camerini and groppali 783 - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/brian.metscher/4_landfilling.pdf ·...

mailto:[email protected]

http://wmr.sagepub.com/

Camerini and Groppali 783

recovered landfills were studied and compared. They had been operated in turn for hazardous waste disposal from 1984 to 1996. Both study areas lie within a human dominated landscape where wild fauna survival is negatively affected both by urban sprawl and by other artificial landscape changes, such as hedgerows and small woodlands removal or conversion of permanent grassland into ara-ble land. All this, together with the need to provide habitats that were missing in the area, was taken into account when planning the recovery project. After the final sealing, both landfill sites were transformed into meadows surrounded by a border hedgerow. Herbaceous plants (Fabaceae and Graminaceae) were sown to improve soil fertility (Chan et al., 1997) and increase the biodiver-sity of both vegetation and pollinators (Öckinger and Smith, 2007; Tarrant et al., 2012). Planting hedgerows provided a habitat for wildfauna (i.e. arthropods and birds) that was missing in the sur-rounding landscape as a consequence of agricultural intensification. The landfills differed in size, and the patterns applied to their recov-ery were not exactly the same; for this reason differences in terms of biodiversity were expected to emerge from their comparison, providing useful indications for recovery practices.

Butterflies and birds were chosen as indicators of the degree of biodiversity because of their association with vegetation structure and composition (Bryce et al., 2002; Lomov et al., 2006), and also because of how rapidly they respond to changes in the landscape composition (Gregory and van Strien, 2010; Oostermeijer and van Swaay, 1998).

Materials and methodsThe study areas

The two nearby study areas (distance 20 m) (Figure 2) were located in abandoned clay quarries which, in due time, had been

converted into landfills for hazardous waste disposal. The landfill bottom, sealed by a high density polyethylene cloth, lay on allu-vial clay of low permeability (k max < 1 × 10 –10 cm s-1). Both landfills were surrounded by a 2-m high fence, in compliance with regulations.

Area A (Figure 2) had a surface of 65,000 m2 containing 370,000 m3 of inertised waste. Waste disposal started in 1984 and came to completion on 1990. The landfill lots were sealed in 1991, when restoration work started.

Area B (Figure 2) had a surface of 43,800 m2 and the volume of the disposed waste was 195,000 m3; waste disposal began here in 1991 and lasted until 1996, when the landfill was finally sealed and reclaimed.

In both landfills, disposed waste was covered by a top soil of silt and clay, 1 m high, on which a blend of herbaceous plants (mainly Graminacee and Fabaceae) was sown. A row of shrubs and trees was planted along the edges of both areas, so that the final result was a hill, encircled by a hedgerow and covered by a meadow, lying at an altitude of 83 m above sea level (a.s.l.), and higher than the surrounding landscape (about 72–73 metres a.s.l.).

In Area A (Figure 2) the hedgerow (about 4–5 m in width) was uninterrupted and dominated by white poplar (Populus alba), planted on a double row, the distance between rows being 4 m. Poplars were associated with several shrub species: Cornus san-guinea, Sambucus nigra, Crataegus monogyna, Corylus avel-lana, and Prunus spinosa. In each row, poplars were planted at an average distance of 6 m from each other. The hedgerows covered about 28.2% of the total landfill area and their height ranged between 9 and 12 m, in relation to the growth of the tree layer.

The polyphitic meadow association in area A included oat grasses (Festuca sp, Poa sp, Bromus sp, etc.) and legumes

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

at Vienna University Library on December 2, 2016wmr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


784 Waste Management & Research 32(8)

(Medicago sativa, Lotus corniculatus, Trifolium pratense). The meadow covered 71.3% of the total landfill area. Two patches of wild cherries (Prunus avium) were found inside the meadow. A small pond (350 m2 – 0.5% of the total landfill area), surrounded by a grove of reeds (Phragmites communis, Carex sp), was cre-ated on the west side; in summer, well water was pumped into the pond. A small woody patch was planted on the pond banks.

