International Journal of

Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre) E-ISSN : 2454-8006

DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101 Volume 7, Issue 12

December - 2021

Effects of Restoration Techniques on Plant Diversity and Forage

Biomass in Areas Invaded by Prosopis juliflora
Yohana Jumanne1, Francis Moyo1, John R. Mbwambo2
1
Department of Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management,

The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 447, Arusha Tanzania
2
Tanzania Forestry Research Institute, P.O. Box 1854, Morogoro Tanzania
_______________________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT
Prosopis juliflora, an invasive plant worldwide causes major threats by destructing natural ecosystem and limits provisioning of
ecosystem services in the invaded areas. Attempts to manage the species and restore invaded lands have landed countries to adopt
and implement different restoration options. This study tested three restoration options namely Diveting, Mulching and Seeding
and their combination to assess their effectiveness in enhancing plant diversity and forage biomass. The study cleared invaded
lands in Kahe Ward, Northern Tanzania and laid two blocks, each designated to address livestock pasture and conservation
challenges. Experimental blocks were laid in a complete randomized design in 10mx10m plots. Data on plant species and forage
biomass were collected in each 10mx10m whereby plants were identified with the support of a botanist; their number recorded,
and grass samples green and dry weight determined. The Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index was used to estimate diversity of plant
species and the average values in each restoration treatment. One way ANOVA showed that, diversity of native plants was higher
in control (Mean±SE =1.239±0.937) than diveting (Mean±SE =1.105±0.56) and diveting-mulching (Mean±SE =0.7703±0.55).
Forage biomass was higher in control (Mean±SE =65.917±10.083) than in diveting (Mean±SE =52.425±11.15), diveting-
mulching (Mean±SE =42.067±8.751) and diveting-seeding-mulching (Mean±SE =57.625±10.02) implying that restoration
interventions have no positive influence on forage biomass. It is recommended that, clearing the land and leave it without
restoration is enough because the restoration options do not have positive influence on plant diversity and forage biomass.

Key Words: Restoration, Diveting, Mulching, Seeding, Diversity, Biomass.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
1. INTRODUCTION
Prosopis juliflora is recognized as an invasive plant affecting agropastoral and landscapes worldwide [1]. The species express
high capability to establish, invade and outcompete native species outside its natural habitat [2]. Following its introduction from
America in the 1800s, it has widely spread across arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, [1, 3], reducing biodiversity and changing
vegetation to unproductive thickets [4]. Prosopis juliflora also negatively affects human and animal health. Thorns of Prosopis
juliflora cause inflammation when penetrating human or animal skin [5]. Ingestion of Prosopis juliflora pods over a long period of
time can result to death of livestock [4]. Stomach poisoning by Prosopis juliflora pods results in permanent incapacity of animal
to digest cellulose. Prosopis juliflora also impairs agricultural production [6] and can act as breeding site for malaria vector
mosquitoes [7].

In Eastern Africa, Prosopis juliflora was intentionally introduced in Kenya and Ethiopia around 1960s and 1970s in attempt to
promote energy self-sufficiency and environmental stabilization [8]. Since then, the species has invaded more than a million
hectares of agricultural land (crop fields, grasslands) in both Kenya and Ethiopia, forming dense thorny thickets which hinder
growth of other plants species, reduce water availability, and affect livestock health by causing tooth decay and obstructing
movement [9]. In Ethiopia, Prosopis juliflora invasion has accelerated degradation of pasturelands as it flourishes in overgrazed
and denuded grassland ecosystems, and subsequently turning pasture lands to unusable bush lands [10]. Management measures
that have been implemented such as complete mechanical removal and maximizing utilization are not practical eradicating
Prosopis juliflora at large scale due to high costs [11].

