Next Article in Journal
Which American Wild Species Could Be Used in Grapevine Breeding Programs? A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Circular Economy Model for Educational Plastics Reprocessing in College Town Communities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/environments12110401
environments-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study

by
Jan Winkler
1,*,
Marek Tomaník
1,
Petra Martínez Barroso
2,
Igor Děkanovský
3,
Wiktor Sitek
4 and
Magdalena Daria Vaverková
2,4
1
Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3
University Hospital Brno, Jihlavská 20, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic
4
Department of Sustainable Construction and Geodesy, Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences-SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02 776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(11), 401; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12110401 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 9 September 2025 / Revised: 22 October 2025 / Accepted: 24 October 2025 / Published: 26 October 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The vegetation of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills and its ecosystem functions are often overlooked, despite their importance for enhancement and stabilization of biodiversity. The selected landfill is located in the cadastral area of Bystřice pod Hostýnem (Czech Republic). A total of 92 plant species were recorded during a two-year vegetation assessment at three sites of the MSW landfill. The species Lolium perenne, Arrhenatherum elatius, and Poa pratensis significantly dominated the restored parts of the landfill. The species Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, and Atriplex sagittata were dominant in the actively used parts of the landfill. Chenopodium album, Atriplex sagittata, and Amaranthus retroflexus were dominant in the composting zone. The vegetation of MSW landfills represents an ecologically important element with the ability to increase the biodiversity of the landscape. Nevertheless, there are also risks, e.g., the possibility of contamination of food chain with hazardous substances from waste. The spread of diaspores of certain species across the landscape and the spread of non-indigenous plant species can have negative ecological consequences. MSW landfills are often perceived only as technical facilities that solve the environmental problem of waste management. However, our results bring a new perspective on landfills as an environment for the biosphere.

