Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland

In the Breckland Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), farmers are encouraged to manage arable field margins to conserve arable plant communities using uncropped, cultivated field boundary strips ("uncropped wildlife strips") (UWSs). This study aims to describe the vegetation ofUWSs and to...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Critchley, C. N. R.
Published: University of East Anglia 1996
Subjects:
577
Online Access:http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.309955
id ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-309955
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-3099552015-07-02T03:15:53ZVegetation of arable field margins in BrecklandCritchley, C. N. R.1996In the Breckland Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), farmers are encouraged to manage arable field margins to conserve arable plant communities using uncropped, cultivated field boundary strips ("uncropped wildlife strips") (UWSs). This study aims to describe the vegetation ofUWSs and to carry out an ecological assessment against the ESA objectives. Data were collected from a sample ofUWS and normally cropped sites in three study areas between 1989 and 1992. Species richness and non-crop biomass were greater in UWS than cropped sites. Bromus sterilis became dominant in study area 1, and appeared to have a competitive effect on other species. In study area 2 cultivations were done less frequently and perennial Graminae spread and became abundant. In study area 3, Amsinckia micrantha showed greatest increase but no effect on other species was apparent. Weed ingress into adjacent crops was lower at UWS than normally cropped sites. ESA objectives were translated into ecological criteria which could be directly measured. Assessments by subjective expert opinion and using species autecological data were compared. Subjective data were collected by a postal questionnaire of experts. Indicator species for each criterion were identified by applying rule sets to a species-attribute matrix. Site values for each criterion were calculated, and overall site values (foci) assigned using a multiple criterion method. Subjective site assessments closely agreed with the site foci and also with three of the five criteria. Over four years, half the sites were above the threshold level which represented satisfying ofESA objectives. Multivariate analysis of variation in the vegetation, from the main dataset and from a second survey, showed sites with lower soil pH, K and total N were more successful. Those with many overhanging or broadleaved trees, or previously cropped with sugar beet were less successful. Some amendments to management prescriptions are recommended.577Environmentally Sensitive AreasUniversity of East Angliahttp://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.309955Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
collection NDLTD
sources NDLTD
topic 577
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
spellingShingle 577
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Critchley, C. N. R.
Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
description In the Breckland Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA), farmers are encouraged to manage arable field margins to conserve arable plant communities using uncropped, cultivated field boundary strips ("uncropped wildlife strips") (UWSs). This study aims to describe the vegetation ofUWSs and to carry out an ecological assessment against the ESA objectives. Data were collected from a sample ofUWS and normally cropped sites in three study areas between 1989 and 1992. Species richness and non-crop biomass were greater in UWS than cropped sites. Bromus sterilis became dominant in study area 1, and appeared to have a competitive effect on other species. In study area 2 cultivations were done less frequently and perennial Graminae spread and became abundant. In study area 3, Amsinckia micrantha showed greatest increase but no effect on other species was apparent. Weed ingress into adjacent crops was lower at UWS than normally cropped sites. ESA objectives were translated into ecological criteria which could be directly measured. Assessments by subjective expert opinion and using species autecological data were compared. Subjective data were collected by a postal questionnaire of experts. Indicator species for each criterion were identified by applying rule sets to a species-attribute matrix. Site values for each criterion were calculated, and overall site values (foci) assigned using a multiple criterion method. Subjective site assessments closely agreed with the site foci and also with three of the five criteria. Over four years, half the sites were above the threshold level which represented satisfying ofESA objectives. Multivariate analysis of variation in the vegetation, from the main dataset and from a second survey, showed sites with lower soil pH, K and total N were more successful. Those with many overhanging or broadleaved trees, or previously cropped with sugar beet were less successful. Some amendments to management prescriptions are recommended.
author Critchley, C. N. R.
author_facet Critchley, C. N. R.
author_sort Critchley, C. N. R.
title Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
title_short Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
title_full Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
title_fullStr Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
title_full_unstemmed Vegetation of arable field margins in Breckland
title_sort vegetation of arable field margins in breckland
publisher University of East Anglia
publishDate 1996
url http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.309955
work_keys_str_mv AT critchleycnr vegetationofarablefieldmarginsinbreckland
_version_ 1716807043311992832