'Lendület' Seed Ecology Research Group, Institute of Ecology and Botany, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány str. 2-4, Vácrátót, 2163, Hungary.
Department of Ecology, University of Szeged, Közép Fasor 52, Szeged, 6726, Hungary.
BMC Ecol Evol. 2024 Aug 22;24(1):112. doi: 10.1186/s12862-024-02299-y.
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.
人工线性景观元素，包括道路、管道和排水渠道，是全球生境破碎化的主要来源。在未使用的线性景观元素上恢复自然栖息地可以提高栖息地质量和连通性，同时不妨碍农业或工业发展。尽管去除表土并转移是修复项目中广泛应用的方法，但据我们所知，这些方法以前并未在同一研究系统中进行比较。为了弥补这一知识空白，我们比较了匈牙利低地碱性景观中消除正（堤岸）和负（排水渠道）景观疤痕后自然植被的恢复情况。本研究的新颖之处在于我们比较了这两种方法的细尺度和景观尺度结果。在细尺度上，我们在修复后的第一年、第二年和第四年，每年在 160 个永久样方中监测了创建的开放表面上自然植被的发展情况。为了在景观尺度上描述生境变化，我们在修复前后为每个斑块准备了生境图并分配了自然度评分。两种修复方法都导致了细尺度上植被的快速恢复，朝着参考状态发展。在去除表土的处理中，大部分土壤种子库被去除；因此，裸露表面的定殖过程较为缓慢。包括特有种和受保护的滨藜 Suaeda pannonica 在内的盐生植物的种子可能存在于更深的土壤层中，这些物种在修复后的表面上建立了种群，尽管它们在周围植被中不存在。为了恢复植被覆盖，表土转移是一种更快的选择；然而，由于普通物种和杂草的竞争，植被的封闭和目标物种的建立受到了阻碍。两种方法都消除了景观疤痕，使这些地点可供放牧。在景观尺度上，这两种方法有不同的效果：去除表土的地点生境自然度略有增加，而表土转移的地点由于杂草侵入，生境自然度略有下降。通过传播富含养分但杂草种子较少的上层土壤、直接繁殖体转移和有针对性的放牧制度，可以提高修复成功率。