1. Introduction

The biological relevance of plant species is defined as the number of other organisms that depend on a given plant species or use it as a food source, substrate, or shelter [1]. Selection pressure exerted by anthropogenic activities impacts the selection of plant species in a particular environmental context [2,3,4]. The presence of certain plant species can have very specific effects on the functioning of ecosystems. These effects cannot be captured at the level of the entire community [5]. It is evident that individual plant species do not contribute equally to the functioning of an ecosystem. From this perspective, the so-called “key” plant species are deemed essential [6,7]. Identification of key plant species is important to understand the impact that vegetation species’ diversity has on the functioning of the entire ecosystem [5,7].
A considerable number of ecosystems are undergoing rapid transformation as a result of the impact of human civilization, which has already become a global force [8,9,10,11]. Anthropogenic transformation affects the environment and ecosystems [12], including biodiversity [13]. The impacts of human civilization on the landscape level are relatively easy to demonstrate, unlike the effects of human disturbance on the structure and function of ecosystems, which need to be further investigated [14]. Human civilization activities cause hydrological changes that affect the variability of water levels and, subsequently, the water availability [15]. Furthermore, changes in water regimes can affect nutrient distribution [16] and sediment accumulation or erosion [17]. These changes have a direct impact on plant diversity, as well as on organisms that depend on plants [18,19,20].
The impact of human civilization on the environment is clearly reflected in waste production and its management [21,22,23,24]. The most common method of waste management (WM) worldwide is landfilling [25,26,27,28]. In economically developed countries, landfills are systematically monitored, as far as the release of various pollutants is concerned, while in many developing countries, landfill monitoring is limited or completely absent. Legislative requirements currently focus mainly on groundwater monitoring; however, increasing attention is being paid to the use of bioindicators to assess the impacts of landfills on the surrounding vegetation [29]. Research results indicate that the presence of landfill leachate changes the species composition of plants; the vegetation shows an increasing proportion of species more tolerant to salinity (Atriplex prostrata, A. tatarica, Chenopodium glaucum, Portulaca oleracea) and a decreasing proportion of glycophytes, mainly trees and grasses [30].
Landfills and other degraded habitats in urban and industrial areas are characterized by specific disturbance regimes and unfavorable conditions for vegetation growth [31,32]. Nevertheless, landfill vegetation is important in terms of providing ecosystem services, such as soil erosion control, water retention, soil formation, primary production, increasing soil microbial diversity, and supporting biodiversity [33]. Anthropogenic disturbance regimes enable particularly ruderal plant species to survive [34].
Ruderal species are characterized by phenotypic plasticity and a wide ecological amplitude in relation to many ecological factors [35]. Ruderal plant species are considered as an important part of biodiversity, and their potential to provide important ecosystem services in degraded lands, especially in urban and industrial areas, has been increasingly emphasized [33,34], including their ability to remediate various types of organic and inorganic pollutants in degraded MSW landfills and industrial and mining waste [36].
Conditions in landfills are particularly favorable for plant species considered invasive or field weeds. Therefore, landfills can become sources of their spread and thus negatively affect the surrounding ecosystems. On the other hand, conditions in landfills are also favorable for the survival of endangered plant species that are resistant to occasional disturbances. Differences in plant species’ composition in landfills are also caused by different management, which is characterized by frequent changes and a lower intensity of vegetation regulation on the surface of landfills. The created conditions provide a favorable environment for neophytes and invasive plant species [37].
In the process of the assisted restoration of degraded habitats, including landfills, attention focuses mainly on the survival of shrubs or trees, i.e., plant species from late successional stages. Species from early successional stages, which are classified as ruderal species, have been largely overlooked [38,39]. Ruderal plant species are rarely used to restore degraded sites, although their potential is great. Selecting native ruderal species that support pollination, control erosion, improve soil quality, or are tolerant to metals can improve the overall resilience and success of restoration. The role of ruderal species in providing ecosystem services in artificially created habitats should be fully recognized in future [40]. Analyses of the community composition and structure allow the assessment of the effectiveness of restoration procedures. The use of local indigenous species while taking advantage of (semi-)natural conditions in the surrounding area can clearly improve the success of restoration [31].
Landfill vegetation and its ecosystem functions that support and stabilize biodiversity are often omitted. Our study focuses on assessing the vegetation of an MSW landfill and assessing its potential for biological relevance in a newly emerging ecosystem of a restored landfill. A field assessment of vegetation was conducted on the actively used part of the MSW landfill. The sub-objectives were (i) to determine the biological relevance of vegetation at different landfill sites, (ii) to identify key plant species in the context of a new ecosystem of the restored landfill, and (iii) to nominate native plant species suitable for restoration that would ensure the stability and sustainability of this emerging ecosystem.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The selected landfill is located in the cadastral area of Bystřice pod Hostýnem (Czech Republic; 49°24′46.456″ N, 17°41′8.671″ E). The location was used for the extraction of material for the production of bricks and their subsequent production. There are no protected areas or a zone of hygienic water source protection in the immediate vicinity of the landfill.
The landfill area of interest falls geomorphologically into the Podbeskydská pahorkatina (hilly area) and the Kelčská pahorkatina (hilly area) sub-unit. It is a rugged hilly area with wide flat ridges separated mainly by longitudinal valleys. The highest point is Skalka hill (481 m above sea level). Geologically and pedologically, the area is mainly formed by flysch rocks of the Silesian unit. The northern part of the area defines the boundary between the Krosno and pomenilitic layers. The Krosno layers are characterized by alternation of claystones with a predominance of sandstone and calcareous sandstones. The pomenilitic layers are characterized by a flysch development with a predominance of claystone and are prone to weathering into clayey soils. In the eastern part of the area of interest, proluvial gravels with a fill of loamy sand predominate [41].
From a hydrological point of view, the site falls within the Blazický stream basin above Libosvárka. There is a tributary of the Blazický stream east of the landfill, on which the Mrlínky water reservoir is built [42].
The climate of the region is characterized by a mildly warm and short spring and a long, warm, and dry summer. Autumn is short with moderate temperatures, and winter is usually very dry with short-term snow cover of short duration. The number of summer days ranges between 40 and 50, with an average July temperature between 17 and 18 °C. Average October temperatures range between 7 and 8 °C. In winter, the number of days with snow cover is around 60. There are 110–130 frost days and 30–40 ice days. Average temperatures in January vary between −2 and −3 °C. The total annual precipitation is 600–700 mm, with 400–450 mm falling during the growing season and 200–250 mm during the winter [43].

2.2. Description of the Landfill

The landfill is operated by Skládka Bystřice, s.r.o. (Bystřice pod Hostýnem, Czech Republic), which is classified in category S-OO (landfill for other—non-hazardous—waste). The operational area, together with all handling zones, covers an area of approximately 15 ha and consists of three landfill cassettes. The foundation of the landfill was initiated by the construction of the secured part, which was built by the Association of Municipalities in 1994; full operation began on 1 February 1995. Subsequently, a second cassette was constructed in 1998, and a third was added in 2008. Since the year 2001, the landfill has provided municipal waste collection services to municipalities in its proximity. In 2003, a composting facility dedicated to the management of biodegradable municipal waste (BMW) commenced operations. ZAGO ECOGREEN9SD homogenizers (ZAGO S.r.l., San Martino, Italy) are used to mix the waste, while IWKAK3000 diggers (SANY Heavy Machinery Co., Ltd., Changsha, China) provide mingling. The compost is moistened using an irrigation system, and the final fractionation is carried out using a rotary screen device ULTRA SCREEN TS-1000 D (Zhengzhou Sinolion Machinery Co., Ltd., Zhengzhou, China). The final compost is used for the restoration of closed landfill cassettes.
The landfill is enclosed by fencing along its entire perimeter. This fencing is intended to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the site and to capture wind-drifted waste. The area includes an administrative building with a reception and offices, a reception area with a scale, and covered storage for handling equipment. Maintenance of the complex is ensured by its own machinery and equipment. Leachate from the area is collected in two cisterns, from where it is conducted for processing to the wastewater treatment plant in Bystřice pod Hostýnem. From the environmental safety point of view, hydromonitoring, biomonitoring of the surroundings, and monitoring of the stability of the landfill and the development of biogas are regularly carried out. These inspections are carried out annually by specialized external companies. Figure 1 shows the location of the landfill and the distribution of the monitored sites.