www.ijasre.net Page 9
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021
In Tanzania, Prosopis juliflora was unintentionally introduced in Tanzania by traders between Taveta County (Kenya) and
Mwanga District in Kilimanjaro Region around 1988 [12]. Since then, Prosopis juliflora has spread significantly, invading
valuable agricultural and pastoral lands in the Northern part of the country including Kilimanjaro, Arusha and Manyara regions,
leading to challenges in agricultural and grazing lands [13],[14]. Attempts to solve problems associated with Prosopis juliflora are
implemented by the ―Woody Weeds‖ project since 2017. The project produced species management policy insights [12], and
established restoration trial plots in Kahe Ward, Moshi Rural District to address conservation and livestock pasture challenges in
areas invaded by Prosopis juliflora. The Woody Weeds project, established two restoration blocks comprising four restoration
treatments which were diveting (DIV), diveting-seeding-mulching (DSM), diveting-mulching (DIM) and control (CON). In
Diveting, shallow hollows of about 50 x 50 cm size were made to retain water and seed run-off during rainfall, whereas in
seeding, seed of grasses native to Kahe were sown for restoration purposes. In mulching, grasses native to the study area were
used as mulch and no restoration was done in the control treatment. Yet, three years later, information about the effects of these
restoration options on plant diversity, forage biomass and crop growth performance remained elusive. This paper therefore unveils
the effectiveness of the restoration options, and best practices toward successful Prosopis juliflora management.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Description of the study area
This study was conducted in Kahe ward located in Moshi Rural, Kilimanjaro Region, Northern Tanzania. The two main ethnic
groups in Kahe are Chagga and Pare, whose main livelihood strategies in agriculture and livestock keeping [15]. Soils of this area
are derived from volcanic and alluvial deposits [16]. They range from dark reddish brown to dark brown sandy loam or heavy
clays [16]. Annual precipitation ranges between 275 mm and 500 mm, with most rain occurring between March and May [17].
The annual air temperature ranges from 15−36 °C, with June − August being the coldest months (15−23 °C) and
January−February being the hottest months (32−35 °C) [18]. Within Kahe Ward, the study concentrated in Oria village which is
highly invaded by Prosopis juliflora. This village has an area of 42.5ha whereby 50% of its area is invaded.
2.2. Study design and sampling strategy
The total area invaded in Oria village was 21.25 ha, of which an area of 0.425 ha equivalent to 2% was sampled for establishment
of trial plot. The study adopted sampling strategy established by FAO [19] to obtain the number of research trials plots.

Number of research trial plots = Area of the study (ha) x Sampling intensity
Area of the plot (ha)

2.3. Trial plot establishment and designing

The 0.425 ha sampled area for establishment of trial plot was cleared by cutting and uprooting all Prosopis juliflora plants, and
ploughed to soften the soil. In order to accommodate the interest of the community social economic activities (pastoralism and
conservation), the area was divided into two parts for establishing research plots. The first part was designed to comply with
conservation and the other part for pastoralists. The research employed the following restoration techniques through
randomization design; i) Diveting (DIV): This involved digging of shallow hollows of about 50 x 50 cm size in order to retain
water run-off during rainfall, ii) Diveting-mulching (DIM): This involved digging of shallow hollows to retain water and seed run-
off during rainfall as well as the use of grasses (Digitaria velutina) native to Kahe as mulches to prevent water loss during dry
seasons, iii) Diveting-sowing-mulching: This involved digging of shallow hollows, seeding of native grasses (Digitaria velutina)
for livestock and the use of mulches to prevent water loss during dry seasons and, iv) Control (CON): This did not involve any
intervention; it was left as a baseline of the study.

2.3.1. Research plot design for plant diversity

Restoration trial by using three treatments which are Diveting (DIV), Diveting-mulching (DIM) with their control (CON) was
established by using complete randomized design technique. The area composed of 1,200 m 2 was divided into three 10m X 10m
parts to accommodate the mentioned treatments separately and replicated four times (Table 2.3.1).

Table 2.3.1: Complete randomized design treatment plot for plant diversity
DIV CON DIM CON
DIM DIV CON DIV
CON DIM DIV DIM

www.ijasre.net Page 10
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021
2.3.2. Research plot design for forage biomass

Restoration trial by using four treatments which are Diveting (DIV), Diveting-mulching (DIM) and Diveting-seeding-mulching
(DSM) with their control (CON) was established by using complete randomized design technique. The area composed of 1,600 m 2
was divided into four 10m X 10m parts to accommodate the mentioned treatments separately and replicated four times (Table
2.3.2). Then seeds of Velvet finger-grass (Digitaria velutina), a grass species native to Kahe and which is more preferred by
livestock were sown for the sake of increasing forage biomass for pastoralists.