The Area B hedgerow (13% of the total surface) had a shape and a tree-and-shrub composition similar to that of Area A, but it was lower owing to a more recent planting. In addition, the hedgerow belt (Figure 2) around the landfill edge was unfinished and the distance between one plant and the other was on average 14 m in each row. The meadow surface was 87% of the area and it was composed primarly of M. sativa, L. corniculatus, T. prat-ense, Coronilla varia, Cichorium intybus, Phoeniculum vulgare, Plantago lanceolata, Crepis capillaris, and Vicia sativa.

In both areas, the grass was mown and removed three times a year: in May, July and September. The grass was cut in the whole area, except for a narrow strip along the border hedgerow.

The study areas were located within a landscape dominated by arable land, with a few industrial buildings here and there and a factory producing concrete prefabs. A group of mature poplars (Populus euroamericana) and a line of Lombardy poplars (Populus nigra var. italica) had grown between the landfills and the industrial plant.

Butterflies

The research on butterflies started in spring 2001 and ended in summer 2003. Butterflies were counted monthly, between April and September, in the central part of calm, sunny days. No survey was carried out for two weeks after grass mowing, which is a major disturbing factor for butterfly populations (Valtonen et al., 2006). The linear transect method was applied (Pollard, 1977): in both areas, a pathway was initially drawn and then regularly used

until the end of the research project (Figure 2). The transect shape was traced out in order to explore every different microhabitat (hedge, pond, and meadow).

Walking along transects, the butterflies observed within a dis-tance of 2.5 m on both sides of the transect were counted and their relative abundance was marked on a data form. Some species were identified at sight, others, less easily identifiable, were tem-porary trapped into an entomological net and either immediately classified or sampled and taken back to the lab to be identified (Tolman, 2009).

Relative abundance was expressed as a ratio of the number of observed specimens to transect length (number of butterflies per km of transect). The transect length was 1480 m in Area A and 1030 m in Area B. The ecology of butterfly population was ana-lysed according to Balletto and Kudrna (1985) who classified the ecological preferences of Italian butterfly fauna in terms of habi-tat, soil humidity, and temperature. Butterflies foraging on corol-las were observed while walking along transects with the help of binoculars and the resulting data were recorded on a form.

The richness of the butterfly population was referred to the biodiversity classification range proposed by Malavasi and Tralongo (1999) for Northern Italy ecosystems:

•• less than 10 species: ecosystems strongly stressed by anthropic impact (i.e. intensely cultivated areas dominated by arable land);

•• 11–20 species: ecosystems moderately stressed by anthropic impact (i.e. farmland provided with hedgerows, meadows, and uncultivated areas)’

•• more than 20 species: seminatural ecosystems (i.e. natural reserves including open habitats).

Weather data used to study the influence of rainfall on butterflies came from the Istituto Agrario ‘C. Gallini’ weather station (Voghera), 4 km away from the study area.

Figure 2. A and B study areas. Survey transects are indicated by the dashed line (map drawn to scale).




Birds

Morning surveys were carried out monthly between March 2001 and February 2004; no survey was done on rainy or windy days, since such adverse conditions are unsuitable for counting birds. The same transects used for butterflies were kept as standard ref-erence. Walking at a slow pace along the transect, all the birds observed both ahead and on sides were counted, as long as they could be identified at sight or by binoculars. Birds flying over the landfill in search of preys (raptors) or catching insects (raptors, swallows, swifts) were also recorded.

No count was carried out for 2 weeks after mowing. In addition to the monthly surveys, both areas were repeatedly visited during the breeding season. The location of singing males was marked on a map and nesting was then confirmed by observing nest building, adults carrying food, nestling fledging, and faecal sac removal.