2.3. Vegetation Assessment Methodology

A botanical survey of selected landfill sites was carried out in June 2021 and 2022. Vegetation was assessed using phytocoenological relevés of 20 m2. Within each relevé, the present plant species were identified, and their coverage was estimated in percentages. Scientific names of plants were taken from the Pladias flora and vegetation database [44].
A total of 30 phytocoenological relevés were recorded. Five relevés were taken at each site in each year. Three sites were selected within the landfill area, which differ in the management method and degree of disturbance.

Characteristics of Selected Sites Within the Landfill

  • Restored landfill: It is located on the area of cassette I, which was restored in 2013. After reaching the capacity of this cassette, the area was leveled, covered with geotextiles, a layer of soil was piled up, and the top layer was formed by compost from a local composting plant. Grasses and clovers were planted on the leveled area—specifically Arrhenatherum elatius, Lolium perenne, and Trifolium repens. Regular maintenance takes place during the summer months, including two mowings per year.
  • Actively used landfill: These sites, formed by the areas of cassettes II and III, are used for waste disposal. The vegetation of this locality has the least favorable conditions due to intense disturbances, direct contact with landfill waste, and an affected water regime. Waste from surrounding municipalities is continuously deposited at this site. The disposal of waste is conducted in accordance with the prevailing regulations.
  • Composting plant: This area includes the composting plant and bio-waste landfill, composting facility, and waste storage. The site shows the highest level of disturbance caused by the regular digging and moving of composted material. In addition, there is an increased nutrient content and sufficient moisture due to irrigation during composting process. The compost produced is primarily utilized for the rehabilitation and restoration of formerly active landfill sites.

2.4. Methodology for Assessing Selected Ecosystem Functions

The identified plant species were divided into functional groups according to the selected criteria. Information on the properties and significance of individual species was gained from the Pladias database [44] and from the database by Tyler et al. [1].
The first criterion was the life form and taxonomic classification. The species were divided into following functional groups:
  • annual dicotyledonous herbs,
  • annual monocotyledonous grasses,
  • perennial dicotyledonous herbs,
  • perennial monocotyledonous grasses,
  • woody species.
The second criterion was the importance for biological relevance (biodiversity relevance). This is defined for each species as the number of other organisms that depend on it or use it as a source of food, substrate, shelter, or condition for survival and reproduction. The value is given on a logarithmic eight-point scale:
  • BR1 = <6 associated species,
  • BR2 = 6–12 species,
  • BR3 = 13–24 species,
  • BR4 = 25–50 species,
  • BR5 = 51–100 species,
  • BR6 = 101–200 species,
  • BR7 = 201–400 species,
  • BR8 = >400 species.
The third criterion was the attractiveness to pollinators. Plant species were divided according to a seven-level logarithmic scale, according to the amount of nectar and pollen produced. This figure is expressed in g sugar/m2/year:
  • NE1: no nectar production and no pollen to collect,
  • NE2: no or negligible nectar production (<0.2 g) and high pollen production,
  • NE3: low nectar production (0.2 to 5 g) and high pollen production,
  • NE4: medium nectar production (5 to 20 g),
  • NE5: rather high nectar production (20 to 50 g),
  • NE6: high nectar production (50 to 200 g),
  • NE7: very high nectar production (>200 g).

2.5. Statistical Data Processing

The species coverage data collected from the three landfill habitats were subjected to multivariate analyses. To select the most suitable ordination method, we first applied a detrended correspondence analysis (DCA). The gradient length obtained (2.34 SD units) indicated that the data structure was best represented by a linear approach.
On this basis, a redundancy analysis (RDA) was performed using the software Canoco 5.0 [45]. Four axes were computed, with no detrending or hybrid analysis applied. Species data were log-transformed (Y′ = 1 × Y + 1) and subsequently centered and standardized.
The statistical significance of the results was tested by a Monte Carlo permutation test with 999 iterations. All ordination and related computations were carried out in Canoco 5.0.

