Mike G. Le Duc
University of Liverpool
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Mike G. Le Duc.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences | 2006
Simon M. Smart; Ken Thompson; R.H. Marrs; Mike G. Le Duc; Lindsay C. Maskell; Leslie G Firbank
Changing land use and the spread of ‘winning’ native or exotic plants are expected to lead to biotic homogenization (BH), in which previously distinct plant communities become progressively more similar. In parallel, many ecosystems have recently seen increases in local species (α-) diversity, yet γ-diversity has continued to decline at larger scales. Using national ecological surveillance data for Great Britain, we quantify relationships between change in α-diversity and between-habitat homogenizations at two levels of organization: species composition and plant functional traits. Across Britain both increases and decreases in α-diversity were observed in small random sampling plots (10–200 m2) located within a national random sample of 1 km square regions. As α-diversity declined (spatially in 1978 or temporally between 1978 and 1998), plant communities became functionally more similar, but species-compositional similarity declined. Thus, different communities converged on a narrower range of winning trait syndromes, but species identities remained historically contingent, differentiating a mosaic of residual species-poor habitat patches within each 1 km square. The reverse trends in β-diversity occurred where α-diversity increased. When impacted by the same type and intensity of environmental change, directions of change in α-diversity are likely to depend upon differences in starting productivity and disturbance. This is one reason why local diversity change and BH across habitats are not likely to be consistently coupled.
Annals of Botany | 2008
Gavin B. Stewart; Emma S. Cox; Mike G. Le Duc; Robin J. Pakeman; Andrew S. Pullin; R.H. Marrs
BACKGROUND AND AIMS A great deal of money is spent controlling invasive weeds as part of international and national policies. It is essential that the funded treatments work across the region in which the policies operate. We argue that experiments across multiple sites are required to validate these programs as results from single sites may be misleading. Here, the control of Pteridium aquilinum (bracken) is used as a test example to address the following four questions. (1) Does the effectiveness of P. aquilinum-control treatments vary across sites? (2) Is the best treatment identified in previous research (cutting twice per year) consistent at all sites, and if not why not? (3) Is treatment performance related to P. aquilinum rhizome mass, litter cover or litter depth at the various sites? (4) Does successful P. aquilinum control influence species richness? METHODS Pteridium aquilinum-control treatments were monitored for 10 years using six replicated experiments and analysed using meta-analysis. Meta-regressions were used to explore heterogeneity between sites. KEY RESULTS The effectiveness of treatments varied between sites depending on the measure used to assess P. aquilinum performance. In general, cutting twice per year was the most successful treatment but on some sites other, less expensive treatments were as good. The effectiveness of treatments at different sites was not related to rhizome mass, but the effectiveness of most applied treatments were inversely related to post-control litter. Effective treatment was also associated with high species richness. CONCLUSIONS It is concluded that successful development of national weed control programs requires multi-site experimental approaches. Here, meta-analyses demonstrate that variation in effectiveness between sites could be explained in part by pre-specified variables. Reliance on data from a single site for policy formulation is therefore clearly dangerous.
Applied Vegetation Science | 2000
Robin J. Pakeman; Rachael H. Thwaites; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs
Vegetation development after conventional bracken control with herbicide in the uplands is often slow and rarely results in the development of the target community. Two experiments were established on contrasting sites to investi- gate cost-effective methods for the re-establishment of vegeta- tion dominated by Calluna vulgaris (heather), which is the usual target community seen as the desired replacement for Pteridium aquilinum in the uplands by many land managers. At one site, where grazing intensity was low and shelter was sufficient to prevent rapid Pteridium litter loss, the necessary treatments to establish Calluna were to disturb the litter and add a source of Calluna seeds. A difference between contin- ued Pteridium control or a relaxation of control was not observed over the time-scale of the experiment. At the second site, where grazing intensity was high and shelter minimal, vegetation dominated by Rumex acetosella had developed on a thin but dense litter layer. To enhance Calluna regeneration it was necessary to prevent sheep grazing, disturb the remain- ing litter layer and add a source of Calluna propagules. A nurse crop hindered Calluna establishment due to its vigorous growth. At neither site was an initial application of fertilizer an aid to Calluna establishment. It is possible to devise methods for the re-establishment of Calluna at sites where previous attempts at Pteridium control alone have not had the desired effect on vegetation develop- ment. However, the precise choice of methods used is depend- ent on the grazing management at the site. High levels of livestock grazing prevented Calluna establishment, but some trampling may aid litter breakdown. The ability to adjust stocking rates and access to the site by machinery are critical factors to take into account in producing an effective strategy for long-term Pteridium control and its replacement by target vegetation.
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2011
Mike P. K. Harris; Katherine A. Allen; Hugh A. McAllister; Geoff Eyre; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2006
Simon M. Smart; R.H. Marrs; Mike G. Le Duc; Ken Thompson; R. G. H. Bunce; L. G. Firbank; Martin J. Rossall
Annals of Botany | 2000
Robin J. Pakeman; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs
Journal of Vegetation Science | 2010
Simon M. Smart; W. Andrew Scott; Jeanette Whitaker; M. O. Hill; David B. Roy; C. Nigel Critchley; Lorenzo Marini; Chris D. Evans; Bridget A. Emmett; Edwin C. Rowe; Andrew Crowe; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs
Journal of Insect Conservation | 2010
Katherine A. Allen; Mike G. Le Duc; David J. Thompson
Ecological Engineering | 2013
Josu G. Alday; Emma S. Cox; Robin J. Pakeman; Mike P. K. Harris; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs
Restoration Ecology | 2005
Robin J. Pakeman; Jim L. Small; Mike G. Le Duc; R.H. Marrs