Can we balance the high costs of nature restoration with the method of topsoil removal? Case study from Poland

Klimkowska, Agata; Dzierża, Paulina; Brzezińska, Kamila; Mędrzycki, Piotr

doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2009.09.003

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Top soil removal can be a rather expensive measure and, particularly if the objective of the peatland restoration is to target mitigation of climate change, its carbon footprint needs to be carefully assessed. The degraded surface peat can be a suitable material for some horticultural purposes, and may be a preferable source that extraction of peat from intact peatlands (Klimkowska, Dzierza, Brzezinska, Kotowski, & Medrzycki, ). Such a commercial use may partly offset the high removal costs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Top soil removal reduces water pollution from phosphorus and dissolved organic matter and lowers methane emissions from rewetted peatlands

Zak

Goldhammer

Cabezas

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A valid strategy to mitigate the eutrophication of water bodies due to non‐point source phosphorus (P) pollution and to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases is the rewetting of degraded peatlands. However, long‐term drainage and intensive agricultural use make it unlikely that the original sink functions for nutrients and carbon (C) as well as low‐nutrient conditions can be re‐established within a human time perspective. We hypothesized that the removal of the upper degraded peat layer can be a suitable measure to avoid the negative implications of excess mobilization of P and C after rewetting. To evaluate the effect of top soil removal (TSR) we performed lab and field experiments in six inundated peatlands in northern Germany without TSR compared to six inundated sites with TSR. In addition, we included data from a rewetted peatland where the degraded peat had been removed from about half of the area and groundwater level was just beneath the soil surface. The results emphasized that following inundation newly formed detritus mud layers overlying the former peat surface are the dominating source for P and methane in particular in sites without TSR but also in sites with TSR, although at significantly lower rates. Although highly decomposed peat released more or less no methane, dissolved organic matter mobilization was highest in this substrate while less decomposed peat was characterized in general by lowest rates of mobilization. Synthesis and applications. Top soil removal prior to rewetting can be a suitable method to avoid the negative consequences of the excess release of phosphorus (P) and carbon post‐rewetting. We developed a simple decision support schematic to assist the peatland restoration process and to better understand the implications of top soil removal. Despite the potential benefits, top soil removal should not be declared as a universal method, as it requires detailed consideration prior to application. However, this and other research demonstrate that it is inevitable that without any further management interventions high mobilization of P, dissolved organic matter and methane may persist for centuries following rewetting of peatlands.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The degraded surface peat can be a suitable material for some horticultural purposes, and may be a preferable source that extraction of peat from intact peatlands (Klimkowska, Dzierza, Brzezinska, Kotowski, & Medrzycki, 2010). Such a commercial use may partly offset the high removal costs.…”

Section: Management Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top soil removal reduces water pollution from phosphorus and dissolved organic matter and lowers methane emissions from rewetted peatlands

Zak

Goldhammer

Cabezas

et al. 2017

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Topsoil removal and community transfer are even more costly. The costs of topsoil removal can exceed 10,000 €/ha, which can be partly recovered by selling the removed topsoil (Marrs et al 1998;Klimkowska et al 2010b). In community translocation, the costs can be astronomical if we try to transfer also the deeper soil layers (Table 3).…”

Section: Cost Of Restorationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grasslands used to be vital landscape elements throughout Europe. Nowadays, the area of grasslands is dramatically reduced, especially in industrial countries. Grassland restoration is widely applied to increase the naturalness of the landscape and preserve biodiversity. We reviewed the most frequently used restoration techniques (spontaneous succession, sowing seed mixtures, transfer of plant material, topsoil removal and transfer) and techniques used to improve species richness (planting, grazing and mowing) to recover natural-like grasslands from ex-arable lands. We focus on the usefulness of methods in restoring biodiversity, their practical feasibility and costs. We conclude that the success of each technique depends on the site conditions, history, availability of propagules and/or donor sites, and on the budget and time available for restoration. Spontaneous succession can be an option for restoration when no rapid result is expected, and is likely to lead to the target in areas with high availability of propagules. Sowing low-diversity seed mixtures is recommended when we aim at to create basic grassland vegetation in large areas and/or in a short time. The compilation of high-diversity seed mixtures for large sites is rather difficult and expensive; thus, it may be applied rather on smaller areas. We recommend combining the two kinds of seed sowing methods by sowing low-diversity mixtures in a large area and high-diversity mixtures in small blocks to create species-rich source patches for the spontaneous colonization of nearby areas. When proper local hay sources are available, the restoration with plant material transfer can be a fast and effective method for restoration.

show abstract

“…higher nutrient levels (Pywell et al 2002) and (iii) increased availability of vegetative and generative propagule-bank of weeds Hutchings & Booth 1996). In seed sowing experiments, knowing this information constrains elimination of the seed limitation of grassland species and suppressing weeds by sowing and/or with topsoil removal recomended (Critchley et al 2006;Klimkowska et al 2010;Pywell et al 2002;Török et al 2011b).…”

Section: Seed Mixtures and Site Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recovery of native grass biodiversity by sowing on former croplands: Is weed suppression a feasible goal for grassland restoration?

Török

Miglécz

Valkó

et al. 2012

Journal for Nature Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can we balance the high costs of nature restoration with the method of topsoil removal? Case study from Poland

Cited by 24 publications

References 23 publications

Top soil removal reduces water pollution from phosphorus and dissolved organic matter and lowers methane emissions from rewetted peatlands

Top soil removal reduces water pollution from phosphorus and dissolved organic matter and lowers methane emissions from rewetted peatlands

Grassland restoration on former croplands in Europe: an assessment of applicability of techniques and costs

Recovery of native grass biodiversity by sowing on former croplands: Is weed suppression a feasible goal for grassland restoration?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About