Table 2.3.2: Complete randomized design treatment plot for forage biomass
DIV CON DIM DSM
DIM DIV DSM CON
CON DSM DIV DIM
DSM DIM CON DIV

2.4. Data collection

2.4.1 Plant diversity

To understand how diveting and mulching affect plant community and diversity parameters such as plant species richness and
abundance, both native tree species and grasses were identified and counted in the 10m x 10m plots in DIV, DIM and CON. A
botanist was employed to identify plant species in all plots. Names and number of the identified native plant species were
recorded. A checklist of all surveyed plant species was prepared in order to keep records of the conservation status in the area.

2.4.2. Forage biomass

48 grass samples were collected in DIV, DIM, DSM and CON treatments of 10m x 10m size each, making a total area of 4,800 m 2
which was the area having grasses during the period of data collection. In each 10m x 10m plot, 3 grass samples were taken in 3
random 1m x 1m plots. The 3 grass samples taken in each restoration treatment were weighed to obtain their total initial green
weights. Then 50% of the total initial weight per plot was taken to represent the whole treatment making a total of 48 grass
samples for all treatments [20]. Thereafter, the samples were oven dried at 60 0 C for 6 hours to obtain the final dry weights which
were regarded as biomass.

2.5. Data analysis

The Shannon–Wiener Diversity Index (SDI) was used to estimate species diversity and the average values in DIV, DIM and CON.
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test whether there is a difference in means among all treatments on plant
diversity and forage biomass. Post-hoc test using Tukey‘s honest significance difference (Tukey‘s HSD) was done to show which
treatment differed from others.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Results

3.1.1 Effects of diveting and mulching on plant diversity for conservationists

Diveting and mulching had no significant effect on diversity of the native plants in the area which was previously invaded by
Prosopis juliflora (F = 0.195, df = 3, P = 0.828). However, plant diversity in diveting and mulching was lower compared to the
control (CON) area which appeared to have higher diversity (Figure 3.1.1).

www.ijasre.net Page 11
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021

1.5

SDI
0.5

0
DIV DIM CON
Restoration treatments

Figure 1.1.1: Diversity of plants across restoration treatments

The maximum and minimum values for SDI in the diveting treatment were 1.873642 and 0.0266 (M = 1.105442, SD = 0.56 and
Median = 1.416084). Further, the DIM treatment had the maximum and minimum SDI values of 1.8516 and 0.093746 (M =
0.770334, SD = 0.55 and Median = 0.365656). The control (CON) had the maximum and minimum SDI value of 2.305615 and
0.548883 (M = 1.239197667, SD = 0.94 and Median = 0.863095) as shown in Table 3.1.1. The mean values in the control and
DIM treatments are greater than their median values. This implies that the distribution of native plant species in the treatments is
positively skewed. However, the mean value in DIV treatment is less than the median value indicating that the distribution of
native plant species in the treatment is negatively skewed.
Table 3.1.1: Maximum value, minimum value, mean SDI (±SE) and median value per treatment

Treatment Maximum value Minimum value Mean±SE Median value

DIV 1.873642 0.0266 1.105±0.56 1.416084

DIM 1.8516 0.093746 0.7703±0.55 0.365656

CON 2.305615 0.548883 1.239±0.937 0.863095

3.1.2. Effect of diveting, seeding and mulching on forage biomass for pastoralists

The amount of forage biomass did not differ significantly across Diveting (DIV), Diveting-mulching (DIM), Diveting-sowing-
mulching (DSM) and Control (CON) since df = 3, F = 0.837and P = 0.481. But, forage biomass was found to be higher in the
control (CON) treatment than in DIV, DIM and DSM treatments (Figure 3.1.2).

