 1984, 303, 605–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yli-Petays, M.; Laine, J.; Vasander, H.; Tuittila, E.-S. Carbon Gas Exchange of a Re-Vegetated Cut-Away Peatland Five Decades after Abandonment. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 12, 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lazdiņš, A.; Lupikis, A. Life Restore Project Contribution to the Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounts in Latvia. In Sustainable and Responsible After-Use of Peat Extraction Areas; Baltijas krasti: Riga, Latvia, 2019; pp. 21–52. [Google Scholar]
  5. Huotari, N.; Tillman-Sutela, E.; Kauppi, A.; Kubin, E. Fertilization Ensures Rapid Formation of Ground Vegetation on Cut-Away Peatlands. Can. J. For. Res. 2006, 37, 874–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tuittila, E.-S.; Komulainen, V.-M.; Vasander, H.; Laine, J. Restored Cut-Away Peatland as a Sink for Atmospheric CO2. Oecologia 1999, 120, 563–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Pētersons, J.; Lazdiņš, A.; Kasakovskis, A. Life Restore Database on Areas Affected by Peat Extraction. In Sustainable and Responsible After-Use of Peat Extraction Areas; Baltijas krasti: Riga, Latvia, 2019; pp. 122–128. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mehmood, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, U.; Nawaz, M.; Shafaqat, A.; Hussain, A.; Gull, M. Biomass Production for Bioenergy Using Marginal Lands. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 9, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gong, J.; Shurpali, N.J.; Kellomäki, S.; Wang, K.; Zhang, C.; Salem, M.M.A. High Sensitivity of Peat Moisture Content to Seasonal Climate in Acutaway Peatland Cultivated with a Perennial Crop (Phalarisarundinaceae, L.): A Modeling Study. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2012, 180, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ots, K.; Orru, M.; Tilk, M.; Kuura, L.; Aguraijuja, K. Afforestation of Cutaway Peatlands: Effect of Wood Ash on Biomass Formation and Carbon Balance. For. Stud. 2017, 67, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Padur, K.; Ilomets, M.; Põder, T. Identification of the Criteria for Decision Making of Cut-Away Peatland Reuse. Environ. Manag. 2017, 59, 505–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Neimane, S.; Celma, S.; Butlers, A.; Lazdiņa, D. Conversion of an Industrial Cutaway Peatland to a Betulacea Family Tree Species Plantation. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 741–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kikamägi, K.; Ots, K.; Kuznetsova, T.; Pototski, A. The Growth and Nutrients Status of Conifers on Ash-Treated Cutaway Peatland. Trees Struct. Funct. 2013, 28, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neimane, S.; Celma, S.; Zusevica, A.; Lazdina, D.; Ievinsh, G. The Effect of Wood Ash Application on Growth, Leaf Morphological and Physiological Traits of Trees Planted in a Cutaway Peatland. Mires Peat 2021, 27, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hytönen, J.; Aro, L. Biomass and Nutrition of Naturally Regenerated and Coppiced Birch on Cutaway Peatland During 37 Years. Silva Fenn. 2012, 46, 377–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Wilson, L.; Wilson, J.M.; Holden, J.; Johnstone, I.; Armstrong, A.; Morris, M. Recovery of Water Tables in Welsh Blanket Bog after Drain Blocking: Discharge Rates, Time Scales and the Influence of Local Conditions. J. Hydrol. 2010, 391, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gatis, N.; Luscombe, D.J.; Grand-Clement, E.; Hartley, I.P.; Anderson, K.; Smith, D.; Brazier, R.E. The Effect of Drainage Ditches on Vegetation Diversity and CO2 Fluxes in a Molinia caerulea- Dominated Peatland. Ecohydrology 2016, 9, 407–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Renou-Wilson, F.; Farrell, E.P. Reclaiming Peatlands for Forestry. In Restoration of Boreal and Temperate Forests; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 541–557. [Google Scholar]
