Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38515666›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

How to successfully improve the biodiversity of city grasslands?

Hassanali Mollashahi, Tomasz H Szymura, Magdalena Szymura

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hassanali MollashahiWrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław, Poland.
Tomasz H SzymuraUniversity of Wrocław. Botanical Garden, Wrocław, Poland.
Magdalena SzymuraWrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urban grasslands (UG) are among the most common types of urban green areas. They are usually species poor, and spontaneous plant migration, which can increase biodiversity, is limited. To improve the range of ecosystem services provided by UG, various seed mixtures are applied during the establishment and restoration of UG. These mixtures vary in content, quality, and cost. High-quality seed mixtures are expensive and are usually only available in small amounts. Meanwhile, alternative methods of seed introduction (e.g., fresh hay application, seeds harvested by brush) have not been well studied in UG restoration, and inexpensive commercial mixtures could have low quality and lead to poor restoration outcomes. Here, we tested the effectiveness of different seed sources to create high-quality UG at two study sites. Based on the results, all seed addition methods increased the species richness of restored grasslands. The outcome of seed addition was satisfactory regardless of differences in residual vegetation species composition and soil properties between the sites. The species richness on plots that received a commercial mixture of flower meadow plants dedicated to pollinators decreased after overwintering. The alternative seed sources (fresh hay and seed incidentally collected during mowing) yielded grassland quality that was comparable to that on plots that received high-quality mixtures with known seed origin (a seminatural meadow mixture and a mixture with the addition of grasses).

Indexed as

City greeneryCityscapeFlower meadowFresh hayPollinator-friendly seed mixtures

Identifiers

PMID38515666
PMCPMC10955310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.