350
300
Mean average weights (g)

250
200
150
100
50
0
CON DIM DIV DSM
Restoration treatments
Initial weight (g) Oven dry weight (g)

Figure 3.1.2: Forage biomass across restoration treatments

www.ijasre.net Page 12
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021
The mean average values of initial and oven dry forage weights in the CON were 291.875±45.098 and 65.917±10.083
respectively while for DIV were 225.36±46.97 and 52.425±11.15 respectively. The mean average values of initial and oven dry
weights in DIM were 182.117±40.677 and 42.067±8.751 respectively while for DSM were 249.792±36.35 and 57.625±10.02
respectively. The median values for oven dry weights in CON, DIV, DIM and DSM were 65.917, 51.1, 40.3 and 57.625
respectively (Table 3.1.2).

Table 3.1.2: Mean values (±SE), median and mode values of forage biomass across restoration treatments

Treatment Mean±SE Median Mode

DIV 52.425±11.15 51.1 48.45

DIM 42.067±8.751 40.3 36.766

DSM 57.625±10.02 57.625 57.625

CON 65.917±10.083 65.917 89

3.2. Discussion

3.2.1 Effects of diveting and mulching on plant diversity for conservationists

Both diveting and mulching seem to have no significant effect on diversity of the native plants in the study area. Diversity of
native plant species indicated no significant difference among the treatments in which diveting and mulching were applied.
However, diversity increased in control (CON) plot (Mean±SE =1.239±0.937) compared to DIV (Mean±SE =1.105±0.56) and
DIM (Mean±SE =0.7703±0.55). The higher diversity of native plant species in CON might be attributed to factors such as
availability of more free spaces for emergence of plants not blocked by the mulches. Clearing, ploughing and leaving the land
uncovered increase the chances of plants to emerge compared to where mulches may act as a barrier. The results from this study
are however contrary to a study by [21] who concluded that application of mulching increases plant diversity because mulches
improve soil conditions which facilitate the growth of other plant species. Grass mulches take more than one growing season to
decompose and release nutrients and open up spaces for plants to emerge [22].

3.2.2 Effect of diveting, seeding and mulching on forage biomass for pastoralists

Diveting, seeding and mulching observed to be not effective in restoration of native grasses for pastoralists in the study area
(p>0.05) compared to the area that was only cleared and left without any restoration intervention (i.e. CON) which had more
forage biomass (Mean±SE =65.917±10.083). The higher forage biomass in the control area might be attributed to the absence of
mulches that could act as a barrier that prevented emergence of grasses in DIM and DIV treatments. Mulches physically prevent
the emergence of native grasses by obstructing sunlight and air flow. The same reason explains why block with only diveting
(DIV) was found to have larger forage biomass compared to the area with diveting-mulching (DIM). The findings in study are in
line with a study by [23] who showed that mulches block the germination stimuli of grass seeds by stopping light, decreasing soil
temperature, and significantly reducing the day to night temperature fluctuations leading to germination of fewer grass seeds
under the mulches than in uncovered soil. Although more water was conserved in the areas where diveting, seeding and mulching
were applied but the major challenge was presence of mulches that acted as a barrier preventing the germination of grass seeds
and emergence of grasses. Studies show that, diveting, seeding and mulching when combined together could support more grasses
than diveting and mulching [24], [25]. In this study, larger amount of forage biomass was also observed when diveting, seeding
and mulching were simultaneously compared to areas where only diveting and mulching were applied. Also, [26] show that
mulches conserve moisture in soils and enhance the nutrients, hence contributing to growth of grasses and increases forage
biomass. However, in this study forage biomass was low despite the application of diveting; mulching and sowing of the native
grass seeds promote regeneration. This demonstrate that application of restoration techniques such as diveting, seeding and
mulching can only be effective in enhancing grass productivity and forage biomass when removal of Prosopis juliflora is
combined with long-term fallowing to allow mulches to decompose [27].