3. Results

A total of 92 plant species were recorded in a two-year vegetation assessment at three sites of the MSW landfill. The species Lolium perenne, Arrhenatherum elatius, and Poa pratensis were markedly predominant in the restored parts of the landfill. The species Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, and Atriplex sagittata dominated in the actively used parts of the landfill. Chenopodium album, Atriplex sagittata, and Amaranthus retroflexus predominated in the composting zone.
The representation of functional groups of plant species according to life forms and taxonomic division is shown in Figure 2.
The representation of functional groups of plant species is illustrated in Figure 3. Urtica dioica, Plantago lanceolata, Rumex acetosa, and Trifolium pratense were evaluated as key species in terms of biological relevance.
Functional groups of plant species according to attractiveness to pollinators are demonstrated in Figure 4, where Trifolium pratense, Trifolium repens, and Carduus acanthoides were identified as key species attractive to pollinators.
The relationship between the monitored habitats and the coverage of the identified plant species was processed by RDA analysis, and the results were statistically significant. The graphical representation of the RDA results is shown in Figure 5. The sites that were subject to monitoring are distinguished by a variety of symbols and colors. A green circle symbol indicates a landfill that has been restored, a purple rectangle symbol indicates an actively used landfill, and a brown square symbol indicates a composting plant. Based on the RDA results, the plant species were divided into functional groups according to the preferences of the monitored habitats in the landfill. The determined functional groups according to mutual interactions are depicted in Table 1. The division of plant species was carried out based on the coordinates determining the direction of the vectors of individual species, which were calculated by RDA analysis. Groups of plant species are distinguished by color.

