liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Milberg, Per
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Tälle, Malin
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theoretical Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Fogelfors, Håkan
    Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
    Westerberg, Lars
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Corrigendum to "The biodiversity cost of reducing management intensity in species-rich grasslands: Mowing annually vs. every third year" [Basic Appl. Ecol. 22 (2017) 61-74]2018In: Basic and Applied Ecology, ISSN 1439-1791, E-ISSN 1618-0089, p. 97-98Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 2.
    Tälle, Malin
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theoretical Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Conservation of semi-natural grasslands: Effects of different management methods on biodiversity2018Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Species-rich semi-natural grassland are valuable habitats in the agricultural landscape as they may contain a high diversity of both plant and animal species, as well as provide essential ecosystem services like pollination. To keep these habitats open and to maintain the biodiversity in them, management like grazing or mowing is necessary. Due to changed agricultural practices many semi-natural grasslands have been lost, e.g. due to secondary succession after abandonment or use of more intense management practices. As limited resources are available for the management and restoration of semi-natural grasslands, research is needed to find the best available management method that maintains biodiversity at a low cost. Therefore, the overall aim of this thesis was to use existing data to compare effects of different management methods and explore their effect on the biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands. More specifically, effects of grazing vs. mowing, different mowing frequencies and different mowing techniques were investigated using data from Swedish, European and global studies, with the aim of using the results to formulate management recommendations.

    Paper I investigated the effect of mowing using a sickle bar mower or a grass trimmer at a 5-cm or 0-cm cutting height on plant indicator species of good management for species richness, poor management and excess nitrogen. Analyses of data from a Swedish 11-year field experiment revealed that over time, there was no difference in the odds of finding indicators of any type for any of the mowing techniques. This suggest that there is a similar effect of mowing using a sickle bar mower and a grass trimmer on the floristic composition of semi-natural grasslands.

    Paper II and III investigated effects of different management methods using a Swedish long-term, multi-site field experiment. Paper II compared effects of grazing vs. mowing and paper III compared effects of annual mowing and mowing every third year. Both papers used meta-analyses to compare effect on plant indicator species of good management for species richness and poor management. Additionally, paper II examined effects of indicators of excess nitrogen, while paper III also examined effects on plant species richness and diversity and species-wise responses. For paper II, analyses revealed an increase in the odds of finding indicators of good management for species richness in mowed plots and increased odds of finding indicators of excess nitrogen in grazed plots. For paper III, meta-analyses revealed a small drop in plant species richness and diversity, and an increase in woody and tall-grown species, when mowing every third year. However, there were no difference in the odds of finding indicators of good management for species richness or poor management between mowing frequencies. These results suggest that mowing is a better long-term management method compared to grazing in seminatural grasslands in southern Sweden, while annual mowing have a slightly more positive effect compared to mowing every third year.

    Paper IV and V investigated management effects on a larger scale, by systematically reviewing studies comparing effects of grazing vs. mowing or different mowing frequencies on grassland flora and fauna, and analysing the data using meta-analysis. The included mowing frequencies were annual mowing vs. mowing every fifth, third or second year, or mowing two, three or four times a year. Paper IV analysed data from 35 studies from across the globe, and revealed a slightly more positive effect of grazing on the biodiversity of seminatural grasslands. However, results differed for different grassland characteristics like e.g. geography, grassland type and previous management. Paper V analysed data from 29 European studies, and revealed a more positive effect of mowing more frequently than once per year. However, the differences were small and varied for different grassland characteristics. For example, a higher mowing frequency was better in more productive grasslands. These results suggest that grazing is slightly better than mowing and that mowing less frequently, e.g. every other year, can be a viable management method in less productive grasslands, as a way of using limited funds more efficiently.

    The results from the papers included in this thesis suggest that different management methods have different effects on the biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands. However, in many cases these differences are relatively small. Thus, to a certain extent one of the most important factors for semi-natural grassland biodiversity seems to be the fact that management occurs at all, while the actual management methods is of less importance. Hence, choosing the most suitable management method for a certain situation should be based on conservation aims, grassland conditions, the previous management practice used, the cost of management, the availability of different management methods and previous research. 