www.ijasre.net Page 13
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021

4. CONCLUSION
This study aimed at assessing the effects of restoration techniques on plant diversity and forage biomass in areas invaded by
Prosopis juliflora. The results show that restoration techniques had no positive influence on plant diversity and forage biomass.
The diversity of native plants differed across DIV (Mean±SE =1.105±0.56) and DIM (Mean±SE =0.7703±0.55) were low
compared CON (Mean±SE =1.239±0.937). Forage biomass was low in DIV (Mean±SE =52.425±11.15), DIM (Mean±SE
=42.067±8.751) and DSM (Mean±SE =57.625±10.02) compared to CON (Mean±SE =65.917±10.083) implying that restoration
interventions have not been successful in enhancing forage biomass productivity. This study therefore, concludes that application
of restoration interventions after mechanical removal of Prosopis juliflora does not enhance plant diversity and forage biomass in
the first production cycle. Long-term monitoring is therefore required to determine production required to make the restoration
options effective.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors acknowledge the financial support from Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International through Woody weeds
project.

REFERENCES
[1] R. T. Shackleton, D. C. Le Maitre, N. M. Pasiecznik, and D. M. Richardson, ‗Prosopis: a global assessment of the
biogeography, benefits, impacts and management of one of the world‘s worst woody invasive plant taxa‘, AoB Plants, vol.
6, 2014.
[2] R. T. Shackleton, D. C. Le Maitre, B. W. Van Wilgen, and D. M. Richardson, ‗The impact of invasive alien Prosopis
species (mesquite) on native plants in different environments in South Africa‘, South Afr. J. Bot., vol. 97, no. 0, pp. 25–31,
Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2014.12.008.
[3] R. Eschen, K. Bekele, P. R. Mbaabu, C. J. Kilawe, and S. Eckert, ‗Prosopis juliflora management and grassland restoration
in Baringo County, Kenya: Opportunities for soil carbon sequestration and local livelihoods‘, J. Appl. Ecol., pp. 1365-
2664.13854, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13854.
[4] A. Shimles and M. Getachew, ‗Contemporary prosopis dilemma: Perception of inhabitants of Sabian Kebele (Goro)
towards invasive tree Prosopis juliflora, Eastern Ethiopia‘, J. Agric. Biotechnol. Sustain. Dev., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–6, Feb.
2016, doi: 10.5897/JABSD2015.0250.
[5] V. D. A. da Silva, A. M. M. da Silva, J. H. C. e Silva, and S. L. Costa, ‗Neurotoxicity of Prosopis juliflora: from Natural
Poisoning to Mechanism of Action of Its Piperidine Alkaloids‘, Neurotox. Res., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 878–888, 2018.
[6] B. W. van Wilgen, J. Measey, D. M. Richardson, J. R. Wilson, and T. A. Zengeya, Eds., Biological Invasions in South
Africa. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-32394-3.
[7] G. C. Muller et al., ‗The invasive shrub Prosopis juliflora enhances the malaria parasite transmission capacity of Anopheles
mosquitoes: a habitat manipulation experiment‘, Malar. J., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 237, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s12936-017-
1878-9.
[8] P. R. Mbaabu et al., ‗Restoration of degraded grasslands, but not invasion by Prosopis juliflora, avoids trade-offs between
climate change mitigation and other ecosystem services‘, Sci. Rep., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 20391, Dec. 2020, doi:
10.1038/s41598-020-77126-7.
[9] Y. A. Tessema, ‗Ecological and economic dimensions of the paradoxical invasive species-Prosopis juliflora and policy
challenges in Ethiopia‘, J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. Www Iiste Org, vol. 3, no. 8, 2012.
[10] N. Haregeweyn, A. Tsunekawa, M. Tsubo, D. Meshesha, and A. Melkie, ‗Analysis of the invasion rate, impacts and control
measures of Prosopis juliflora: a case study of Amibara District, Eastern Ethiopia‘, Environ. Monit. Assess., vol. 185, no. 9,
pp. 7527–7542, 2013.
[11] J. Haji and A. Mohammed, ‗Economic impact of Prosopis juliflora on agropastoral households of Dire Dawa
Administration, Ethiopia‘, Afr. J. Agric. Res., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 768–779, 2013.
[12] C. J. Kilawe et al., ‗Mrashia: \textit{Prosopis} has started invading pastures and agricultural lands in Tanzania‘, no.
September, 2017.

