恢复拉普拉塔河草地的第一步:收割方法和季节的重要性

IF 2.8 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Pedro G. Pañella, Anaclara Guido, Marcelo Pereira, Felipe Lezama
{"title":"恢复拉普拉塔河草地的第一步:收割方法和季节的重要性","authors":"Pedro G. Pañella, Anaclara Guido, Marcelo Pereira, Felipe Lezama","doi":"10.1111/rec.14219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current trends in agricultural intensification lead to degraded grasslands, requiring their restoration through native species reintroduction. Various techniques are available for harvesting seeds from donor sites. However, little is known about their performance in South American C<jats:sub>3</jats:sub>/C<jats:sub>4</jats:sub> mixed grasslands, where studies are scarce. Their particular species composition and phenology, with different flowering periods, require specific harvest strategies. We evaluated mechanical seed harvest in a northern Uruguay grassland, part of Río de la Plata grasslands. Performance of two mechanical harvest methods (seed‐stripper and dry hay) was compared in two harvest seasons (late‐spring and mid‐summer). The evaluation considered the quantity and identity of harvested seeds, and their germination in a greenhouse. Hand collections were made to assess standing seed yield. For each seed mixture, efficiency of mechanical harvests (number of seeds and seedlings compared to hand collection), proportion of germinated seeds, species transfer relative to donor site, and composition were calculated. Results revealed trade‐offs between harvests: seed‐stripper in late‐spring presented low seed collection efficiency (2% for seeds, 5% for seedlings) and species richness (43% transfer), but high seed germination (64%), showing selectivity toward winter species; seed‐stripper in mid‐summer and dry hay in both seasons showed high seed collection efficiency (42–154% for seeds, 26–50% for seedlings) and species richness (65–80% transfer), resembling donor site, albeit lower seed germination (9–20%). Seed‐stripper performance varied between seasons, while dry hay remained consistently effective. These results are pioneering for grassland restoration in Uruguay, encouraging future studies to focus on establishment in the field.","PeriodicalId":54487,"journal":{"name":"Restoration Ecology","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First steps in restoring Río de la Plata grasslands: the importance of harvest method and season\",\"authors\":\"Pedro G. Pañella, Anaclara Guido, Marcelo Pereira, Felipe Lezama\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/rec.14219\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Current trends in agricultural intensification lead to degraded grasslands, requiring their restoration through native species reintroduction. Various techniques are available for harvesting seeds from donor sites. However, little is known about their performance in South American C<jats:sub>3</jats:sub>/C<jats:sub>4</jats:sub> mixed grasslands, where studies are scarce. Their particular species composition and phenology, with different flowering periods, require specific harvest strategies. We evaluated mechanical seed harvest in a northern Uruguay grassland, part of Río de la Plata grasslands. Performance of two mechanical harvest methods (seed‐stripper and dry hay) was compared in two harvest seasons (late‐spring and mid‐summer). The evaluation considered the quantity and identity of harvested seeds, and their germination in a greenhouse. Hand collections were made to assess standing seed yield. For each seed mixture, efficiency of mechanical harvests (number of seeds and seedlings compared to hand collection), proportion of germinated seeds, species transfer relative to donor site, and composition were calculated. Results revealed trade‐offs between harvests: seed‐stripper in late‐spring presented low seed collection efficiency (2% for seeds, 5% for seedlings) and species richness (43% transfer), but high seed germination (64%), showing selectivity toward winter species; seed‐stripper in mid‐summer and dry hay in both seasons showed high seed collection efficiency (42–154% for seeds, 26–50% for seedlings) and species richness (65–80% transfer), resembling donor site, albeit lower seed germination (9–20%). Seed‐stripper performance varied between seasons, while dry hay remained consistently effective. These results are pioneering for grassland restoration in Uruguay, encouraging future studies to focus on establishment in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restoration Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14219\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restoration Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14219","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当前的农业集约化趋势导致草地退化,需要通过重新引入本地物种来恢复草地。从捐献地收获种子的技术多种多样。然而,人们对这些技术在南美洲 C3/C4 混合草地上的表现知之甚少,对这些草地的研究也很少。南美 C3/C4 混合草地的物种组成和物候特征各不相同,花期也各不相同,因此需要采用特定的收获策略。我们在乌拉圭北部的一片草原(拉普拉塔河草原的一部分)上对机械采种进行了评估。在两个收获季节(春末和夏中)比较了两种机械收获方法(剥种机和干草)的性能。评估考虑了收获种子的数量和特性,以及它们在温室中的发芽率。人工采集种子是为了评估种子产量。对于每种种子混合物,都计算了机械采收的效率(种子和幼苗的数量与人工采集相比)、发芽种子的比例、相对于供体地的物种转移以及成分。结果显示了不同收获方式之间的权衡:春末的剥种机的种子采集效率较低(种子为 2%,秧苗为 5%),物种丰富度较低(转移率为 43%),但种子发芽率较高(64%),显示出对冬季物种的选择性;仲夏和干草两季的剥种机的种子采集效率较高(种子为 42-154%,秧苗为 26-50%),物种丰富度较高(转移率为 65-80%),与供体地相似,但种子发芽率较低(9-20%)。种子剥离器的性能因季节而异,而干草则始终有效。这些结果对乌拉圭的草地恢复具有开创性意义,鼓励今后的研究将重点放在实地建植上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
First steps in restoring Río de la Plata grasslands: the importance of harvest method and season
Current trends in agricultural intensification lead to degraded grasslands, requiring their restoration through native species reintroduction. Various techniques are available for harvesting seeds from donor sites. However, little is known about their performance in South American C3/C4 mixed grasslands, where studies are scarce. Their particular species composition and phenology, with different flowering periods, require specific harvest strategies. We evaluated mechanical seed harvest in a northern Uruguay grassland, part of Río de la Plata grasslands. Performance of two mechanical harvest methods (seed‐stripper and dry hay) was compared in two harvest seasons (late‐spring and mid‐summer). The evaluation considered the quantity and identity of harvested seeds, and their germination in a greenhouse. Hand collections were made to assess standing seed yield. For each seed mixture, efficiency of mechanical harvests (number of seeds and seedlings compared to hand collection), proportion of germinated seeds, species transfer relative to donor site, and composition were calculated. Results revealed trade‐offs between harvests: seed‐stripper in late‐spring presented low seed collection efficiency (2% for seeds, 5% for seedlings) and species richness (43% transfer), but high seed germination (64%), showing selectivity toward winter species; seed‐stripper in mid‐summer and dry hay in both seasons showed high seed collection efficiency (42–154% for seeds, 26–50% for seedlings) and species richness (65–80% transfer), resembling donor site, albeit lower seed germination (9–20%). Seed‐stripper performance varied between seasons, while dry hay remained consistently effective. These results are pioneering for grassland restoration in Uruguay, encouraging future studies to focus on establishment in the field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Restoration Ecology
Restoration Ecology 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
15.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Restoration Ecology fosters the exchange of ideas among the many disciplines involved with ecological restoration. Addressing global concerns and communicating them to the international research community and restoration practitioners, the journal is at the forefront of a vital new direction in science, ecology, and policy. Original papers describe experimental, observational, and theoretical studies on terrestrial, marine, and freshwater systems, and are considered without taxonomic bias. Contributions span the natural sciences, including ecological and biological aspects, as well as the restoration of soil, air and water when set in an ecological context; and the social sciences, including cultural, philosophical, political, educational, economic and historical aspects. Edited by a distinguished panel, the journal continues to be a major conduit for researchers to publish their findings in the fight to not only halt ecological damage, but also to ultimately reverse it.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信