Hay Meadow Restoration: Don Gamble, Yorkshire Dales Millenium Trust

1. Hay meadow restoration
Don Gamble
Hay Time Project Manager
don.gamble@ydmt.org

2. Hay Time project
Management and restoration
research
Seed harvesting methods
Data analysis results

3. Hay Time
Working with farmers to restore meadows across the Dales
• May 2006 to December 2011
• in partnership with YDNPA and supported by
farmers, Natural England, Flora locale, National
Trust, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and others
• funded by NE, YDNPA, Rural Enterprise Scheme,
Tubney Charitable Trust, charities and individuals
• Into the Meadows restoration and education project
from May 2012 to October 2013, funded by
LEADER, SDF and EOCA
• meadow projects in Bowland and Nidderdale

4. What did Hay Time provide?
The missing „infrastructure‟ to enable annual
programmes of restoration schemes to happen:
An experienced project officer to:
• identify and monitor seed donor and receptor
meadows
• develop schemes with farmers and NE
• coordinate seed harvesting and spreading
• provide meadow management advice
• run training events
• promote understanding of hay meadows

5. What did Hay Time provide?
Machinery for seed harvesting and spreading
• a range of specialised machinery
• choices made after extensive research
Trained contractors
• Marsden AES Ltd, based in Hellifield
• operate, maintain and store machinery
• tendering processes in 2006 and 2009

6. Management and restoration
research
Smith et al. (1988 - present): long-term studies of the
effects of management (cutting dates, fertiliser
additions, grazing regimes), seed introduction and
yellow rattle
• all deviations from traditional management result in
loss of conservation value of upland meadows
• adding seed to existing swards increases species
number
• species-rich grasslands are associated with high
soil fungal:bacterial biomass ratios
• adding functional species increases soil fungi
• phased seed introduction is likely to be most
successful

7. Restoration research
Mortimer et al. (2002): testing efficacy of green hay
spreading
• greater range of species than brush harvesting
• introduced species persist and expand populations
Trueman & Millett (2003): using green hay from SSSI
meadows to create species-rich meadows
• green hay more effective than seed mixtures and
dry hay
• after 3 years, mean species richness >20 per m2

8. Restoration research
Pywell et al. (2012): Restoring species-rich grassland:
principles and techniques
• key abiotic constraint is residual soil fertility (P)
∴ restoration sites need low nutrient status
• key biotic constraints are lack of seed sources and
establishment niches
∴ seed addition and sward disturbance

9. Restoration research
Bardgett et al. (2012): Plant-soil interactions and
grassland diversity restoration
• belowground processes interact with management
to influence species diversity
• fungal:bacterial ratio could be used to assess the
restorability of a species-poor meadow
• expensive test, so could use Ellenberg fertility
index as a surrogate
• species-rich grasslands store more C and N

10. Restoration research
Aspects of Applied Biology
115
Copies available from the
Association of Applied
Biologists
www.aab.org.uk

11. Why does seed need to be added?
Seed bank
• 80% of desirable species produce short-lived or
transient seed
• soil often only contains seeds of species already
present in the sward
Seed rain
• severe fragmentation of species-rich meadow
resource
• very short dispersal distances
• changes in livestock movements and
management

12. Restoration or enhancement?
Depends on „starting point‟ of receptor meadow
Meadow restoration:
• seed addition and management improvement to
species-poor meadows that lack functional
species
Meadow enhancement :
• seed addition to traditionally-managed meadows
that are fairly species-rich but „missing‟ some
characteristic species

13. Restoration donors
High abundance of functional species
Yellow rattle Meadow buttercup Sweet vernal Red clover
Rhinanthus Ranunculus acris grass Trifolium
minor Anthoxanthum pratense
odoratum

14. Enhancement donors
Species-rich and high abundance of target species
Wood crane‟s-bill Lady‟s mantle Great burnet Globeflower
Geranium Alchemilla Sanguisorba Trollius
sylvaticum spp. officinalis europaeus

15. Seed harvesting methods
Green hay, hay concentrate, brush harvesting,
vacuum harvesting, hand harvesting
• local provenance
• optimal timing
• „natural‟ seed mix
• potential introduction of fungal spores

16. Impact on the donor meadow
Natural England and Flora locale recommendations:
• harvest seed from no more than a third of the
meadow
• harvested areas are left for at least 3 years
• only harvest when conditions are suitable
• monitoring indicates no impact

17. Comparison of methods
• all methods have their pros and cons
• no single method is suitable for all schemes
• lots of factors to take into account
• lots of factors affect the outcome
• lots of factors are outside our direct control
• field-scale seed addition whenever possible,
preferably using green hay
• all except green hay rely on dry weather and
harvesting before the donor meadow is cut

18. Comparison of methods
Green hay
 a large quantity of seed from the widest range of
plants
 only method that can be used in damp weather
 flexible timings for operations
a large volume of material has to be transported
and spread within an hour or so of being collected

21. Comparison of methods
Hay concentrate
 removes the top third to a half of the hay crop so
less bulk
 seed can be dried and stored
misses shorter species
need to be able to harvest before the donor
meadow is cut
need dry weather

23. Comparison of methods
Brush harvesting
 only removes seed and small part of the hay crop
 seed can be dried and stored
misses shorter species
need to be able to harvest before the donor
meadow is cut
need dry weather

25. Comparison of methods
Vacuum harvesting
 only removes seed so minimal impact on hay crop
 can target particular species
 seed can be dried and stored
small amount of seed harvested
need to be able to harvest before the donor
meadow is cut
need dry weather

27. Choosing the best method
Receptor meadow:
• „starting point‟ (restore or enhance)
• area, access
• proximity to receptor
• receptor farmer‟s requirements
Donor meadow:
• quality, area, access
• donor farmer‟s requirements
Other considerations:
• weather
• how it fits with the rest of the programme
• funding

28. Receptor meadow preparation
The receptor farmer needs to:
• cut, field-dry, bale and remove the hay from the site
before seed addition
• create >50% bare ground to aid germination and
establishment, through intensive grazing or
mechanical disturbance
• chain harrows
• spring tines
• power harrow
• scarifier

29. What was achieved?
• 69 schemes involving seed addition and/or
management upgrade applied to 141 meadows at
52 farms
• 165 ha restoration + 114 ha enhancement = 279 ha
• field-scale seed addition on 170 ha (60% of area)
• over 450 meadows surveyed
• management advice provided to over 120 farmers
• Into the Meadows target = 40 ha
• Bowland Hay Time target = 40 ha

30. Data analysis
• 76 meadows re-surveyed in 2011
• data analysed by project staff, YDNPA and Roger
Smith

31. Data analysis
Key findings
• all restoration methods have led to statistically
significant increases in species richness, diversity
and composition
• green hay addition is associated with increased
abundance or the introduction of a large number of
species
• vegetation at a majority of sites is, with time,
moving away from that associated with improved
grassland

32. Summary
Seed addition is the start of a lengthy restoration
process
If…
• the receptor meadow is traditionally managed
• the soil is neutral pH and low fertility
• the right seeds are added in the right way
• the existing vegetation is not too competitive
• the sward is open enough for seeds to establish
then…
some new species will be visible in the autumn, some
need to over-winter, some can take several years,
but some will fail to germinate

35. “...a full record of
the
meadows...that
will have enduring
value.”
George Peterken
British Wildlife
October 2010

36. © David Hill