545372

search-article2014
WMR0010.1177/0734242X14545372Waste Management & ResearchCamerini and Groppali

Original Article

Waste Management & Research

Landfill restoration and biodiversity:

2014, Vol. 32(8) 782­–790
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
A case of study in Northern Italy sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X14545372
wmr.sagepub.com

Giuseppe Camerini and Riccardo Groppali

Abstract
Landfilling is a worldwide common waste treatment method. Final recovery usually consists of capping the area with top soil on which
vegetation can grow. Depending on the suitability of the recovery pattern, landfill sites can work as potential reserve of semi-natural
habitats. A recovery pattern applied to land reclamation of two hazardous waste landfills sited in Northern Italy (Po floodplain) was
studied to assess the results in terms of biodiversity. These landfills lie within a landscape dominated by intensive agriculture. After
final sealing, both landfills were covered by soil on which a meadow was sown and a hedgerow was planted around the borders. One
of the compared areas was not provided with a pond and the hedgerow was incomplete.
Butterflies and birds were used as indicators, and their seasonal abundance was related to habitat structure and ecological factors.
Meadows grown on both areas supported a rich butterfly population (30 species), including some species that are by now uncommon
in the Po floodplain. In both areas butterfly abundance was affected by summer drought.
The birds’ community included 57 species; 16 Species of European Conservation Concern (SPECs) were observed. Each
bird community was different in the compared study areas because of their different size and habitat structure. For example,
landfill A, provided with a pond and a more complex structure of the hedgerow, supported a richer birds community (52 species
versus 39).
Both restored landfills worked well as a stepping stone for migratory birds, but they were a reproductive habitat of poor quality.

Keywords
Landfill restoration, biodiversity, birds, butterflies, hedgerow, meadow, wild fauna, flowering plants

Introduction
Landfilling is the most common method in the world for hazard-
ous waste disposal (Dung et al., 2014; Kaazke et al., 2013; Klein
et al., 2001). The main purpose of a landfill recovery programme
is to reach determined public health standards, but aesthetic and
landscape features are also important (Simmons, 2008; Tarrant
et al., 2012) when the landfill has to be restored after final seal-
ing. The most common method used for land reclamation is cap-
ping the closed landfill site with top soil on which vegetation
can grow (De Mei and Di Mauro, 2006). Agricultural grassland
has been the prevalent after-use for landfill sites across the
world, but currently the legislative framework that has devel-
oped in several Countries tends to promote ecological restora-
tion (Carrington and Diaz, 2011; Loures and Costa, 2012).
Landfills restored for ecological purposes are colonised by wild
flora and fauna, and a certain biodiversity degree can be achieved
when suitable planning and management patterns are applied
(Carballido et al., 2011; Kutby, 2013; Rahman et al., 2011).
The target for restoration can be the development of vegeta-
tion through spontaneous succession (Rebele and Lehman,
2002) or the manipulation of both soil and vegetation conditions
to create a meadow (Biederman and Whisenant, 2009; Carrington
and Diaz, 2011; Sabre et al., 1997). One more pattern applied to
affect closed landfill evolution is the introduction of tree and
shrub clusters to stimulate a forest restoration (Robinson and
Handel, 1993).
The choice of the pattern to apply is important, because a plant
community growing on closed landfills deeply affects the com-
plexity of the food chain and the diversity of the whole biological
community (Davis, 1989; Simmons, 2008). Thus, the availability
of data coming from original pattern applications can be of general
interest.
This article summarises the results of a three-year research
(2001–2004) in a reclaimed landfill area in Northern Italy (Cervesina
– 45° 02′ 11″ N; 8° 59′ 53″ E) in the Po flood plain (Figure 1).
The aim of the research was to assess the feasibility of the
applied recovery pattern to enhance biodiversity. Two neighbouring
Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell’Ambiente, Università di
Pavia, Pavia, Italy
Corresponding author:
Giuseppe Camerini, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e
dell’Ambiente, Università degli Studi, Via S. Epifanio 14, 27100 Pavia,
Italy.
Email: giuseppe_camerini@libero.it
Camerini and Groppali 783
Figure 1.  Location of the study area.
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 methods
The 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
784 Waste Management & Research 32(8)
Figure 2.  A and B study areas. Survey transects are indicated by the dashed line (map drawn to scale).
(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.
Camerini and Groppali 785