The phenology of the bird community was studied taking into account the ornithological seasons proposed by Blondel (1969) and Lambertini (1987):

•• winter (W – 1st December/15th March);•• spring migration (SM – 16th March/15th May);•• reproductive season (REP – 16th May/30th June);•• summer (S – 1st July/15th September);•• autumn migration (AM – 16th September/30th November).

Data analysis methods

Data were analysed using:

•• Simpson index of diversity (SID or 1-D);•• Sørensen index, which compares the similarity between two

samples (range 0–1);•• Chi-squared test, used to test the difference between expected

and observed data;•• Mann–Whitney U test which compares the mean ranks of two

data groups;•• Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, to assess the rela-

tionship between two variables.

ResultsButterflies

Thirty species were observed: 27 in Area A and 25 in Area B. The Sørensen index (0.87) stated a good similarity between the compared areas. Five species were unique to Area A, while three species were exclusive of Area B. The availability of a pond, differences in herbs association, and hedgerow composi-tion can be taken into account to explain such differences. Table 1 summarises the relative abundance of butterflies in both areas.

Polyommatus icarus, Coenonympha pamphilus, and Pieris rapae were the most abundant species (Table 2). Pieridae (34.1% of the total specimens), Satyridae (24%), and Lyceaenidae (29.8%) prevailed in Area A; a similar pattern was recorded in

Area B. Papilionidae, Nymphalidae, and Hesperiidae were also found in both areas. The difference in the frequency distribution

Table 1. Butterflies average relative abundance (specimens km-1 transect).

Scientific name Area A Area B

Average ±SD Average ±SD

Polyommatus icarus 10.68 ±3.75 11.17 ±4.22Coenonympha pamphilus 8.75 ±0.72 8.63 ±0.94Pieris rapae 7.55 ±1.62 7.17 ±2.16Colias crocea 6.01 ±2.77 6.31 ±2.84Melanargia galathea 1.13 ±0.96 1.35 ±1.2Lycaena tityrus 1.13 ±0.45 1.56 ±0.83Vanessa cardui 1.13 ±0.79 1.51 ±1.37Melitaea phoebe 1.02 ±0.39 1.03 ±0.49Lampides boeticus 0.98 ±0.89 0.75 ±0.7Lasiommata megera 0.86 ±0.47 0.54 ±0.25Pieris napi 0.82 ±0.79 0.65 ±0.49Erynnis tages 0.79 ±0.34 0.48 ±0.28Pieris daplidice 0.64 ±0.23 0.11 ±0.1Ochlodes venatus 0.45±0.39 0.27 ±0.25Inachis io 0.41 ±0.28 0.16 ±0.12Vanessa atalanta 0.41 ±0.24 0.16 ±0.12Thymelicus lineolus 0.37±0.17 0.32 ±0.28Papilio machaon 0.34 ±0.22 0.7 ±0.25Iphiclides podalirius 0.34 ±0.2 –Polygonia c - album 0.26 ±0.07 0.32 ±0.28Cupido argiades 0.26 ±0.24 –Anthocaris cardamines 0.23 ±0.16 0.27 ±0.18Plebejus argus 0.15 ±0.12 0.32 ±0.24Lycaena phlaeas 0.15 ±0.1 0.49 ±0.28Pararge aegeria 0.11 ±0.06 –Pieris brassicae 0.11 ±0.08 –Aporia crataegi 0.04 ±0.02 –Pyrgus malvoides – 0.16 ±0.08Cupido alcetas – 0.06 ±0.03Kanetisa circe – 0.06 ±0.02Butterly population 45.12 ±6.33 44.55 ±9.41

SD: standard deviation.

Table 2. Frequency distribution (percentage of specimens) in relation to environmental factors.

Area A (%) Area B (%)

Habitat Nemoral 0.3 0.2Subnemoral 33.7 33Open habitats 66 66.8Water in soil Mesophilous 35.1 36Eurichorous 40.1 41.3Xerophilous 24.3 22.7Hygrophilous 0.5 0Temperature Termophilous 24.2 25Mesophilous 12.4 12.1Eurytherm 63.4 62.9




of butterfly’s families in Areas A and B was not statistically sig-nificant (df = 5 – χ2 = 4.57 – p > 0.05).

