N immobilization treatment revisited: A retarded and temporary effect unfolded in old‐field restoration

Abstract

AbstractAimThere is increasing recognition that plant–soil feedbacks drive species co‐existence; therefore the below‐ground compartment should be better considered in ecological restoration. Addition of carbon is a restoration measure that relies on indirect plant–soil relationships by immobilizing soil nitrogen in microbial biomass to manipulate competitive hierarchies between plant species. The aim of the present work was to evaluate the impact of six years of carbon amendment in old‐field restoration in the long term, 20 years after the first application.LocationOld‐fields and reference sand steppe on dry calcareous sandy soil in Fülöpháza, Kiskun LTER site (46°53′ N, 19°24′ E), Hungary, Pannonian biogeographic region, Europe.MethodsWe applied carbon amendment in the form of sucrose and sawdust on three abandoned agricultural fields between 1998 and 2003. Vegetation was surveyed in 1998–2006 and re‐sampled in 2008, 2010 and 2018 on permanent 2 m × 2 m coenological relevés for carbon‐amended, control and reference plots (n = 144). We used principal response curves (PRC) to describe vegetation development trajectories and linear mixed‐effects models to test changes in cover of vascular plants and cryptogams, nitrogen requirement groups and restoration species groups with time and treatment.ResultsCarbon amendment resulted in lower soil nitrogen availability, and lower cover of vascular plants and cryptogams compared to control, but these differences became visible only four to five years after the first application and disappeared three years after the cessation of treatment. Minor treatment effects on the cover of oligotrophic, mesotrophic and target species were found.ConclusionsCarbon amendment did not speed up the recovery of sand grasslands; however, the reduction of cover (vegetation and cryptogam) can be a window of opportunity for other species to colonize that can be used as a complement to other treatments. Long‐term monitoring is especially important in evaluating restoration interventions that focus on indirect above‐ground–below‐ground linkages.