  19. Strack, M.; Keith, A.M.; Xu, B. Growing Season Carbon Dioxide and Methane Exchange at a Restored Peatland on the Western Boreal Plain. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 64, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Silvan, N.; Hytönen, J. Impact of Ash-Fertilization and Soil Preparation on Soil Respiration and Vegetation Colonization on Cutaway Peatlands. Am. J. Clim. Change 2016, 5, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Kelemen, K.; Mihók, B.; Galhidy, L.; Standovár, T. Dynamic Response of Herbaceous Vegetation to Gap Opening in a Central European Beech Stand. Silva Fenn. 2012, 46, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Thrippleton, T.; Bugmann, H.; Kramer-Priewasser, K.; Snell, R.S. Herbaceous Understorey: An Overlooked Player in Forest Landscape Dynamics? Ecosystems 2016, 19, 1240–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gilliam, F.S. Excess Nitrogen in Temperate Forest Ecosystems Decreases Herbaceous Layer Diversity and Shifts Control from Soil to Canopy Structure. Forests 2019, 10, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Augusto, L.; Dupouey, J.-L.; Ranger, J. Effects of Tree Species on Understory Vegetation and Environmental Conditions in Temperate Forests. Ann. For. Sci. 2003, 60, 823–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kou, M.; García-Fayos, P.; Hu, S.; Jiao, J. The Effect of Robinia pseudoacacia Afforestation on Soil and Vegetation Properties in the Loess Plateau (China): A Chronosequence Approach. For. Ecol. Manag. 2016, 375, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huotari, N.; Tillman-Sutela, E.; Kubin, E. Ground Vegetation Has a Major Role in Element Dynamics in an Ash-Fertilized Cut-Away Peatland. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 2081–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mabry, C.M.; Golay, M.G.; Thompson, J.R. Seasonal Storage of Nutrients by Perennial Herbaceous Species in Undisturbed and Disturbed Deciduous Forests. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2009, 11, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Weigel, R.; Gilles, J.; Klisz, M.; Manthey, M.; Kreyling, J. Forest Understory Vegetation Is More Related to Soil than to Climate towards the Cold Distribution Margin of European Beech. J. Veg. Sci. 2019, 30, 746–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.Y.H.; Tayor, A.R. Positive Species Diversity and Above-ground Biomass Relationships Are Ubiquitous across Forest Strata despite Interference from Overstory Trees. Funct. Ecol. 2017, 31, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Burgess-Conforti, J.R.; Moore, P.A., Jr.; Owens, P.R.; Miller, D.M.; Ashworth, A.J.; Hays, P.D.; Evans-White, M.A.; Anderson, K.R. Are Soils beneath Coniferous Tree Stands More Acidic than Soils beneath Deciduous Tree Stands? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 14920–14929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lazdiņa, D.; Neimane, S.; Celma, S. Afforestation Demo Site. In Sustainable and Responsible After-Use of Peat Extraction Areas; Baltijas krasti: Riga, Latvia, 2019; pp. 208–220. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellenberg, H.; Weber, H.E.; Düll, R.; Wirth, V.; Werner, W.; Paulißen, D. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa, 2nd ed.; Verlag Erich GoltzeKG: Göttingen, Germany, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chytrý, M.; Tichý, L.; Dřevojan, P.; Sádlo, J.; Zelený, D. Ellenberg-Type Indicator Values for the Czech Flora. Preslia 2018, 90, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Diekmann, M. Use and Improvement of Ellenberg’s Indicator Values in Decidous Forests of Boreal-Nemoral Zone in Sweeden. Ecography 1995, 18, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kleyer, M.; Bekker, R.M.; Knevel, I.C.; Bakker, J.P.; Sonnenschein, M.; Poschlod, P.; van Groenendael, J.; Klimeš, L.; Klimešová, J.; Klotz, S.; et al. The LEDA Traitbase: A Database of Life History Traits of Northwest European Flora. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 1266–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Niklas, K. Life Forms. In Encyclopedia of Ecology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 2160–2167. [Google Scholar]
  37. Saugier, B. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. Plant Sci. 2001, 161, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R; RStudio: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; et al. Vegan Community Ecology Package Version 2.5-7. November 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org (accessed on 10 December 2021).