4. Discussion

Our results confirm clear differences in vegetation composition among landfill site types (RDA: F-ratio = 1.9, p = 0.008), with the restored area dominated by Lolium perenne, Arrhenatherum elatius, and Poa pratensis and the actively used and composting areas characterized by nitrophilous annuals. This assertion is further substantiated by the findings of Tintner et al. [46], who contend that the vegetation present on landfill sites, when considered in its entirety, mirrors the biodiversity characteristic of diverse ecological niches. The study further emphasizes the pivotal role of the growth substrate in this phenomenon. As they further state, certain plant species are perennial and occur in different habitats, which applies to the species Chenopodium album, Elymus repens, and Artemisia vulgaris. In our dataset, the restored part differed most strongly from the other two sites, whereas the actively used landfill and composting plant showed more similar species pools, consistent with comparable disturbance and nutrient regimes.
Tintner et al. [46] draw attention to the phenomenon of dominance in microhabitats observed in the species Bassia scoparia. Such a species is not highly represented in the entire area, but in some places, it is markedly dominant. In the case of our study, this was observed in Atriplex sagittata, Brassica napus, Descurainia sophia, Hordeum murinum, Chelidonium majus, and Tanacetum parthenium. This pattern likely reflects fine-scale heterogeneity and the mosaic of management histories within the landfill.
According to Körner and Jeltsch [47], fragmentation can affect the vulnerability of sensitive plant species and manifest itself with a considerable time delay. Our observations of patchy dominance and rapid turnover in ruderal taxa are compatible with such fragmentation effects at local scales and with broader responses of plant species throughout the landscape [48]. Human civilization directly creates new geological layers in the form of deposited waste with diverse properties. This interaction leads to the creation of new types of geological environments and new ecosystems [32].
In the restored part, the grass mixture and mowing regime explain the sustained dominance of L. perenne, A. elatius, and P. pratensis. According to Tintner et al. [46], if landfill restoration is carried out on sandy to loamy substrates with a sufficiently thick cover layer, the vegetation evolves into ruderal meadows with high successional stability, with most of the cover being spontaneous vegetation. In contrast, this model was not confirmed in our case, where the sown species retained their dominant position in the restored area. The essential function of vegetation in the restored part of the landfill is to minimize water erosion as effectively as possible. The dominant representation of sown species affects intraspecific competition and supports species coexistence [49]. The influence of dominant species can extensively modify the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, with species-specific links between population density and productivity playing a key role [50,51].
In the actively used part, the dominance of Urtica dioica, Chelidonium majus, and Atriplex sagittata aligns with frequent disturbance and heterogeneous substrate inputs, which corresponds with the findings of Tintner et al. [46], who describes the vegetation on fresh waste as a pioneer stage, dominated by open soil weed species and indicating further development of vegetation succession.
According to Ranđelović et al. [40], most dominant ruderal species from artificially created habitats, which are assumed to have the potential to expand their range of occurrence, can be characterized by higher adaptation to soil disturbance. These species bring benefits in form of reducing soil erosion, improving soil quality, or having tolerance to metals and are suitable for restoring degraded habitats. Ruderal species are characterized by a wide ecological amplitude, which enables them not only to overcome extreme conditions but also be favored by them [35].
The spread of plant species resistant to extreme conditions and stress has proven to be a very good indicator of environmental quality [52]. In northern France, the spread of plant species resistant to heavy metals (HM) (metallophytes) was recorded around one of the largest steelworks in the world (Bois des Asturies in Auby), with soils contaminated mainly with zinc, cadmium, and lead [53]. Metallophytes have the ability to cope with the negative consequences of heavy metal toxicity [54]. However, HM still disrupt plant health [55,56]. The presence of certain hazardous substances can lead to higher levels of secondary metabolites [57], thus affecting the quality of the food supply for animals.
At the composting plant site, the dominant species are Chenopodium album, Atriplex sagittata, and Amaranthus retroflexus. These species are well adapted to very high disturbance and a high supply of readily available nutrients in the substrate. A common environmental practice is to compost organic waste, while the final compost is being used for soil reclamation. BMW, sewage sludge, livestock manure, mushroom substrate, or other organic waste can be used to create compost as a soil substitute [58,59]. Organic additives improve the structure and physical properties of the soil by increasing the organic matter content, adjusting the pH, and increasing the nutrient availability [60]. Some materials may also have negative aspects, such as contamination with HM [61], the presence of pathogenic bacteria and pharmacological pollutants (e.g., antibiotics) [62], or the presence of weed diaspores [63,64].
The plant community of the landfill represents a new habitat from the point of view of biological relevance, although there are certain differences between the habitats. The key species for biological relevance were Urtica dioica, Plantago lanceolata, Rumex acetosa, and Trifolium pratense. In general, species from functional groups BR5 and BR6 have a higher representation, i.e., species on which up to 200 other species of organisms depend. Species with higher biological relevance occur in landfills only to a limited extent, which also limits the biodiversity development.
The higher presence of BR6 in the restored landfill increases the importance of this habitat in biological restoration compared to other habitats. The vegetation of the landfill provides higher biological relevance than a solar park [65] and substantially higher than arable land [66,67]. The vegetation of the landfill creates more favorable conditions for more species and can thus support biodiversity in the anthropogenically influenced landscape.
Vegetation can serve as a food source for animals [68,69,70]. Weed fruits and seeds can become food for ground beetles of the genus Harpalus, which contributes to the predation of weed seeds and thus reduces undesirable vegetation [71,72,73]. In particular, annual dicotyledonous species are a food source for earthworms whose biomass production is an ecosystem function supporting the soil edaphon [74].
Weed communities can have specific impacts on the composition of the soil microbial community, both on the abundance of soil microorganisms and on the representation of functional groups [75,76,77].
Vegetation is a source of nectar and pollen for pollinators [69,78] and thus provides an important ecosystem function. The key species from the landfill were Trifolium pratense, Trifolium repens, and Carduus acanthoides. The representation of species important for pollinators is low, and the attractiveness of the landfill vegetation for pollinators is low, as species from the functional group NE1 (species without nectar production) predominate.
It is imperative to acknowledge the potential hazards that are inherent to the presence of vegetation within landfill. Deep-rooting species such as Arctium lappa, Cirsium arvense, Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, Tanacetum coccineum, Rumex acetosa, and Verbascum densiflorum are able to absorb hazardous substances from the landfill and transport them to the above-ground parts of the plants and so facilitate their spread through biomass, pollen, nectar, fruits, and seeds to the surroundings and can damage the technical security and insulation layers of the restored landfill. High concentrations of HM and trace elements in plants pose a serious environmental problem [79]. In this context, plants can serve as bioindicators of the living conditions and the degree of environmental pollution [80]. Potential effects such as allergenic pollen dispersal are conceivable for some taxa present but were not evaluated here.
The species Erigeron canadensis, Matricaria chamomilla, Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, and Tanacetum coccineum are invasive and spread easily to the surrounding area. The fruits of these plants are dispersed by wind and animals, often thanks to well-developed hooks, and can become a major weed in neighboring agricultural habitats.
An interesting phenomenon is the presence of ornamental species, e.g., Iris germanica, Tamarix ramosissima, and Leymus arenarius, which were introduced to the landfill along with the deposited waste and managed to survive and thrive. In addition, the landfill vegetation with its representation of flowering plants provides high aesthetic value to the restored areas and has the potential to contribute to ecosystem services [81].
Non-indigenous species with the potential to spread across the landscape are also a problematic group. These include Abutilon theophrasti, Amaranthus retroflexus, Bassia scoparia, Bromus hordeaceus, Bromus sterilis, Bromus tectorum, Bunias orientalis, Conyza canadensis, Erigeron annuus, Galinsoga parviflora, Geranium pyrenaicum, Nonea lutea, Oenothera biennis, Sisymbrium loeselii, and Solidago canadensis.
In landfills, species with the ability to quickly colonize degraded sites and efficiently utilize available resources are particularly successful. These species create suitable conditions for later successional species. Although ruderal species thrive in various types of artificially created habitats, they have been neglected so far and not considered as desirable for restoration purposes [82]. Ruderal species are characterized by a short life cycle, rapid growth, and high reproduction rates, which is consistent with a ruderal life strategy [83]. Mutually beneficial relationships have begun to form between human civilization and certain plants. These species have undergone changes in their life strategy, which led to the emergence of a new strategy referred to as the anthropogenic life strategy [84,85].
Our findings indicate that reclamation via sowing and mowing yields a distinct grass sward with erosion-control potential, whereas active disposal and compost handling generate compositionally similar ruderal assemblages driven by disturbance and nutrients; within this mosaic, a subset of species contributes disproportionately to the biological relevance, while pollinator resources remain limited.

