In search for a compromise between biodiversity conservation and human health protection in restoration of fly ash deposits: effect of anti-dust treatments on five groups of arthropods

Abstract

Recently, fly ash deposits have been revealed as a secondary refuge of critically endangered arthropods specialised on aeolian sands in Central Europe. Simultaneously, these anthropogenic habitats are well known for their negative impact on human health and the surrounding environment. The overwhelming majority of these risks are caused by wind erosion, the substantial decreasing of which is thus necessary. But, any effects of anti-dust treatments on endangered arthropods have never been studied. We surveyed communities of five arthropod groups (wild bees and wasps, leafhoppers, spiders, hoverflies and orthopteroid insects) colonising three fly ash deposits in the western Czech Republic. We focused on two different anti-dust treatments (~70 and 100 % cover of fly ash by barren soil) and their comparison with a control of bare fly ash. Altogether, we recorded 495 species, including 132 nationally threatened species (eight of them were considered to be extinct in the country) and/or 30 species strictly specialised to drift sands. Bees and wasps and leafhoppers contained the overwhelming majority of species of the highest conservation interest; a few other important records were also in spiders and orthopteroids. Total soil cover depleted the unique environment of fly ash and thus destroyed the high conservation potential of the deposits. On the other hand, partial coverage (with ~30 % of bare fly ash) still offered habitats for many of the most threatened species, as we showed by both regression and multivariate analyses, with a decrease of wind erosion. This topic still needs much more research interest, but we consider mosaic-like preservation of smaller spots of fly ash as one of the possible compromises between biodiversity and human health.

How can we restore biodiversity and ecosystem services in mining and industrial sites?

“…Besides the principally perceived negative environmental impacts of mining and industrial sites, post-mining and post-industrial sites are not only negative products of human disturbances. They may provide refugia for specialized wildlife (Prach et al 2011;Heneberg et al 2013;Mata et al 2016;Řehounková et al 2016;Tropek et al 2015). Unless mining and other industrial activities destroy valuable sites with high natural, historical, or aesthetic value, they may increase, under certain conditions, biodiversity and geodiversity of a landscape.…”

“…In the papers of this issue, attention is given to passive restoration and the factors influencing spontaneous succession (e.g., Nikolic et al 2015;Tropek et al 2015;Horáčková et al 2015;Alday et al 2015), to field experiments comparing ecological restoration measures (Tarvainen and Tolvanen 2015;Karofeld et al 2015), to the comparison between reclamation and passive restoration (Řehounková et al 2016; Šebelíková et al 2015), and to the reclamation by afforestation (Metslaid et al 2015). Based on the results, passive restoration seems to be an effective approach at many post-mining and postindustrial sites (but see Kopeć et al 2015), whereas technical reclamation may have negative effects on the biodiversity, since it decreases the amount of habitats for specialized threatened species (Tropek et al 2015;Řehounková et al 2016) or maintains the pool of seeded alien species that may spread to the surrounding environment (Rydgren et al 2015).…”

“…Based on the results, passive restoration seems to be an effective approach at many post-mining and postindustrial sites (but see Kopeć et al 2015), whereas technical reclamation may have negative effects on the biodiversity, since it decreases the amount of habitats for specialized threatened species (Tropek et al 2015;Řehounková et al 2016) or maintains the pool of seeded alien species that may spread to the surrounding environment (Rydgren et al 2015). On the other hand, technical reclamation can be justified through the economic profit as in the case of timber production of afforested sites (Metslaid et al 2015).…”

“…An alternative stable state should also be considered (Alday and Marrs 2014). Advanced, late successional ecosystem stages may not always be the target of restoration, as also early successional stages may exhibit a high conservation value for some specialized species (Řehounková et al 2016;Tropek et al 2015). Hence, their maintenance can also be a goal of restoration projects.…”

Urban and Industrial Habitats: How Important They Are for Ecosystem Services

“…In this respect, the worldwide decline in biodiversity, caused mostly by human influence and anthropogenic factors, has to be of global concern [44,45]. Decline in biodiversity is a global issue that has to be managed by local practice and within the local context [46,47].…”