www.ijasre.net Page 14
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101
International Journal of Advances in Scientific Research and Engineering (ijasre), Vol 7 (12), December -2021
[13] T. T. Wakie, P. H. Evangelista, C. S. Jarnevich, and M. Laituri, ‗Mapping current and potential distribution of non-native
Prosopis juliflora in the Afar region of Ethiopia‘, PloS One, vol. 9, no. 11, p. e112854, 2014.
[14] M. L. Castillo et al., ‗Genetic insights into the globally invasive and taxonomically problematic tree genus Prosopis‘, AoB
PLANTS, vol. 13, no. 1, p. plaa069, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plaa069.
[15] F. G. Mndeme, ‗Adaptation strategies to climate variability and climate change; Impacts on food security among
smallholder farmers in Moshi Rural District, Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania: Perceptions, Capacities and Limitations of
adaptive strategies.‘, Master Degree Programme Agro-Environ. Manag. Dep. Agroecol.-Fac. Sci. Technol. Aarhus Univ.
Den., pp. 74–76, 2016.
[16] J. A. Ngailo, J. M. Wickama, A. Nyaki, and A. L. Kaswamila, ‗Nutrient flow analysis for selected farming systems in
northern Tanzania: the case of Mbulu, Moshi rural and Lushoto Districts‘, 2001.
[17] C. de Bont, H. C. Komakech, and G. J. Veldwisch, ‗Neither modern nor traditional: Farmer-led irrigation development in
Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania‘, World Dev., vol. 116, pp. 15–27, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.11.018.
[18] Lwimbo, Komakech, and Muzuka, ‗Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Practices on Groundwater Quality in Kahe
Catchment, Tanzania‘, Water, vol. 11, no. 11, p. 2263, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.3390/w11112263.
[19] FAO, Global guidelines for the restoration of degraded forests and landscapes in drylands: Building Resiliencine and
Benefiting livelihoods. 2015.
[20] L. Nurk, R. Graß, C. Pekrun, and M. Wachendorf, ‗Effect of Sowing Method and Weed Control on the Performance of
Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)‘, Agriculture, vol. 7, no. 7, p. 51, Jun.
2017, doi: 10.3390/agriculture7070051.
[21] K. Tilak et al., ‗Diversity of plant growth and soil health supporting bacteria‘, Curr. Sci., pp. 136–150, 2005.
[22] B. S. Griffiths, A. Spilles, and M. Bonkowski, ‗C:N:P stoichiometry and nutrient limitation of the soil microbial biomass in
a grazed grassland site under experimental P limitation or excess‘, Ecol. Process., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 6, Dec. 2012, doi:
10.1186/2192-1709-1-6.
[23] R. Iqbal et al., ‗Potential agricultural and environmental benefits of mulches—a review‘, Bull. Natl. Res. Cent., vol. 44, no.
1, p. 75, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1186/s42269-020-00290-3.
[24] B. L. Foster, K. Kindscher, G. R. Houseman, and C. A. Murphy, ‗Effects of hay management and native species sowing on
grassland community structure, biomass, and restoration‘, Ecol. Appl., vol. 19, no. 7, p. 13, 2009.
[25] D. P. Johnson, J. A. Catford, D. A. Driscoll, and P. Gibbons, ‗Seed addition and biomass removal key to restoring native
forbs in degraded temperate grassland‘, p. 10.
[26] J. Heyburn, P. McKenzie, M. J. Crawley, and D. A. Fornara, ‗Effects of grassland management on plant C:N:P
stoichiometry: implications for soil element cycling and storage‘, Ecosphere, vol. 8, no. 10, p. e01963, Oct. 2017, doi:
10.1002/ecs2.1963.
[27] A. J. Cole, R. I. Griffiths, S. E. Ward, J. Whitaker, N. J. Ostle, and R. D. Bardgett, ‗Grassland biodiversity restoration
increases resistance of carbon fluxes to drought‘, J. Appl. Ecol., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 1806–1816, Jul. 2019, doi:
10.1111/1365-2664.13402.

www.ijasre.net Page 15
DOI: 10.31695/IJASRE.2021.34101