An Even More Competitive and Cost Efficient Railway
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Challenge G: An even more competitive and cost efficient railway Railway edges, ecological corridors: how to conciliate biodiversity and economic management of vegetation? Author: Caterina Penone1,2, 3 1 SNCF INFRA/IG-LG-ENV - 6, Avenue François Mitterrand - 93574 La Plaine St Denis - France 2 SNCF INFRA/CSC ER IM 1 - 18, Rue Dunkerque - 75010 Paris - France 3 MNHN UMR7204 CERSP – 61, Rue Buffon - CP 53 - 75004 Paris - France 1 Challenge G: An even more competitive and cost efficient railway Introduction Today biodiversity is in crisis: human activities have resulted in consistent changes to ecosystems and to global and local patterns of biodiversity (Vitousek et al. 1997). Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms - animals, plants, their habitats and their genes - this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. Scientists estimate that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be (IUCN). This loss does not only concern emblematic or rare species, but also common species which provide a wide range of services critical to our survival: ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, http://www.maweb.org/). An environmentally friendly railway must take into account into its maintenance this societal, politic and environmental problem. Railways are in part responsible for biodiversity loss both at global (CO2 rejects) and local scales. Many studies showed in particular that transport networks are at the origin of habitat fragmentation and destruction, local pollutions, roadkills, noise effects, refuge and corridor areas for invasive alien plants (Forman & Alexander 1998; Trombulak & Frissell 2000; Seiler 2001; Hansen & Clevenger 2005; Coffin 2007). On the other hand railway edges represent important green areas; their surface, adjacent to 29,915 km of exploited ways, is estimated to 49,000 ha in France (source: SNCF-RFF). Railways are linear elements crossing lots of different landscapes and connecting cities between them. Consequently their vegetated edges may play a positive role as refuge and corridor for native flora and fauna, especially in human-dominated landscapes (e.g. urban or intensive agricultural areas), where linear patches of habitat and green areas are scarce (Tikka, Hogmander & Koski 2001; Hansen & Clevenger 2005; Le Viol et al. 2008). Vegetation management, which represents an important topic in railway networks maintenance, is a considerable source of expending for railway companies. However this management is necessary for security matters, to prevent many risks as fires, lack of visibility for train drivers, fall of trees on the catenaries, fall of leaves on the tracks that may result in train spin. In another hand a well-considered management of these areas, taking into account environmental matters, may be an opportunity for biodiversity conservation; however this conception has to be economically bearable. Is it possible to improve the cost efficiency of vegetation management and maintain biodiversity in railway edges? Road and highway network managers have already started to consider this question since many years as scientists found possible contribution of road edges to the conservation (Way 1977) of indigenous flora (Spooner et al. 2004; O'Farrell & Milton 2006) and fauna (Meunier et al. 1998; Ries, Debinski & Wieland 2001) and gave some management solutions (Parr & Way 1988; Tikka et al. 2000). Railway networks have been less considered in literature, even if they might have fewer negative impacts on biodiversity than roads as there is no salting, paved surfaces are less important, 2 Challenge G: An even more competitive and cost efficient railway trains circulation is not as important as in main roads or highways and vegetation management is likely less intensive. Biodiversity is extremely complex, dynamic and varied and indicators are a way of presenting and managing this complex information in a simple and clear manner. Numerous indicators have been developed to monitor environmental and sustainable development issues but less are recommended specifically for measuring biodiversity (see http://www.iisd.org/measure/compendium/), no one exists in the railway context. Therefore there is a need of indicators to monitor biodiversity in railway edges after vegetation management. The aim of our research was then to: (1) understand the ecological role of railway edges (habitat, refuge, corridor, barrier) (2) search for biodiversity respectful and economic management solutions (3) develop scientific biodiversity indicators for railway systems by selecting target species 3 Challenge G: An even more competitive and cost efficient railway Methods Flora and fauna inventories Since we wanted to assess the ecological role of railway edges, we chose different taxonomic groups. Firstly plants which are at the target species for management. Grassland vegetation dominance is recommended in railways edges, especially near the tracks, in order to prevent security problems. Note also that grassland is a habitat which is in regression in Europe since the decrease of extensive agriculture. We thus chose to work mostly on this kind of vegetation. As railways have been considered an important source for plant invasions (Ernst 1998; Hansen & Clevenger 2005) we also choose to focus on an invasive species: Senecio inaequidens. This species was introduced from South Africa in Europe at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century through wool transports (Lachmuth, Durka & Schurr 2010). Some scientists argue that this plant have expanded and still expand today through road and railways (Ernst 1998). Since it contains alkaloids which are toxic to livestock and humans, S. inaequidens may cause economic and ecologic problems if it establishes and becomes abundant in natural or farmed grassland ecosystems (Scherber, Crawley & Porembski 2003). Therefore we checked if this species expanded across railway edges and for that purpose we used genetic tools. Secondly we studied snails, which have poor powers of dispersal and are potentially important for decomposition and as food for birds (Gotmark, von Proschwitz & Franc 2008). Lastly, we worked on Orthoptera which is an order of insects including the grasshoppers, crickets and locusts which are important components of grassland ecosystems and prey sources for many predators such as birds or spiders (Marini et al. 2008). We limited our study to the Parisian region (Ile-de-France), where the railway network is the most developed in France. We chose to work on normal railway lines (other than TGV: high-speed trains) as they represent the major part of the French network. Study sites and lines The study on plants and snails was conducted in 2009 along two long-established railway lines (built in 1840 and 1847) in the south of the Parisian region (see figure 1). This region is densely inhabited with 20% of the national population living in just 2% of the nation’s land area. The two lines cross many cities and towns from the south of the region towards the center of Paris, thus they traverse a landscape structured by different degrees of urbanization. The vegetation found along the borders of train tracks is spontaneous (not sown) and mainly interrupted by railway stations, and overpasses. We wanted to minimize variations in environmental variables that we did not want to test, thus we tried to standardize sites using aerial photographs and field surveys. We selected all sites with the following characteristics: (1) bordered by the same environment: on one side the ballast and rails and on the other side, a small paved road (or a parking lot) and dwellings; (2) exhibited the same features: grassland vegetation less than 1 m in height, similar border width and slope. We identified 71 study sites along the two lines responding to these criteria, located between 70 and 4 km from the center of 4 Challenge G: An even more competitive and cost efficient railway Paris. Each site was also characterized by its management practices: herbicides, mowing or none. We had threes years of sites management history. In order to check for a potential effect of local variables we measured edges width, slope and soil characteristics. Within the center of each site, we established a 50 m-long transect 4 m from the rails and inventoried all vascular plants in five sample quadrats (1 m²) distributed every 10 m. At the same place, we placed three woody planks and three construction bricks which materials retain moisture and are attractive for snails during dry periods. After one year we sampled all snails that were present under both the planks and the bricks. All samplings were done in the same meteorological conditions. For the study of the invasive species Senecio inaequidens, we worked on three radial railway lines (one was common with the previous study), starting from Paris and directed to the north, the south and the east of the region. In 2010 we collected the leaves of 30 individuals of S. inaequidens (which represent a population) in railway stations approximately every 5 km starting from three different railway stations in the center of Paris. A total of 740 individuals were collected. We made genetics analyses using microsatellite DNA markers and investigated the genetic population structure. In 2010 we inventoried Orthoptera in five different radial lines (up to 200 km). One of them was common with plant inventories. Many of these insects produce ultrasonic mating calls (above