  41. Bellamy, P.E.; Stephen, L.; Maclean, L.S.; Grant, M.C. Response of Blanket Bog Vegetation to Drain-Blocking. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2012, 15, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Price, J.; Heathwaite, A.L.; Baird, A.J. Hydrological Processes in Abandoned and Restored Peatlands: An Overview of Management Approaches. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 2003, 11, 65–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Leung, A.K.; Garg, A.; Coo, J.L.; Ng, C.W.W.; Hau, B.C.H. Effects of the Roots of Cynodon dactylon and Schefflera heptaphylla on Water Infiltration Rate and Soil Hydraulic Conductivity. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 3342–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Campbell, D.R.; Lavoie, C.; Rochefort, L. Wind Erosion and Surface Stability in Abandoned Milled. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2002, 82, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Dafni, A.; Cohen, D.; Noy-Mier, I. Life-Cycle Variation in Geophytes. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 1981, 68, 652–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Marks, M.; Lapin, B.; Randall, J. Phragmites australis (P. communis): Threats, Management and Monitoring. Nat. Areas J. 1994, 6, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Myerscough, P.J.; Whitehead, F. Comparative Biology of Tussilago farfara L., Chamaenerion angustifolium (L.) Scop., Epilobium montanum L., and Epilobium adenocaulon Hausskn. II. Growth and Ecology. New Phytol. 1967, 66, 785–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Schaffers, A.P.; Sýkora, K.V. Reliability of Ellenberg Indicator Values for Moisture, Nitrogen and Soil Reaction: A Comparison with Field Measurements. J. Veg. Sci. 2000, 11, 225–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Drainage ditch in the study site: (a) drainage ditch before cleaning; (b) drainage ditch after cleaning.
Figure 1. Drainage ditch in the study site: (a) drainage ditch before cleaning; (b) drainage ditch after cleaning.
Agronomy 12 00421 g001
Figure 2. Plan of one repetition in research area.
Figure 2. Plan of one repetition in research area.
Agronomy 12 00421 g002
Figure 3. Species richness depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and wood-ash fertiliser dose during second to fourth vegetation season following the application of fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Figure 3. Species richness depending on the distance from the drainage ditch and wood-ash fertiliser dose during second to fourth vegetation season following the application of fertiliser. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate significant differences between groups, p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test. Error bars represent standard deviation.
Agronomy 12 00421 g003
Figure 4. Plant growth form proportion from total vegetation cover depending on different doses of wood-ash fertiliser and distance from the drainage ditch: (a) second year after fertilisation; (b) third year after fertilisation; (c) fourth year after fertilisation.
Figure 4. Plant growth form proportion from total vegetation cover depending on different doses of wood-ash fertiliser and distance from the drainage ditch: (a) second year after fertilisation; (b) third year after fertilisation; (c) fourth year after fertilisation.
Agronomy 12 00421 g004
Figure 5. Principal Component Analysis of plant functional trait values that differ significantly: (a) between fertilised and non-fertilised plots; (b) depending on distance from the drainage ditch. Plant functional traits: Geophyte; Hemicryptophyte; Phanerophytes; Therophyte; C—competitors; S—stress tolerant; R—ruderal. Ellenberg’s indicator values: N—Nitrogen, M—Moisture. Cumulative % variance for PC1 and PC2 explain 90.4%.
Figure 5. Principal Component Analysis of plant functional trait values that differ significantly: (a) between fertilised and non-fertilised plots; (b) depending on distance from the drainage ditch. Plant functional traits: Geophyte; Hemicryptophyte; Phanerophytes; Therophyte; C—competitors; S—stress tolerant; R—ruderal. Ellenberg’s indicator values: N—Nitrogen, M—Moisture. Cumulative % variance for PC1 and PC2 explain 90.4%.
Agronomy 12 00421 g005
Figure 6. Vegetation cover four years after treatment with wood-ash fertiliser in different doses: (a) control group; (b) 10 tons per hectare; (c) 15 tons per hectare.
Figure 6. Vegetation cover four years after treatment with wood-ash fertiliser in different doses: (a) control group; (b) 10 tons per hectare; (c) 15 tons per hectare.
Agronomy 12 00421 g006
Table 1. Relative cover (proportion of total cover) of plants by strategy (UAST) and growth form and community weighted mean values for Ellenberg’s indicator values in plots depending on the dose of wood-ash fertiliser during the observation period. Underlined text indicates significant differences in 3rd and 4th year of research with previous season and bold text indicates significant differences between 2nd and 4th year of research (Student’s t-test (p < 0.05)).