    List of papers
    1. Mowing for biodiversity: grass trimmer and knife mower perform equally well
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Mowing for biodiversity: grass trimmer and knife mower perform equally well
    Show others...
    2014 (English)In: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 23, no 12, p. 3073-3089Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Mowing of semi-natural grasslands is an important management method to maintain the conservation value and species-richness of this habitat. Mowing using cutting instruments, e.g. sickle bar mowers, is thought to be superior by practitioners compared with other mechanical instruments that tears off the plant material, e.g. grass trimmers. However, almost no studies exist that supports this assumption. We analysed a 12-year field trial in a semi-natural grassland in south-eastern Sweden, with the aim of determining which mowing technique best maintains the conservation value of semi-natural grasslands. Two mowing techniques were compared: mowing using a hand-pushed sickle bar mower (a type of knife mower), or mowing using a grass trimmer at a 5-cm or 0-cm cutting height. The odds that a recorded species belongs to a group of indicator species were calculated for sample plots, and odds ratios were calculated contrasting treatments. Three types of indicator species classification systems were used: (i) indicators of management for species richness, (ii) indicators of excess nitrogen and (iii) indicators of lack of management. The odds ratios were calculated for years 1–5, 7 and 12 of the trial. In addition, Principal Response Curve analysis was performed to analyse the change in vegetation composition over time and ANOVA for plant species richness in plots. The results showed that over time there were no differences in the odds of finding indicators of any of the three types, for any of the mowing techniques. Furthermore, there were no apparent change in vegetation composition and only a small effect on richness. These results suggest that mowing using a sickle bar mower or a grass trimmer had the same effect on the floristic composition of grasslands, and both techniques can be recommended for use in semi-natural grasslands.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Springer Publishing Company, 2014
    Keywords
    Indicators, Management, Meta-analysis, Mowing techniques, Odds ratio, Semi-natural grassland, Sweden
    National Category
    Biological Sciences
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-111926 (URN)10.1007/s10531-014-0765-8 (DOI)000343908600010 ()
    Available from: 2014-11-10 Created: 2014-11-10 Last updated: 2018-10-02Bibliographically approved
    2. The conservation benefit of mowing vs grazing for management ofspecies-rich grasslands: a multi-site, multi-year field experiment
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>The conservation benefit of mowing vs grazing for management ofspecies-rich grasslands: a multi-site, multi-year field experiment
    2015 (English)In: Nordic Journal of Botany, ISSN 0107-055X, E-ISSN 1756-1051, Vol. 33, no 6, p. 761-768Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Species-rich semi-natural grasslands in Europe are becoming more fragmented and many species that depend on thishabitat type are rare and threatened today. Management methods like mowing and grazing are needed to preserve remaininggrasslands. Because management is costly it is important to use the most cost-effective as well as the most beneficialmanagement method, but few studies have compared mowing and grazing. We investigated the effect of mowing andgrazing on grassland vegetation using data from 11 long-term field trials situated in southern Sweden. We calculated thechange in the odds of finding species belonging to three different groups of indicators at the start of the treatment and after8 and 14 years. The used indicator groups were indicators of good management, excess nitrogen and poor management.The results revealed an increase in the odds of finding indicators of good management in mowed plots and an increasein finding indicators of excess nitrogen in grazed plots. The odds of finding indicators of poor management remainedunchanged. Results from sub-analysis of the grazing intensity showed a more negative effect from grazing with low grazingintensity than normal/high grazing intensity. Therefore, mowing is the best long-term management method for seminaturalgrasslands in Sweden and grazing using a low grazing intensity should be avoided.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Nordic Society Oikos, 2015
    National Category
    Environmental Sciences related to Agriculture and Land-use
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-123378 (URN)10.1111/njb.00966 (DOI)000368428700017 ()
    Note

    Funding agencies: Swedish Board of Agriculture; Stiftelsen Oscar och Lili Lamms minne

