Measuring the efficiency of fen restoration on carabid beetles and vascular plants: a case study from north‐eastern Germany

Abstract

The aim of the study was to assess the effects of fen rewetting on carabid beetle and vascular plant assemblages within riverine fens along the river Peene in north‐eastern Germany. Drained (silage grassland), rewetted (restored formerly drained silage grassland), and near‐natural (fairly pristine) stands were compared. Eighty‐four beetle species (7,267 individuals) and 135 plant species were recorded. The richness of vascular plant species and the number of endangered species were highest on near‐natural fens. Fourteen years of rewetting did not increase plant species numbers compared with drained fens. For carabid beetles, however, species richness and the number of stenotopic species were highest on rewetted fens. Rewetting caused the replacement of generalist carabids by wetland specialists, but did not provide suitable habitat for specialist fen carabids or for plant species of oligo‐ or mesotrophic fen communities. Therefore, raising the water table on fens with nutrient‐rich, degraded peat was not sufficient for restoring species assemblages of intact fens, although water level was the most important environmental factor separating species assemblages. Our study illustrated that insects and plants may respond differentially to restoration, stressing the need to consider different taxa when assessing the efficiency of fen restoration. Furthermore, species assemblages of intact fens could not be restored within 14 years, highlighting the importance of conserving pristine habitat.

Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals for Monitoring Rare and Endangered Species

“…The core question that conservation science has to answer concerns the amount of provided resources that are indeed sufficient to sustain populations of target species at both different spatial and temporal scales (Fahrig 2001; Holland et al 2004). Evidence-based answers to these questions often are obtained by relating the distribution of target species to various amounts of resources, habitat types, and other landscape parameters (Buse et al 2007; Ranius and Nilsson 1997), or in relation to specific landscape or habitat management measures (Collins et al 1998; Görn and Fischer 2015). As detailed above, however, the difficulty in obtaining accurate data on distribution and abundance could throw these estimates off by a wide margin.…”

Fen meadows on the move for the conservation of Maculinea (Phengaris) teleius butterflies

“…Large conservation projects have attempted to restore vegetation communities and habitats of animal species such as birds (Klimkowska et al 2007(Klimkowska et al , 2010Lamers et al 2015;Tallowin and Smith 2001;Żmihorski et al 2016) and butterlies (Gofart et al 2014). In general, however, large-scale restoration projects aimed speciically at insects are rare and the knowledge-base for successful restoration of speciic insect species' habitats is limited (Görn and Fischer 2015), especially for butterlies with narrow, specialist, habitat requirements, such as the obligate myrmecophilic Maculinea (Phengaris) species (Wynhof et al 2008). The caterpillars of this group of species spend most of their development time in nests of speciic Myrmica host ants, where they feed on ant grubs or are fed by worker ants.…”

Riverine fen restoration provides secondary habitat for endangered and stenotopic rove beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae)

“…More than 60% of European and around 99% of German fens and bogs have been destroyed already (Joosten, ). Remaining peatlands are thus important ecosystems which harbour a wealth of endangered animal and plant species and fen‐specific species assemblages (Görn & Fischer, ; Hoffmann et al ., ). Consequently, the protection of pristine fens as well as the restoration of already degraded fens to restore ecosystem services are conservation issues of international importance (Van Andel & Aronson, ; Mälson et al ., ).…”

“…Here, more than 20 000 ha of degraded peatlands were rewetted to: (i) protect habitats inhabiting highly endangered species, (ii) restore the landscape water balance, (iii) store nutrients, and (iv) to revitalise peat formation and carbon sequestration (Hobbs et al ., ; Zerbe et al ., ). Nowadays, the Peene valley still harbours: (i) remnants of largely undisturbed near‐natural fens, (ii) heavily drained and intensively managed and thus degraded fens (silage grassland), and (iii) formerly drained fens but in the meanwhile restored stands (Görn & Fischer, ). These circumstances offer an excellent opportunity to compare species assemblages on different types of fen to explore the efficiency of fen restoration (Görn & Fischer, ).…”

“…Nowadays, the Peene valley still harbours: (i) remnants of largely undisturbed near‐natural fens, (ii) heavily drained and intensively managed and thus degraded fens (silage grassland), and (iii) formerly drained fens but in the meanwhile restored stands (Görn & Fischer, ). These circumstances offer an excellent opportunity to compare species assemblages on different types of fen to explore the efficiency of fen restoration (Görn & Fischer, ).…”