Birds Table 1.  Butterflies average relative abundance

(specimens km-1 transect).
Morning surveys were carried out monthly between March 2001
Scientific name Area A Area B
and February 2004; no survey was done on rainy or windy days,
since such adverse conditions are unsuitable for counting birds.   Average ±SD Average ±SD
The same transects used for butterflies were kept as standard ref-
Polyommatus icarus 10.68 ±3.75 11.17 ±4.22
erence. Walking at a slow pace along the transect, all the birds Coenonympha pamphilus 8.75 ±0.72 8.63 ±0.94
observed both ahead and on sides were counted, as long as they Pieris rapae 7.55 ±1.62 7.17 ±2.16
could be identified at sight or by binoculars. Birds flying over the Colias crocea 6.01 ±2.77 6.31 ±2.84
landfill in search of preys (raptors) or catching insects (raptors, Melanargia galathea 1.13 ±0.96 1.35 ±1.2
swallows, swifts) were also recorded. Lycaena tityrus 1.13 ±0.45 1.56 ±0.83
No count was carried out for 2 weeks after mowing. In addition Vanessa cardui 1.13 ±0.79 1.51 ±1.37
Melitaea phoebe 1.02 ±0.39 1.03 ±0.49
to the monthly surveys, both areas were repeatedly visited during
Lampides boeticus 0.98 ±0.89 0.75 ±0.7
the breeding season. The location of singing males was marked on Lasiommata megera 0.86 ±0.47 0.54 ±0.25
a map and nesting was then confirmed by observing nest building, Pieris napi 0.82 ±0.79 0.65 ±0.49
adults carrying food, nestling fledging, and faecal sac removal. Erynnis tages 0.79 ±0.34 0.48 ±0.28
The phenology of the bird community was studied taking into Pieris daplidice 0.64 ±0.23 0.11 ±0.1
account the ornithological seasons proposed by Blondel (1969) Ochlodes venatus 0.45±0.39 0.27 ±0.25
and Lambertini (1987): Inachis io 0.41 ±0.28 0.16 ±0.12
Vanessa atalanta 0.41 ±0.24 0.16 ±0.12
Thymelicus lineolus 0.37±0.17 0.32 ±0.28
•• winter (W – 1st December/15th March);
Papilio machaon 0.34 ±0.22 0.7 ±0.25
•• spring migration (SM – 16th March/15th May);
Iphiclides podalirius 0.34 ±0.2 –
•• reproductive season (REP – 16th May/30th June); Polygonia c - album 0.26 ±0.07 0.32 ±0.28
•• summer (S – 1st July/15th September); Cupido argiades 0.26 ±0.24 –
•• autumn migration (AM – 16th September/30th November). Anthocaris cardamines 0.23 ±0.16 0.27 ±0.18
Plebejus argus 0.15 ±0.12 0.32 ±0.24
Lycaena phlaeas 0.15 ±0.1 0.49 ±0.28
Data analysis methods Pararge aegeria 0.11 ±0.06 –
Data were analysed using: Pieris brassicae 0.11 ±0.08 –
Aporia crataegi 0.04 ±0.02 –
•• Simpson index of diversity (SID or 1-D); Pyrgus malvoides – 0.16 ±0.08
Cupido alcetas – 0.06 ±0.03
•• Sørensen index, which compares the similarity between two
Kanetisa circe – 0.06 ±0.02
samples (range 0–1); Butterly population 45.12 ±6.33 44.55 ±9.41
•• Chi-squared test, used to test the difference between expected
and observed data; SD: standard deviation.
•• Mann–Whitney U test which compares the mean ranks of two
data groups;
Table 2.  Frequency distribution (percentage of specimens) in
•• Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, to assess the rela- relation to environmental factors.
tionship between two variables.
Area A (%) Area B (%)
Habitat  
Results Nemoral 0.3 0.2
Butterflies Subnemoral 33.7 33
Open habitats 66 66.8
Thirty species were observed: 27 in Area A and 25 in Area B. Water in soil  
The Sørensen index (0.87) stated a good similarity between the Mesophilous 35.1 36
compared areas. Five species were unique to Area A, while Eurichorous 40.1 41.3
three species were exclusive of Area B. The availability of a Xerophilous 24.3 22.7
pond, differences in herbs association, and hedgerow composi- Hygrophilous 0.5 0
Temperature  
tion can be taken into account to explain such differences.
Termophilous 24.2 25
Table 1 summarises the relative abundance of butterflies in
Mesophilous 12.4 12.1
both areas. Eurytherm 63.4 62.9
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 Area B. Papilionidae, Nymphalidae, and Hesperiidae were also
(29.8%) prevailed in Area A; a similar pattern was recorded in found in both areas. The difference in the frequency distribution
786 Waste Management & Research 32(8)