The trend of the SID is displayed in Figure 3; it tends to decrease during summer, with the highest values recorded in May and June.

Except for Hawthorn (C. monogyna, 1.5% of observations) and Honeysuckle (Lonicera caprifolium, 5.3%), the corollas vis-ited by butterflies for nectar collection (N = 132) belong to meadow herbs, mainly Fabaceae: Alfalfa (M. sativa, 33.3%), Red and White Clover (T. pratense, 20.5%; Trifolium repens, 2.3%), Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil (L. corniculatus, 12.1%). Thistles (Cirsium sp, 8.3%) and Purple Loosestrife (Lithrum salicaria, 16.7%) were also used for foraging (Figure 4).

The butterfly community mainly consisted of species typical of open habitats (Table 2). Both landfills showed this pattern, as stated by the contingency table, which does not reveal a signifi-cant difference (DF = 2 – χ2 = 0.23; p > 0.05).

According to Balletto and Kudrna (1985), in ecological clas-sification based on thermal preferences (Table 2), eurythermic species significantly prevailed, while mesophilic species were scarce. With reference to water availability in the soil, both areas included mainly eurichore species, showing a high tolerance relating to this factor. A comparison between Area A and Area B did not show different ecological preferences concerning either temperature (DF = 2 – χ2 = 0.21 – p > 0.05) or soil moisture (DF = 3 – χ2 = 4.61 – p > 0.05).

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Apr

il

May

June

July

Aug

ust

Sep

tem

ber

Sim

pson

Ind

ex

A area

B area

Figure 3. SID trend in study areas (butterflies’ populations).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Medicagosativa

Trifoliumpratense

Lythrumsalicaria

Lotuscorniculatus

Cirsium sp. Others

Fre

quen

cy d

istr

ibut

ion

(%)

Figure 4. Frequency distribution of flowering plants used as a source of nectar by butterflies (Others: White Clover, Honeysuckle, Hawthorn – N = 132).




Drought was an important stress factor. The relative abundance of butterflies recorded in both areas in summer (June–September) was positively related to the amount of rain fallen in spring and summer (Spearman rank correlation rs = 0.902 – p < 0.001). The relative abundance for each one of the surveyed summer months was related to the rainfall recorded during the 3 months (90 days) preceding the survey (Figure 5).

Birds’ community

A total amount of 57 bird species were observed (Table 3): 52 species in Area A and 39 species in Area B (Sørensen index = 0.74). Several differences appear in the community composition from the comparison of studied areas: 18 species were unique to only Area A. First of all, this richness has to be related to the more complex hedgerow structure and to the area’s greater size. Then, the availability of a pond made Area A more attractive to birds, especially for species associated to aquatic environment: Grey heron (Ardea cinerea), Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficol-lis), and Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) were observed near the pond in Area A.

The most abundant species belonged to two ecological groups. The first one includes euryecious birds that can live in a wide range of habitats, such as Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), Magpie (Pica pica), Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and Hooded Crow (Corvus corone cornix). The second one includes wintering species, such as Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris).

Passeriformes birds dominated the bird community. The average Non-Passeriformes/Passeriformes ratio (NP/P) was 0.14 in Area A and 0.08 in Area B. In Area B, the maximum abundance of NP was recorded in spring, while in Area A in summer. An increase in Passerine birds was recorded in autumn and winter in both areas, which were used as wintering habitats by several species, including Fieldfare, Robin (Erytachus rubec-ula), Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes), Blue Tit (Parus caer-uleus), Greenfinch (Carduelis chloris), Chaffchink (Fringilla coelebs), and Goldcrest (Regulus regulus).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 50 100 150 200 250Rainfall (mm)

But

terf

ly r

elat

ive

abun

danc

e(s

peci

men

s /K

m tr

anse

ct)

Figure 5. Correlation between butterflies relative abundance in summer months (June, July, August, and September) and amount of rain fallen for 90 days before each survey. Relative abundance is calculated as the average of data recorded in Areas A and B.

