The invertebrate population of a created reedbed after seven years: Lakenheath Fen RSPB reserve, Suffolk, England
-
Published source details
Booth V. & Ausden M. (2009) The invertebrate population of a created reedbed after seven years: Lakenheath Fen RSPB reserve, Suffolk, England. Conservation Evidence, 6, 105-110.
Published source details Booth V. & Ausden M. (2009) The invertebrate population of a created reedbed after seven years: Lakenheath Fen RSPB reserve, Suffolk, England. Conservation Evidence, 6, 105-110.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes Action Link |
 |
|
|
Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands Action Link |
|
-
Reprofile/relandscape: freshwater marshes
A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1996–2008 aiming to restore a reedbed on farmland in England, UK (Booth & Ausden 2009) found that excavated wet basins (also planted with common reed Phragmites australis) contained a greater density of reeds but fewer plant species than a nearby natural reedbed. The restored area was initially drained farmland. Seven years after excavations finished, the restored area contained a greater density of live reeds (96 stems/m2) than the natural reedbed (63 stems/m2). There was no significant difference in the density of dead reeds (restored: 52; natural: 48 stems/m2). Although the restored area contained fewer plant species than the natural reedbed at a large scale (restored: 5; natural: 9 species/30 m2), both sites had the same species richness at a small scale (3 species/2 m2). Statistical significance of these richness results was not assessed. Methods: Between 1996 and 2001, three hundred hectares of wet basins were excavated in farmland. Over 250,000 common reed stems were planted into the basins by 2003. The study does not distinguish between the effects of excavation and planting on non-planted vegetation. In August 2008, reed stems and plant species and were recorded in thirty 2-m2 quadrats: 15 in the restoration area and 15 in a natural (never-farmed) reedbed.
(Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)
-
Directly plant non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands
A before-and-after, site comparison study in 1996–2008 aiming to restore a reedbed on farmland in England, UK (Booth & Ausden 2009) found that an area planted with common reed Phragmites australis (after excavating wet basins) contained a greater density of reeds but fewer plant species than a nearby natural reedbed. The restored area was initially drained farmland. Five years after planting finished, the restored area contained a greater density of live reeds (96 stems/m2) than the natural reedbed (63 stems/m2). There was no significant difference in the density of dead reeds (restored: 52; natural: 48 stems/m2). Although the restored area contained fewer plant species than the natural reedbed at a large scale (restored: 5; natural: 9 species/30 m2), both sites had the same species richness at a small scale (3 species/2 m2). Statistical significance of these richness results was not assessed. Methods: Between 1996 and 2003, a quarter of a million common reed stems were planted into 300 ha of excavated wet basins. The study does not distinguish between the effects of reed planting and excavation on non-planted vegetation. In August 2008, reed stems and plant species and were recorded in thirty 2-m2 quadrats: 15 in the restoration area and 15 in a natural (never-farmed) reedbed.
(Summarised by: Nigel Taylor)
)_2023.JPG)