0,9

Simpson Index
0,8
A area
B area
0,7

0,6

0,5
September

September

September
August

August

August
April

April

April
May
June

May
June

May
June
July

July

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

35

30
Frequency distribution (%)

25

20

15

10

0
Medicago Trifolium Lythrum Lotus Cirsium sp. Others
sativa pratense salicaria corniculatus

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

of butterfly’s families in Areas A and B was not statistically sig- The butterfly community mainly consisted of species typical
nificant (df = 5 – χ2 = 4.57 – p > 0.05). of open habitats (Table 2). Both landfills showed this pattern, as
The trend of the SID is displayed in Figure 3; it tends to stated by the contingency table, which does not reveal a signifi-
decrease during summer, with the highest values recorded in May cant difference (DF = 2 – χ2 = 0.23; p > 0.05).
and June. According to Balletto and Kudrna (1985), in ecological clas-
Except for Hawthorn (C. monogyna, 1.5% of observations) sification based on thermal preferences (Table 2), eurythermic
and Honeysuckle (Lonicera caprifolium, 5.3%), the corollas vis- species significantly prevailed, while mesophilic species were
ited by butterflies for nectar collection (N = 132) belong to scarce. With reference to water availability in the soil, both areas
meadow herbs, mainly Fabaceae: Alfalfa (M. sativa, 33.3%), Red included mainly eurichore species, showing a high tolerance
and White Clover (T. pratense, 20.5%; Trifolium repens, 2.3%), relating to this factor. A comparison between Area A and Area B
Common Bird’s-foot Trefoil (L. corniculatus, 12.1%). Thistles did not show different ecological preferences concerning either
(Cirsium sp, 8.3%) and Purple Loosestrife (Lithrum salicaria, temperature (DF = 2 – χ2 = 0.21 – p > 0.05) or soil moisture (DF 
16.7%) were also used for foraging (Figure 4). = 3 – χ2 = 4.61 – p > 0.05).
Camerini and Groppali 787

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
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).
80
70

Butterfly relative abundance

only Area A. First of all, this richness has to be related to the

(specimens /Km transect)

60
more complex hedgerow structure and to the area’s greater size. 50
Then, the availability of a pond made Area A more attractive to 40
birds, especially for species associated to aquatic environment: 30
Grey heron (Ardea cinerea), Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficol- 20
lis), and Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) were observed near the 10
pond in Area A. 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
The most abundant species belonged to two ecological groups. Rainfall (mm)
The first one includes euryecious birds that can live in a wide
range of habitats, such as Tree Sparrow (Passer montanus), Figure 5.  Correlation between butterflies relative abundance
in summer months (June, July, August, and September) and
Magpie (Pica pica), Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and Hooded
amount of rain fallen for 90 days before each survey. Relative
Crow (Corvus corone cornix). The second one includes wintering abundance is calculated as the average of data recorded in
species, such as Fieldfare (Turdus pilaris). 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 28.2
Starling Sturnus vulgaris 14.92 19.56
Fieldfare Turdus pilaris 9.88 3.11
Hooded Crow Corvus corone cornix 7.73 5.39
Blackbird Turdus merula 7.63 1.95
Magpie Pica pica 4.65 4.63
Great Tit Parus major 5.04 4.9
Swallow Hirundo rustica 4.01 5.18
Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 3.62 12.64
Robin Eritachus rubecula 2.25 1.45
Swift Apus apus 1.96 0.55
Rock Dove Columba livia 1.91 2.49
Woodpigeon Columba palumbus 1.86 –
Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos 1.47 0.97
Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 1.32 –
Goldcrest Regulus regulus 1.22 –
Meadow Pipit Anthus pratensis – 0.9
Blue Tit Parus caeruleus 1.12 –
Long-tailed tit Aegithalos caudatus 0.83 –
Kestrel Falco tinnunculus 0.83 0.55
Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto 0.83 1.52
Great 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
788 Waste Management & Research 32(8)