Table 3. Relative abundance (percentage of specimens) of the most abundant bird species (Area A).

Common name Scientific name Area A Area B

Tree sparrow Passer montanus 17.95 28.2Starling Sturnus vulgaris 14.92 19.56Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 9.88 3.11Hooded Crow Corvus corone cornix 7.73 5.39Blackbird Turdus merula 7.63 1.95Magpie Pica pica 4.65 4.63Great Tit Parus major 5.04 4.9Swallow Hirundo rustica 4.01 5.18Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 3.62 12.64Robin Eritachus rubecula 2.25 1.45Swift Apus apus 1.96 0.55Rock Dove Columba livia 1.91 2.49Woodpigeon Columba palumbus 1.86 –Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos 1.47 0.97Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 1.32 –Goldcrest Regulus regulus 1.22 –Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis – 0.9Blue Tit Parus caeruleus 1.12 –Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus 0.83 –Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 0.83 0.55Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 0.83 1.52Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major 0.68 –Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 0.58 –Little Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis 0.5 –Blackcap Sylvia atricapilla 0.5 –Other species 6.71 6.01




In Area A diversity grew in spring and autumn, while in Area B diversity reached its maximum in spring and winter. Except for winter, the Simpson index of diversity was constantly higher in area A.

Birds like Swallows, Wood Pigeons (Columba palumbus) and Swifts were observed in summer. High richness values recorded in spring and autumn were owing to the presence of several spe-cies that temporarily used the landfills for resting and foraging. For those species, such as Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis), Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), and Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus), the landfills worked as a step-ping stone during migration flights.

The group of sedentary species, regularly observed through-out different seasons, included both birds well adapted to hedge-rows, such as Blackbird, Great Tit (Parus major), Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major), and the euryecious species already cited: Tree Sparrow, Magpie, and Carrion Crow.

The quite regular observation of raptors, such as Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) and Buzzard (Buteo buteo) was favoured by the particular feature of the closed landfills: hills derived from closed landfill can work as a take-off platform for raptors thanks to the presence of an up-draught.

Birds reproduction. Eight species nested in Area A. Except for Little Grebe (T. ruficollis) that nested near the pond only in 2003, every other species reproduced regularly. Only one nest of Hooded Crow, Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Cuckoo (Cucu-lus canorus), and Moorhen (G. chloropus) was regularly detected from 2001 to 2003.

The reproductive density, expressed as bird pairs km-1 of hedgerow, was 3 pairs km-1 for Nightingale and Blackbird and 2.5 pairs km-1 for Blackcap.

In Area B only Nightingales were able to reproduce regularly (one nest).

Species of European conservation concern (SPEC)

A total of 16 species surveyed in the recovered areas are classified as Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC) according to criteria adopted in the second review of the conservation status of wild birds in Europe (BirdLife International, 2004).

Green Woodpecker (Picus viridis) and Curlew (Numenius arquata) are classified as SPEC2 species: the conservation status is unfavourable and the global population is concentrated in Europe. The other SPEC species are listed in Table 4. The status of those species is unfavourable too, but their range is not con-centrated in Europe (SPEC3).

The list of SPEC birds includes sedentary birds, such as Green Woodpecker, Tree Sparrow, and Kestrel; their observation on the reclaimed landfills was quite regular throughout all seasons. However, the majority of the species of conservation concern belonged to the group of migratory birds, which fly to Africa or to the Mediterranean basin for wintering. Those species were observed during their spring and autumn migrations.

Conclusions

Meadow, pond, and hedgerow were the basic elements around which the recovery project was planned. The creation of a poli-phitic meadow on recovered landfills was of benefit for pollina-tors as demonstrated by the comparison with some cases of study. The natural reserve of Lungavilla (5.6 km away from Cervesina’s landfills) is larger (59 ha) and includes several habitats (mead-ows, hedgerows, ponds, and woods), but the richness of butter-flies resulting from a survey carried out in 2000 and 2001 (Camerini, 2002) is quite similar (31 species) to the one recorded on the studied landfills (30 species).

Fabbri and Scaravelli (2002) found 21 butterfly species living among hedgerows of biological farms in Northern Italy’s low-lands. The richness of lepidopteran populations found by Malavasi and Tralongo (1999) in some intensive cultivated area of the Po plain ranged between 7 and 15 species.

The butterfly population living in Cervesina’s recovered land-fills was dominated by some common butterflies (i.e. P. rapae, C. pamphilus, Colias crocea, and Melanargia galathea), but it also included species that are becoming increasingly uncommon in Northern Italy’s lowlands, such as Aporia crataegi, or more siz-able species, such as Iphiclides podalirius, Papilio machaon, and Pieris brassicae.

Soil on recovered landfills generally suffers from drought and for this reason the creation of a pond can benefit the wild fauna (Dover and Sparks, 2000), as demonstrated in this study. The meadow bordering the pond strongly attracted butterflies in sum-mer, when drought can act as an important limiting factor (Figure 5). Another stress factor was grass mowing: butterflies were damaged by periodical cutting of the whole meadow. The choice of the mowing regime (timing and intensity) can strongly affect both butterfly richness and abundance. Moreover, this study

Table 4. Seasonal records of birds’ Species of European Concern (SPEC). Ornithological seasons.

Common name Scientific name W SM REP S AM

Kestrel Falco tinnunculus * * * * *Curlew Numenius arquata * Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus *Little Owl Athene noctua * * Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur * * Bee eater Merops apiaster * Hoopoe Upupa epops * Green Woodpecker Picus viridis * * * * *Swallow Hirundo rustica * * * Skylark Alauda arvensis * * * Wheater Oenanthe oenanthe *Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata * Red Backed Shrike Lanius collurio * *Starling Sturnus vulgaris * * * * *House sparrow Passer domesticus * Tree sparrow Passer montanus * * * * *

W: winter; SM: spring migration; REP: reproductive season; S: sum-mer; AM: autumn migration.




seems to confirm that restored habitats can support wild fauna by contributing resources, such as food and protection from preda-tors, but they can be of poor value as breeding sites (Kus, 1998). The poor quality of the hedgerow and the lack of a pond could explain the scarce suitability for bird reproduction in Area B. However, the nesting population was poor in Area A too, as dem-onstrated by the comparison with data concerning traditional hedgerows in the agricultural landscapes of the central Po flood plain studied by Groppali (1993). The nest density of Nightingale and Blackbird (3 pairs km-1 of hedgerow) in Area A was signifi-cantly lower than the one recorded in a mature oak (Quercus robur) hedgerow (Nightingale 20 pairs km-1; Blackbird 8 pairs km-1), and in coppiced Plane Trees (Platanus hybrida) (Nightingale 16 pairs km-1; Blackbird 8 pairs km-1). Another important limiting factor for the nesting of some species (i.e. tits) was the lack of snags. Snags scarcity, typical of recently planted hedgerows or woods, could be balanced by the installation of artificial nests, which can help the reproduction of birds nesting inside holes until the vegetation achieves a good degree of maturity.

In both landfills, the suitability of the hedgerow as a nesting site was limited by the scarce development of the tree layer. In spring 2003, in the hedgerow in Area A, 15% of the poplars had died and in spring 2008 the percentage of dead trees had increased up to 45%. Drought, which frequently affects vegeta-tion growing on closed landfills soils, does not suit hygrophilous trees, such as white poplars, the sole tree species the hedgerow was composed of.

The suitability of a hedgerow for forestry birds depends on both density and variety of trees and shrubs. Planting a wide vari-ety of shrub and tree species in the hedgerow is a good strategy to make the trophic chain more complex. This standard was taken as a reference while designing the shrub row, but it was neglected for the tree row.

However, despite the poor quality of the recovered landfill as a nesting habitat, landfill birds included 16 species of European Conservation Concern, nearly 28% of the total observed. The majority of SPEC birds were wintering or migrant species; those species used the closed landfills as a stepping stone during their migrations.

In the end, the recovery model based on the creation of meadow, border hedgerow, and pond was a good plan, but still to be improved. This study wants to suggest some guidelines that could help planning and managing similar projects.

•• Great care must be taken over the choice of plants to be sown or planted, in relation to the influence of stress factors, such as soil compaction, drought, and poor nutrient content.

•• The tree and shrub community in the hedgerow must include several species well adapted to the stress conditions men-tioned above.

•• The tree density in the hedgerow must be high enough to favour forestry birds.

•• The poor availability of snags, typical of young hedgerows, can be balanced out by installing artificial nests.

•• Grass has to be mown, according to a mosaic-like pattern, and cutting must be suspended during the nesting season.

•• Data from research on biological indicators have to be imple-mented during the recovery planning.

•• The recovery results should be monitored using biological indicators, such as birds and butterflies, which can be con-veniently used for this purpose.

AcknowledgementsThanks to Monica Masanta, Luca Franzini, Flavio Ferlini, Maria Teresa Grassi, Fabrizio Camerini (Ecolombardia 18), Francesca Cattaneo (Biblioteca Unificata Scienza e Tecnica – Università di Pavia).

Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

FundingThe research was supported by the Municipality of Cervesina (PV).

ReferencesBalletto E and Kudrna O (1985) Some aspects of the conservation of but-

terflies in Italy with recommendations for a future strategy. Bollettino Società Entomologica Italiana 117: 39–59.

Biederman LA and Whisenant SW (2009) Organic amendments direct grass population dynamics in a landfill prairie restoration. Ecological Engineering 5: 678–686.

Birdlife International (2004) Birds in Europe. Population Estimates, Trends and Conservation Status. Cambridge, UK: Birdlife Conservation Series.

Blondel J (1969) Synecologie des passeraux residente et migrateurs dans le Midi mediterranèen francais. Centre regional documentation pedagogique.

Bryce SA, Hughes RM and Kaufmann PR (2002) Development of a bird integrity index: Using bird assemblages as indicators of Riparian condi-tion. Environmental Management 30: 294–310.

Camerini G (2002) Osservazioni sul popolamento di farfalle diurne (Lepidoptera Ropalocera) del Parco palustre di Lungavilla (PV). Quaderni Museo Scienze Naturali Voghera 2: 30–39.

Carballido MF, Arístide P, Busch M, Cittadino EA and Gómez Villafañe IE (2011) Are the closed landfills recovered habitats for small rodents? A case study in a riparian site Buenos Aires Argentina. Urban Ecosystems 14: 699–710.

Carrington LP and Diaz A (2011) An investigation into the effect of soil and vegetation on the successful creation of a haymeadow on a clay-capped landfill. Restoration Ecology 19: 93–100.

Chan YSG, Chu LM and Wong M.H. (1997) Influence of landfill factors on plant and soil fauna – An ecological perspective. Environmental Pollution 97: 39–44.

Davis B (1989) Habitat creation for butterflies on a landfill site. Entomologist 108: 109–122.

De Mei M and Di Mauro M. (2006) Study of some characteristic mediterra-nean vegetation species best suited for renaturalization of terminal phase municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in Puglia (southern Italy). Acta Oecologica 30: 78–87.

Dover J and Sparks T (2000) A review of the ecology of butterflies in British hedgerows. Journal of Environmental Management 60: 51–63.

Dung J, Chi Y, Zou D, et al. (2014) Comparison of municipal solid waste treatment technologies from a life cycle perspective in China. Waste Management and Research, 32: 13–23.

Fabbri R and Scaravelli D. (2002) Indagine preliminare sui Lepidotteri diurni lungo siepi in aziende agricole biologiche del forlivese e del cesenate. Quaderno di Studi e Notizie di Storia Naturale della Romagna 16: 81–94.

Gregory RD and van Strien A (2010) Wild bird indicators: Using com-posite population trends of birds as measures of environmental health. Ornithological Science 9: 3–22.

Groppali R (1993) Breeding birds in traditional tree rows and hedges in the central Po Valley. In: Bunce RGH, Ryszkowski L and Paoletti MG




(eds) Landscape Ecology and Agroecosystems. Boca Raton (FL): Lewis Publishers, 153–158.

Kaazke J, Meneses M, Wilke BM, et al. (2013) Environmental evaluation of waste treatment scenarios for the towns Khanty-Mansiysk and Surgut Russia. Waste Management and Research 31: 315–326.

Klein R, Bauman T, Kahapka E and Neissner R (2001) Temperature devel-opment in a modern municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI) bottom ash landfill with regard to sustainable waste management. Journal of Hazardous Materials 83: 265–280.

Kus BE (1998) Use of the restored habitat by the endangered Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Restoration Ecology 6: 75–82.

Kutby RA (2013) Bee communities in restored landfill sites of Niagara region. Faculty of Mathematics and Science Brock University St. Catharines Ontario, pp.1–144.

Lambertini M (1987) L’avifauna del lago di Montepulciano (Si). Ciclo annu-ale della comunità. Avocetta 11: 17–35.

Lomov B, Keith DA, Britton DR and Hochuli D (2006) Are butterflies and moths useful indicators for restoration monitoring? A pilot study in Sydney’s Cumberland Plain Woodland. Ecological Management & Restoration 7: 204–210.

Loures L and Costa L (2012) The role of urban parks to enhance metropolitan sustainability the case of Oporto. International Journal of Energy and Environment 4: 453–461.

Malavasi D and Tralongo S (1999) Osservazioni sulle comunità di Lepidotteri Ropaloceri e Odonati presenti nel Parco Regionale dello Stirone. Pianura 11: 133–145.

Öckinger E and Smith G (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 50–59.

Oostermeijer JGB and van Swaay CAM (1998) The relationship between butterflies and environmental indicator values: a tool for conservation in a changing landscape. Biological Conservation 86: 271–280.

Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of but-terflies. Biological Conservation 12: 115–134.

Rahman ML, Tarrant S, McCollin D and Ollerton J (2011) The conser-vation value of restored landfill sites in the East Midlands, UK for supporting bird communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1879–1893.

Rebele F and Lehman C (2002) Restoration of a landfill site in Berlin, Germany, by spontaneous and directed succession. Restoration Ecology 10: 340–347.

Robinson GR and Handel SN (1993) Forest restoration on a closed landfill rapid addition of new species by bird dispersal. Conservation Biology 7: 271–278.

Sabre M, Holl KD, Lyons RE and Cairns J (1997) Potential use of wild-flowers species for landfill restoration in Southwestern Virginia. Hort Technology 7: 383–387.

Simmons E (2008) Restoration of landfill sites for ecological diversity. Waste Management & Research 17: 511–519.

Tolman T (2009) Butterflies. Field guide (Britain and Europe). London: Harper Collins.

Tarrant S, Ollerton J, Rahman ML, et al. (2012) Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands United Kingdom: An Evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects. Restoration Ecology 21: 560–568.

Valtonen A, Saarinen K and Jantunen J (2006) Effect of different mow-ing regimes on butterflies and diurnal moths on road verges. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 29: 133–148.



camerini and groppali 783 - univie.ac.athomepage.univie.ac.at/brian.metscher/4_landfilling.pdf ·...

Documents