| |
Modifying saltmarsh vegetation - heavily grazed (State 1)
to moderately grazed (State 2)
Moving a saltmarsh from heavily grazed (State
1) to moderately grazed (State
2) has not often been employed as a deliberate management policy
at many sites (but see the RSPB Carnforth
reserve in Morecambe Bay). However, where it is considered appropriate to move
the saltmarsh from State 1 to State 2 or even State
3, then a simple policy of reducing stocking rates is the main tool.
[Information on the stock
regimes most appropriate to individual requirements is provided.
Generally a decrease in stock levels will result in an increase in structure
and overall biodiversity
of the saltmarsh.]
|
General guidance: "Traditionally heavily grazed marshes,
particularly where high sheep stocking rates are employed, favour short
swards and benefit winter grazing ducks and geese. A reduction
in grazing levels will move the saltmarsh from State 1 to State 2 and
increase the potential value of the marsh for other interests (such as
breeding waders)." (Doody 2001).
Care must be taken in areas, which provide palatable herbage for grazing
ducks and geese, as reducing grazing pressure may affect the carrying
capacity of the marsh. In this context it is important to recognise that
a change in conservation status can take place very rapidly. A marsh seemingly
supporting a varied flora and fauna can show a loss of interest in a matter
of only a few years. A common saltmarsh grass Puccinellia
maritima dominated sward, for example, which had persisted for
at least 50 years reverted to a dense sea couch Elytrigia
atherica / red fescue Festuca rubra
sward (State
4 abandoned) in only 10 years following cessation of grazing
(Ranwell 1964).
|
References
Doody, J.P.
2001.
Coastal Conservation and Management: an Ecological Perspective. Kluwer, Academic Publishers, Boston, USA, 306 pp.
Conservation Biology Series, 13
Ranwell, D.S.
1964.
Spartina saltmarshes in southern England, rates of establishment, succession and nutrient supply at Bridgwater Bay, Somerset.
Journal of Ecology, 52., 95-105.
|
|