In Area A diversity grew in spring and autumn, while in Area Table 4.  Seasonal records of birds’ Species of European
B diversity reached its maximum in spring and winter. Except for Concern (SPEC). Ornithological seasons.
winter, the Simpson index of diversity was constantly higher in Common name Scientific name W SM REP S AM
area A.
Birds like Swallows, Wood Pigeons (Columba palumbus) and Kestrel Falco tinnunculus * * * * *
Curlew Numenius arquata *  
Swifts were observed in summer. High richness values recorded
Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus *
in spring and autumn were owing to the presence of several spe- Little Owl Athene noctua * *  
cies that temporarily used the landfills for resting and foraging. Turtle Dove Streptopelia turtur * *  
For those species, such as Meadow Pipit (Anthus pratensis), Bee eater Merops apiaster *  
Wheatear (Oenanthe oenanthe), Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra), Hoopoe Upupa epops *  
and Hen Harrier (Circus cyaneus), the landfills worked as a step- Green Woodpecker Picus viridis * * * * *
ping stone during migration flights. Swallow Hirundo rustica * * *  
Skylark Alauda arvensis * * *  
The group of sedentary species, regularly observed through-
Wheater Oenanthe oenanthe *
out different seasons, included both birds well adapted to hedge-
Spotted Flycatcher Muscicapa striata *  
rows, such as Blackbird, Great Tit (Parus major), Great Spotted Red Backed Shrike Lanius collurio * *
Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major), and the euryecious species Starling Sturnus vulgaris * * * * *
already cited: Tree Sparrow, Magpie, and Carrion Crow. House sparrow Passer domesticus *  
The quite regular observation of raptors, such as Kestrel Tree sparrow Passer montanus * * * * *
(Falco tinnunculus) and Buzzard (Buteo buteo) was favoured by
W: winter; SM: spring migration; REP: reproductive season; S: sum-
the particular feature of the closed landfills: hills derived from mer; AM: autumn migration.
closed landfill can work as a take-off platform for raptors thanks
to the presence of an up-draught.
Conclusions
Birds reproduction.  Eight species nested in Area A. Except for Meadow, pond, and hedgerow were the basic elements around
Little Grebe (T. ruficollis) that nested near the pond only in 2003,
which the recovery project was planned. The creation of a poli-
every other species reproduced regularly. Only one nest of
phitic meadow on recovered landfills was of benefit for pollina-
Hooded Crow, Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Cuckoo (Cucu-
tors as demonstrated by the comparison with some cases of study.
lus canorus), and Moorhen (G. chloropus) was regularly detected
from 2001 to 2003. The natural reserve of Lungavilla (5.6 km away from Cervesina’s
The reproductive density, expressed as bird pairs km-1 of landfills) is larger (59 ha) and includes several habitats (mead-
hedgerow, was 3 pairs km-1 for Nightingale and Blackbird and ows, hedgerows, ponds, and woods), but the richness of butter-
2.5  pairs km-1 for Blackcap. flies resulting from a survey carried out in 2000 and 2001
In Area B only Nightingales were able to reproduce regularly (Camerini, 2002) is quite similar (31 species) to the one recorded
(one nest). 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-
Species of European conservation lands. The richness of lepidopteran populations found by
concern (SPEC) Malavasi and Tralongo (1999) in some intensive cultivated area
A total of 16 species surveyed in the recovered areas are classified of the Po plain ranged between 7 and 15 species.
as Species of European Conservation Concern (SPEC) according The butterfly population living in Cervesina’s recovered land-
to criteria adopted in the second review of the conservation status fills was dominated by some common butterflies (i.e. P. rapae, C.
of wild birds in Europe (BirdLife International, 2004). pamphilus, Colias crocea, and Melanargia galathea), but it also
Green Woodpecker (Picus viridis) and Curlew (Numenius included species that are becoming increasingly uncommon in
arquata) are classified as SPEC2 species: the conservation status Northern Italy’s lowlands, such as Aporia crataegi, or more siz-
is unfavourable and the global population is concentrated in able species, such as Iphiclides podalirius, Papilio machaon, and
Europe. The other SPEC species are listed in Table 4. The status Pieris brassicae.
of those species is unfavourable too, but their range is not con- Soil on recovered landfills generally suffers from drought and
centrated in Europe (SPEC3). for this reason the creation of a pond can benefit the wild fauna
The list of SPEC birds includes sedentary birds, such as Green (Dover and Sparks, 2000), as demonstrated in this study. The
Woodpecker, Tree Sparrow, and Kestrel; their observation on the meadow bordering the pond strongly attracted butterflies in sum-
reclaimed landfills was quite regular throughout all seasons. mer, when drought can act as an important limiting factor (Figure
However, the majority of the species of conservation concern 5). Another stress factor was grass mowing: butterflies were
belonged to the group of migratory birds, which fly to Africa or damaged by periodical cutting of the whole meadow. The choice
to the Mediterranean basin for wintering. Those species were of the mowing regime (timing and intensity) can strongly affect
observed during their spring and autumn migrations. both butterfly richness and abundance. Moreover, this study
Camerini and Groppali 789
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.
Acknowledgements
Thanks 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 interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
The research was supported by the Municipality of Cervesina (PV).
References
Balletto 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
790 Waste Management & Research 32(8)
(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.