5. Conclusions

The vegetation in a municipal solid waste landfill provides important biological relevance and can contribute to enhancing the landscape biodiversity. The species composition of the vegetation at the landfill provides a living space and a source of food for up to 200 species of organisms. The restored part of the investigated landfill is characterized by the occurrence of species Lolium perenne, Arrhenatherum elatius, and Poa pratensis and provides the highest representation within the restored community. The vegetation of the actively used part of the landfill and composting plant is mainly composed of annual nitrophilous species that are well adapted to the disturbance of the landfill environment. The following plant species found in the landfill are suitable for restoration: Lolium perenne, Plantago lanceolata, Poa pratensis, Trifolium pratense, and Trifolium repens and, therefore, can be recommended for this purpose.
Our RDA indicates significant differentiation among site types (F-ratio = 1.9, p = 0.008), consistent with the compositional patterns reported above. Within our dataset, Urtica dioica, Plantago lanceolata, Rumex acetosa, and Trifolium pratense showed the highest biological relevance; Trifolium pratense, Trifolium repens, and Carduus acanthoides were the main pollinator-relevant species detected.
Vegetation monitoring allows us to monitor and describe changes in relationships in conditions created by human civilization. The presence of vegetation in municipal solid waste landfills has been shown to enhance biodiversity and provide ecosystem functions at the local scale. However, this potential benefit is contingent upon targeted management and continuous monitoring.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W., M.D.V., and M.T.; methodology, M.T. and J.W.; validation, M.D.V. and J.W.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, J.W. and P.M.B.; resources, M.T. and J.W.; data curation, I.D. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.M.B. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, P.M.B. and I.D.; visualization, W.S. and J.W.; supervision, I.D. and W.S.; project administration, J.W.; funding acquisition, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not available to the public in order to preserve the originality of the data, for the successful completion of Marek Tomaník’s studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tyler, T.; Herbertsson, L.; Olofsson, J.; Olsson, P.A. Ecological indicator and traits values for Swedish vascular plants. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ceschin, S.; Kumbaric, A.; Caneva, G.; Zuccarello, V. Testing flora as bioindicator of buried structures in the archaeological area of Maxentius’s Villa (Rome, Italy). J. Archaeol. Sci. 2012, 39, 1288–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Campos, J.A.; Peco, J.D.; García-Noguero, E. Antigerminative comparison between naturally occurring naphthoquinones and commercial pesticides: Soil dehydrogenase activity used as bioindicator to test soil toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ghosh, D.; Sarkar, A.; Basu, A.G.; Roy, S. Effect of plastic pollution on freshwater flora: A meta-analysis approach to elucidate the factors influencing plant growth and biochemical markers. Water Res. 2022, 225, 119114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Díaz, S.; Lavorel, S.; de Bello, F.; Quétier, F.; Grigulis, K.; Robson, M. Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 20684–20689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maire, E.; Villéger, S.; Graham, N.A.J.; Hoey, A.S.; Cinner, J.; Ferse, S.C.A.; Aliaume, C.; Booth, D.J.; Feary, D.A.; Kulbicki, M.; et al. Community-wide scan identifies fish species associated with coral reef services across the Indo-Pacific. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 285, 20181167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mahaut, L.; Fort, F.; Violle, C.; Freschet, G.T. Multiple facets of diversity effects on plant productivity: Species richness, functional diversity, species identity and intraspecific competition. Funct. Ecol. 2020, 34, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ellis, E.C. Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011, 369, 1010–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ellis, E.C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 2015, 85, 287–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Waters, C.N.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Summerhayes, C.; Barnosky, A.D.; Poirier, C.; Gałuszka, A.; Cearreta, A.; Edgeworth, M.; Ellis, E.C.; Ellis, M.; et al. The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 2016, 351, aad2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aguilar, R.G.; Owens, R.; Giardino, J.R. The expanding role of anthropogeomorphology in critical zone studies in the Anthropocene. Geomorphology 2020, 366, 107165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benítez-López, A.; Santini, L.; Schipper, A.M.; Busana, M.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Intact but empty forests? Patterns of hunting-induced mammal defaunation in the tropics. PLoS Biol. 2019, 17, e3000247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hu, X.; Næss, J.S.; Iordan, C.M.; Huang, B.; Zhao, W.; Cherubini, F. Recent global land cover dynamics and implications for soil erosion and carbon losses from deforestation. Anthropocene 2021, 34, 100291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dubois, N.; Saulnier-Talbot, É.; Mills, K.; Gell, P.; Battarbee, R.; Bennion, H.; Chawchai, S.; Dong, X.; Francus, P.; Flower, R.; et al. First human impacts and responses of aquatic systems: A review of palaeolimnological records from around the world. Anthr. Rev. 2018, 5, 28–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Reeves, J.M.; Gell, P.A.; Reichman, S.M.; Trewarn, S.M.; Zawadzki, A. Industrial past, urban future: Using palaeo-studies to determine the industrial legacy of the Barwon Estuary, Victoria, Australia. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2016, 67, 837–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tolotti, M.; Boscaini, A.; Salmaso, N. Comparative analysis of phytoplankton patterns in two modified lakes with contrasting hydrological features. Aquat. Sci. 2010, 72, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kattel, G.; Gell, P.; Zawadzki, A.; Barry, L. Palaeoecological evidence for sustained change in a shallow Murray River (Australia) floodplain lake: Regime shift or press response? Hydrobiologia 2017, 787, 269–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dick, J.; Haynes, D.; Tibby, J.; Garcia, A.; Gell, P. A history of aquatic plants in the Ramsar-listed Coorong wetland, South Australia. J. Paleolimnol. 2012, 46, 623–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davidson, T.A.; Reid, M.A.; Sayer, C.D.; Chilcott, S. Palaeolimnological records of shallow-lake biodiversity change: Exploring the merits of single versus multi-proxy approaches. J. Paleolimnol. 2013, 49, 431–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kattel, G.; Gell, P.; Perga, M.E.; Jeppesen, E.; Grundell, R.; Weller, S.; Zawadzki, A.; Barry, L. Tracking a century of change in trophic structure and dynamics in a floodplain wetland: Integrating palaeo-ecological and palaeo-isotopic evidence. Freshw. Biol. 2015, 60, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hossain, M.S.; Santhanam, A.; Norulaini, N.A.N.; Omar, A.K.M. Clinical solid waste management practices and its impact on human health and environment—A review. Waste Manag. 2011, 31, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lestari, P.; Trihadiningrum, Y. The impact of improper solid waste management to plastic pollution in Indonesian coast and marine environment. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gaur, V.K.; Sharma, P.; Sirohi, R.; Awasthi, M.K.; Dussap, C.-G.; Pandey, A. Assessing the impact of industrial waste on environment and mitigation strategies: A comprehensive review. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 398, 123019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Li, W.; Achal, V. Environmental and health impacts due to e-waste disposal in China—A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 737, 139745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wong, J.T.-F.; Chen, X.-W.; Mo, W.-Y.; Man, Y.-B.; Ng, C.W.-W.; Wong, M.-H. Restoration of plant and animal communities in a sanitary landfill: A 10-year case study in Hong Kong. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 490–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hamid, H.; Li, L.Y.; Grace, J.R. Review of the fate and transformation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in landfills. Environ. Pollut. 2018, 235, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rasapoor, M.; Young, B.; Brar, R.; Baroutian, S. Improving biogas generation from aged landfill waste using moisture adjustment and neutral red additive—Case study: Hampton Downs’s landfill site. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 216, 112947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sauvé, G.; Van Acker, K. The environmental impacts of municipal solid waste landfills in Europe: A life cycle assessment of proper reference cases to support decision making. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 261, 110216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Paleologos, E.K.; Bunge, R.; Weibel, G.; Vitone, C.; Ploetze, M.; Petti, R.; Koda, E.; O’Kelly, B.C.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D.; et al. Paradigm shifts in incinerator ash, sediment material recovery and landfill monitoring. Environ. Geotech. 2023, 10, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koda, E.; Winkler, J.; Wowkonowicz, P.; Černý, M.; Kiersnowska, A.; Pasternak, G.; Vaverková, M.D. Vegetation changes as indicators of landfill leachate seepage locations: Case study. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 174, 106448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salgueiro, P.A.; Prach, K.; Branquinho, C.; Mira, A. Enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services in quarry restoration—Challenges, strategies, and practice. Restor. Ecol. 2020, 28, 655–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Winkler, J.; Koda, E.; Skutnik, Z.; Černý, M.; Adamcová, D.; Podlasek, A.; Vaverková, M.D. Trends in the succession of synanthropic vegetation on a reclaimed landfill in Poland. Anthropocene 2021, 35, 100299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Robinson, S.L.; Lundholm, J.T. Ecosystem services provided by urban spontaneous vegetation. Urban Ecosyst. 2012, 15, 545–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Guo, P.; Yu, F.; Ren, Y.; Liu, D.; Li, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Wang, X. Response of ruderal species diversity to an urban environment: Implications for conservation and management. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Joyce, C.B.; Simpson, M.; Casanova, M. Future wet grasslands: Ecological implications of climate change. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ranđelović, D.; Jovanović, S. Understanding the role of ruderal plant species in restoration of degraded lands. In Bio-Inspired Land Remediation; Pandey, V.C., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; pp. 17–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vaverková, M.D.; Paleologos, E.K.; Adamcová, D.; Podlasek, A.; Pasternak, G.; Červenková, J.; Skutnik, Z.; Koda, E.; Winkler, J. Municipal solid waste landfill: Evidence of the effect of applied landfill management on vegetation composition. Waste Manag. Res. 2022, 40, 1402–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pietrzykowski, M. Tree species selection and reaction to mine soil reconstructed at reforested post-mine sites: Central and Eastern European experiences. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 142, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Poniatowski, D.; Stuhldreher, G.; Helbing, F.; Hamer, U.; Fartmann, T. Restoration of calcareous grasslands: The early successional stage promotes biodiversity. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 151, 105858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ranđelović, D.; Jakovljević, K.; Šinžar-Sekulić, J.; Kuzmič, F.; Šilc, U. Recognising the role of ruderal species in restoration of degraded lands. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 938, 173104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Czech Geological Society. Geological Map of the Czech Republic, 1: 50 000. C.G.S: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018. Available online: https://mapy.geology.cz/geocr50 (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  42. Czech Geological Society. Map of Soil Types of the Czech Republic, 1: 50 000. C.G.S: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017. Available online: https://mapy.geology.cz/pudy (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  43. Culek, M. (Ed.) Biogeographical Division of the Czech Republic (Biogeografické Členění České Republiky), 1st ed.; Enigma: Prague, Czech Republic, 1996; p. 347. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  44. Chytrý, M.; Danihelka, J.; Kaplan, Z.; Wild, J.; Holubová, D.; Novotný, P.; Řezníčková, M.; Rohn, M.; Dřevojan, P.; Grulich, V.; et al. Pladias Database of the Czech Flora and Vegetation. Preslia 2021, 93, 1–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Braak, C.J.F.; Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination, Version 5.0; Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  46. Tintner, J.; Klug, B. Can vegetation indicate landfill cover features? Flora—Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2011, 206, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Körner, K.; Jeltsch, F. Detecting general plant functional type responses in fragmented landscapes using spatially-explicit simulations. Ecol. Model. 2008, 210, 287–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 487–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Adler, P.B.; Smull, D.; Beard, K.H.; Choi, R.T.; Furniss, T.; Kulmatiski, A.; Meiners, J.M.; Tredennick, A.T.; Veblen, K.E. Competition and coexistence in plant communities: Intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1319–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Turnbull, L.A.; Levine, J.M.; Loreau, M.; Hector, A. Coexistence, niches and biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16 (Suppl. 1), 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Baert, J.M.; Jaspers, S.; Janssen, C.R.; De Laender, F.; Aerts, M. Nonlinear partitioning of biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017, 8, 1233–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Testi, A.; Bisceglie, S.; Guidotti, S.; Fanelli, G. Detecting river environmental quality through plant and macroinvertebrate bioindicators in the Aniene River (Central Italy). Aquat. Ecol. 2009, 43, 477–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gillet, S.; Ponge, J.F. Humus forms and metal pollution in soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2002, 53, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Viehweger, K. How plants cope with heavy metals. Bot. Stud. 2014, 55, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Singh, S.; Parihar, P.; Singh, R.; Singh, V.P.; Prasad, S.M. Heavy metal tolerance in plants: Role of transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and ionomics. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Sulaiman, F.R.; Hamzah, H.A. Heavy metals accumulation in suburban roadside plants of a tropical area (Jengka, Malaysia). Ecol. Process. 2018, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Azzazy, M.F. Plant bioindicators of pollution in Sadat City, Western Nile Delta, Egypt. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ingelmo, F.; Canet, R.; Ibañez, M.A.; Pomares, F.; García, J. Use of MSW compost, dried sewage sludge and other wastes as partial substitutes for peat and soil. Bioresour. Technol. 1998, 63, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Uzun, I. Use of spent mushroom compost in sustainable fruit production. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2004, 12, 157–165. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pérez-Gimeno, A.; Navarro-Pedreño, J.; Almendro-Candel, M.B.; Gómez, I.; Zorpas, A.A. The use of wastes (organic and inorganic) in land restoration in relation to their characteristics and cost. Waste Manag. Res. 2019, 37, 502–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bauerek, A.; Diatta, J.; Pierzchała, Ł.; Więckol-Ryk, A.; Krzemień, A. Development of soil substitutes for the sustainable land reclamation of coal mine-affected areas. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kyakuwaire, M.; Olupot, G.; Amoding, A.; Nkedi-Kizza, P.; Ateenyi Basamba, T. How safe is chicken litter for land application as an organic fertilizer? A review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Winkler, J.; Rypová, I.; Dvořák, J. Influence of manure on weed infestation of sugar beet. Listy Cukrov. A Řepařské 2017, 133, 130–136. Available online: http://www.cukr-listy.cz/on_line/2017/PDF/130-136.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  64. Vaverková, M.D.; Adamcová, D.; Winkler, J.; Koda, E.; Petrželová, L.; Maxianová, A. Alternative method of composting on a reclaimed municipal waste landfill in accordance with the circular economy: Benefits and risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Uldrijan, D.; Černý, M.; Winkler, J. Solar park—Opportunity or threat for vegetation and ecosystem. J. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Winkler, J.; Dvořák, J.; Hosa, J.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Vaverková, M.D. Impact of conservation tillage technologies on the biological relevance of weeds. Land 2023, 12, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Winkler, J.; Martinová, L.; Kotlánová, B.; Děkanovský, I.; Vaverková, M.D. Biological relevance and ecosystem functions of sugar beet weeds. Listy Cukrov. A Řepařské 2025, 141, 98–103. Available online: http://www.cukr-listy.cz/on_line/2025/PDF/98-103.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  68. