Grassland restoration on linear landscape elements - comparing the effects of topsoil removal and topsoil transfer
Orsolya Valkó,András Kelemen,Orsolya Kiss,Zoltán Bátori,Réka Kiss,Balázs Deák
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-024-02299-y
2024-08-22
Abstract:Artificial linear landscape elements, including roads, pipelines, and drainage channels, are main sources of global habitat fragmentation. Restoration of natural habitats on unused linear landscape elements can increase habitat quality and connectivity without interfering with agricultural or industrial development. Despite that topsoil removal and transfer are widely applied methods in restoration projects, up to our knowledge these were previously not compared in the same study system. To address this knowledge gap, we compared spontaneous vegetation recovery after the elimination of positive (embankments) and negative landscape scars (drainage channels) in lowland alkaline landscapes in South Hungary. The novelty of our study is that we compared the fine-scale and landscape-scale results of both methods. At the fine scale, we monitored the spontaneous vegetation development on the created open surfaces in the first, second and fourth year after restoration in 160 permanent plots per year. For characterizing the habitat changes on the landscape scale, we prepared habitat maps and assigned naturalness scores to each patch before and after the restoration activities. Both restoration methods resulted in a rapid vegetation recovery at the fine scale, progressing toward the reference state. In the topsoil removal treatment, a large part of the soil seed bank was removed; therefore, the colonization of the bare surface was a slower process. Seeds of halophytes, including the endemic and protected Suaeda pannonica, were probably present in the deeper soil layers, and these species became established in the restored surfaces, despite being absent in the surrounding vegetation. For restoring vegetation cover, topsoil transfer was a more rapid option; however, vegetation closure and competition by generalist species and weeds hampered the establishment of target species. The removal of the landscape scars by both methods made the sites accessible for grazing. At the landscape scale, the two methods had different effects: there was a slight increase in the habitat naturalness in the topsoil removal site, and a slight decrease in the topsoil transfer site because of weed encroachment. Spreading an upper layer of nutrient-poor soil with low amounts of weed seeds, direct propagule transfer, and targeted grazing regimes could enhance restoration success.