    Available from: 2015-12-14 Created: 2015-12-14 Last updated: 2018-01-30
    3. The biodiversity cost of reducing management intensity in species-rich grasslands: Mowing annually vs. every third year
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>The biodiversity cost of reducing management intensity in species-rich grasslands: Mowing annually vs. every third year
    2017 (English)In: Basic and Applied Ecology, ISSN 1439-1791, E-ISSN 1618-0089, Vol. 22, p. 61-74Article in journal (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    Mowing is an important management method for species-rich semi-natural grasslands in Europe. Since mowing is costly, it is important to find a balance between mowing frequency and conservation benefits. We compared vegetation data from eleven field trials situated in southern Sweden that involved two mowing regimes, annually and every third year, as well as a no-management control. After approximately 14 years, mowing every third year showed (i) a drop in species richness and Shannon and GiniSimpson diversity indices, (ii) an increase in woody species, and (iii) increases in tall-grown species. However, there were no apparent changes in (iv) species that were indicative of poor management, nor (v) those indicating good management. For one of the trials, data after 38 years were also evaluated. Compared with annual mowing, there were strong negative changes in the number of species in the untreated control, while the results were conflicting for mowing every third year. In conclusion, the expected loss of conservation values from reduced mowing intensity was 5060% of the loss after abandonment. The outcomes, however, varied among the eleven sites. (C) 2017 Gesellschaft fur Okologie. Published by Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG, 2017
    Keywords
    Cutting; Indicators; Meta-analysis; Mowing; Odds ratio; Response ratio; Semi-natural grassland; Sweden
    National Category
    Ecology
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-141735 (URN)10.1016/j.baae.2017.07.004 (DOI)000409994800007 ()
    Note

    Funding Agencies|Swedish Board of Agriculture

    Available from: 2017-10-05 Created: 2017-10-05 Last updated: 2018-01-30
    4. Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits forgrassland management
    Open this publication in new window or tab >>Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits forgrassland management
    Show others...
    2016 (English)In: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, ISSN 0167-8809, E-ISSN 1873-2305, Vol. 222, p. 200-212Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
    Abstract [en]

    To maintain the high biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands, management by grazing or mowing isneeded. Given the limited resources and few remaining areas, the best management method should beused. However, only a few studies comparing the effects of mowing and grazing on grassland biodiversityexists. Therefore, the goal of the present review was to extract as much data as possible from theliterature and evaluate them using a meta-analysis approach. We searched scientific and grey literaturefor studies comparing the effects of grazing and annual mowing on outcomes relevant for biodiversityconservation. We identified 35 relevant studies on grazing and annual mowing that provided datasuitable for the meta-analysis. We found that grazing generally had a more positive effect on theconservation value of semi-natural grasslands compared to mowing, but effect sizes were generally smallto moderate for most contrasts. Furthermore, effects varied across some grassland characteristics e.g. fordifferent grassland types, with grazing and mowing having a similar effect or mowing having a morepositive effect in certain cases. Our results suggest, that in most cases grazing should be the preferredmanagement method when managing for grassland conservation.

    Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
    Elsevier, 2016
    Keywords
    Conservation management Cutting Evidence-based Livestock grazing Meadow Pasture Semi-natural grassland
    National Category
    Ecology
    Identifiers
    urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-125592 (URN)10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.008 (DOI)000384383600021 ()
    Note

    Funding agencies: Swedish Board of Agriculture

    Available from: 2016-02-26 Created: 2016-02-26 Last updated: 2018-02-21
  • 3.
    Tälle, Malin
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Theoretical Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Deak, Balazs
    Univ Debrecen, Hungary.
    Poschlod, Peter
    Univ Regensburg, Germany.
    Valko, Orsolya
    MTA DE Biodivers and Ecosyst Serv Res Grp, Hungary.
    Westerberg, Lars
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Milberg, Per
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Similar effects of different mowing frequencies on the conservation value of semi-natural grasslands in Europe2018In: Biodiversity and Conservation, ISSN 0960-3115, E-ISSN 1572-9710, Vol. 27, no 10, p. 2451-2475Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Both agricultural intensification and abandonment have led to the loss of European semi-natural grasslands. Nature conservation management measures like mowing are essential for preserving the biodiversity of remaining grasslands. However, there are no conclusive results from studies examining effects of different mowing frequencies across Europe. To fill this gap, we evaluated data from European studies comparing mowing frequencies to determine which are the most beneficial from a nature conservation viewpoint. We searched literature for short- and long-term studies comparing the effects of different mowing frequencies on outcome measures relevant for biodiversity conservation. We found 29 relevant studies where mowing once per year was compared to higher or lower mowing frequencies. The studies covered various grassland types and organisms. The effects were analysed using response ratios, where mowing once per year, i.e. the traditional mowing frequency in semi-natural grasslands, was compared to mowing every fifth, third or second year and mowing two, three or four times a year. Overall, we found similar effects of the different mowing frequencies on the biodiversity of flora and fauna. More frequent mowing generally had a more positive effect, but differences between frequencies were small. Effects were habitat-specific, differing between site and study conditions. For example, a higher mowing frequency was more beneficial in more productive grasslands. These results suggest that in most European semi-natural grasslands, mowing less frequently is a way of using the limited funds available for management more efficiently while still maintaining grassland conservation values, but e.g. site productivity must be considered when determining a suitable mowing frequency.

  • 4.
    Tälle, Malin
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Deák, Balázs
    MTA-DE Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Research Group, Egytem tér 1, Debrecen H-4032, Hungary.
    Poschlod, Peter
    Ecology and Conservation Biology, Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Regensburg, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany.
    Valkó, Orsolya
    University of Debrecen, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 71, Debrecen H-4010, Hungary.
    Westerberg, Lars
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Milberg, Per
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Grazing vs. mowing: A meta-analysis of biodiversity benefits forgrassland management2016In: Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, ISSN 0167-8809, E-ISSN 1873-2305, Vol. 222, p. 200-212Article, review/survey (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    To maintain the high biodiversity of semi-natural grasslands, management by grazing or mowing isneeded. Given the limited resources and few remaining areas, the best management method should beused. However, only a few studies comparing the effects of mowing and grazing on grassland biodiversityexists. Therefore, the goal of the present review was to extract as much data as possible from theliterature and evaluate them using a meta-analysis approach. We searched scientific and grey literaturefor studies comparing the effects of grazing and annual mowing on outcomes relevant for biodiversityconservation. We identified 35 relevant studies on grazing and annual mowing that provided datasuitable for the meta-analysis. We found that grazing generally had a more positive effect on theconservation value of semi-natural grasslands compared to mowing, but effect sizes were generally smallto moderate for most contrasts. Furthermore, effects varied across some grassland characteristics e.g. fordifferent grassland types, with grazing and mowing having a similar effect or mowing having a morepositive effect in certain cases. Our results suggest, that in most cases grazing should be the preferredmanagement method when managing for grassland conservation.

  • 5.
    Tälle, Malin
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Fogelfors, Håkan
    Dept of Crop Production Ecology, Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7043, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
    Westerberg, Lars
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Milberg, Per
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    The conservation benefit of mowing vs grazing for management ofspecies-rich grasslands: a multi-site, multi-year field experiment2015In: Nordic Journal of Botany, ISSN 0107-055X, E-ISSN 1756-1051, Vol. 33, no 6, p. 761-768Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Species-rich semi-natural grasslands in Europe are becoming more fragmented and many species that depend on thishabitat type are rare and threatened today. Management methods like mowing and grazing are needed to preserve remaininggrasslands. Because management is costly it is important to use the most cost-effective as well as the most beneficialmanagement method, but few studies have compared mowing and grazing. We investigated the effect of mowing andgrazing on grassland vegetation using data from 11 long-term field trials situated in southern Sweden. We calculated thechange in the odds of finding species belonging to three different groups of indicators at the start of the treatment and after8 and 14 years. The used indicator groups were indicators of good management, excess nitrogen and poor management.The results revealed an increase in the odds of finding indicators of good management in mowed plots and an increasein finding indicators of excess nitrogen in grazed plots. The odds of finding indicators of poor management remainedunchanged. Results from sub-analysis of the grazing intensity showed a more negative effect from grazing with low grazingintensity than normal/high grazing intensity. Therefore, mowing is the best long-term management method for seminaturalgrasslands in Sweden and grazing using a low grazing intensity should be avoided.

  • 6.
    Tälle, Malin
    et al.
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Wissman, Jörgen
    Milberg, Per
    Linköping University, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Biology. Linköping University, Faculty of Science & Engineering.
    Gräsröjaren: ett skötselalternativ i artrika gräsmarker.2015In: Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift, ISSN 0039-646X, Vol. 108, p. 254-259Article in journal (Refereed)
1 - 6 of 6
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf