Responses of an ancient woodland field layer to soil translocation: methods and timing.

Questions Do woodland field layer communities reassemble effectively after being translocated from a donor to a receptor site? Does the method of soil handling (turfing or loose-tipping) or the season of transfer determine the outcome? Location A deciduous ancient coppice woodland in Kent, southeast England. Methods Two methods of soil translocation were compared: loose-tipping, involving stripping a layer of topsoil and re-spreading it at a receptor site; and soil placement, in which soil turves were cut and laid intact. The operation also provided an opportunity to observe the effects of seasonal translocation, respectively, in autumn and spring. Soil compaction, texture and chemistry were assessed after translocation, while vegetation cover changes were followed over a 10-yr period. Results Immediately after soil transfer, the vegetation community reverted to an earlier successional stage, with bare ground rapidly colonized by annuals and biennials, many germinating from the soil seed bank. By the third year after translocation, a perennial vegetation cover had developed comprising grasses and woodland-edge opportunists as well as most of the original woodland species. After 10 yr, bramble ( Rubus fruticosus agg.) dominated the receptor sites, along with the woodland geophyte bluebell ( Hyacinthoides non-scripta), while some woodland species became less abundant. Localized soil compaction radically altered species composition. Autumn translocation promoted better immediate recovery of forest species than spring translocation, while soil placement caused less initial damage than loose-tipping. Convergence in vegetation composition in all soil handling treatments was observed towards canopy closure. Conclusions Results illustrate the importance of conducting translocation operations in the autumn when the vegetation is dormant and soil moisture is low, and point to the need for sensitive soil handling. After 10 yr the field layer at the receptor site still resembled that of the donor, but with differences in abundance of some individual species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]