Table 1. Relative cover (proportion of total cover) of plants by strategy (UAST) and growth form and community weighted mean values for Ellenberg’s indicator values in plots depending on the dose of wood-ash fertiliser during the observation period. Underlined text indicates significant differences in 3rd and 4th year of research with previous season and bold text indicates significant differences between 2nd and 4th year of research (Student’s t-test (p < 0.05)).
Plant Functional TraitsWood-Ash Dose (t/ha)
051015051015051015
2. Year3. Year4. Year
UAST (%)Competitors50.453.847.144.927.834.635.926.751.753.045.546.4
Ruderals5.59.28.212.376.43.512.4011.71.4
Competitors/Ruderals
Ruderals
5.37.65.39.17.36.87.36.410.29.78.811.1
Competitors/Stress tolerant
Stress tolerant
6.211.611.710.413.517.416.917.914.613.216.613.5
Competitors/Stress tolerant/Ruderals17.915.719.922.639.631.332.032.022.620.627.327.5
Growth form (%)Geophyte23.726.724.613.215.516.218.612.519.223.822.917.5
Therophyte8.313.79.718.110.09.24.616.40.60.40.80.6
Hemicryptophyte30.535.740.940.333.742.642.238.643.346.151.347.0
Phanerophyte22.722.117.528.239.730.532.131.336.927.325.034.9
Ellenberg’s valueMoisture6.66.96.56.26.56.56.26.66.96.86.97.0
Nitrogen5.05.35.15.35.45.45.35.45.95.55.65.8
Table 2. Relative cover (proportion of total cover) of plants by strategy (UAST) and growth form and community weighted mean values for Ellenberg’s indicator values in plots depending on the distance from the drainage ditch during the observation period. Underlined text indicates significant differences in 3rd and 4th year of study with the previous season and bold text indicates significant differences between 2nd and 4th Year (Student’s t-test (p < 0.05)).
Table 2. Relative cover (proportion of total cover) of plants by strategy (UAST) and growth form and community weighted mean values for Ellenberg’s indicator values in plots depending on the distance from the drainage ditch during the observation period. Underlined text indicates significant differences in 3rd and 4th year of study with the previous season and bold text indicates significant differences between 2nd and 4th Year (Student’s t-test (p < 0.05)).
Plant Functional TraitsDistance from Drainage Ditch (m)
0.5–44–7.57.5–110.5–44–7.57.5–110.5–44–7.57.5–11
2. Year 3. Year 4. Year
UAST (%)Competitors52.645.348.837.628.427.949.64948.8
Ruderals9.110.283.19.79.21.91.10.8
Competitors/Ruderals4.68.57.88.566.58.510.810.7
Competitors/Stress tolerant11.610.392015.114.715.613.714.1
Competitors/Stress tolerant/Ruderals19.420.217.928.136.136.825.525.423.8
Growth form (%)Geophyte27.916.421.317.714.7414.622.721.818
Therophyte111512.54.313.212.80.50.50.7
Hemicryptophyte40.637.634.148.234.843.95144.745.1
Phanerophyte19.225.223.627.635.636.925.83234.4
Ellenberg’s valueMoisture76.16.56.26.66.66.877
Nitrogen5.455.25.35.55.45.55.95.8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zuševica, A.; Celma, S.; Neimane, S.; von Cossel, M.; Lazdina, D. Wood-Ash Fertiliser and Distance from Drainage Ditch Affect the Succession and Biodiversity of Vascular Plant Species in Tree Plantings on Marginal Organic Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020421

AMA Style

Zuševica A, Celma S, Neimane S, von Cossel M, Lazdina D. Wood-Ash Fertiliser and Distance from Drainage Ditch Affect the Succession and Biodiversity of Vascular Plant Species in Tree Plantings on Marginal Organic Soil. Agronomy. 2022; 12(2):421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zuševica, Austra, Santa Celma, Santa Neimane, Moritz von Cossel, and Dagnija Lazdina. 2022. "Wood-Ash Fertiliser and Distance from Drainage Ditch Affect the Succession and Biodiversity of Vascular Plant Species in Tree Plantings on Marginal Organic Soil" Agronomy 12, no. 2: 421. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020421

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop