The effect of topsoil removal in restored heathland on soil fauna, topsoil microstructure, and cellulose decomposition: implications for ecosystem restoration

Abstract

Communities of soil macrofauna, oribatid mites, and nematodes as well as vegetation and soil chemistry were studied on twelve plots representing three replicates of the following treatments: agricultural meadow, heathland, and heathland restored either by partial or complete topsoil removal 15 years earlier. We also studied the effect of soil macrofauna on decomposition and the microstructure of the soil surface layer with litterbags in combination with the analysis of thin soil sections. The communities of soil macrofauna and oribatid mites significantly differed between agricultural meadows and heathlands. The partial and complete topsoil removal plots were more similar to heathlands with respect to macrofauna and to agricultural meadows with respect to oribatid mites. The density and diversity of soil macrofauna was higher in agricultural meadows than in heathlands; in particular, earthworms, litter transformers, root feeders, and microsaprophags were more abundant on meadows. Heathlands, in contrast, contained a much higher diversity of oribatid mites. The community structure of nematodes did not significantly differ among the treatments. Analysis of thin soil sections revealed a thick organic fermentation layer in heathlands, which was absent in agricultural meadows and only weakly developed in the topsoil removal plots. In agricultural meadows, litterbags and thin soil sections indicated that abundant macrofauna, including endogeic earthworms, were very effective in removing the litter from the soil surface and mixing it into the mineral soil. Possible effects of this soil mixing on restoration success are discussed.

Does topsoil removal in grassland restoration benefit both soil nematode and plant communities?

“…Differences in the community compositions between our treatments may be found at lower taxonomic levels. Frouz et al (2009) also showed that the depth of topsoil removal plays a crucial role in preserving local source populations of soil fauna: a removal of the upper 10-15 cm compared to 40-50 cm allowed survival of a local source population in deeper soil layers, which then can recolonize the newly created habitats.…”

“…A combination of removing the topsoil-typically between 20 and 50 cm (e.g. Frouz et al, 2009)-and introducing propagules of target plant species proofed, in contrast, successful (e.g. Kiehl & Pfadenhauer, 2007) and became a promising tool for nature conservation agencies and practitioners in various European countries (Kiehl, Kirmer, Donath, Rasran, & Hölzel, 2010).…”

Water regime of reclaimed and unreclaimed post‐mining sites

“…Although reclamation strategies such as the planting of specific tree species or leaving the heap unreclaimed greatly affect soil formation on post‐mining sites (Frouz et al, ; ; ), their effects on soil hydrological properties and water balance are insufficiently understood (Mazur, Schoenheinz, Biemelt, Schaaf, & Grünewald, ). The soil water regime of these heterogeneous dumps is generally influenced by soil properties, climatic, and management factors.…”

Unraveling the dynamics of a ground‐dwelling beetle population exposed to quarry exploitation and restoration practices

“…Even though the exploitation margin plot is only at close proximity to the quarrying area, where the intense effects of soil and vegetation removal have not yet been felt, the disturbance effects are already looming over this area. Sources for this disturbance involve the removal and movement of topsoil (Frouz et al ) and vibrations produced by heavy machinery during raw material extraction (Polajnar et al ).…”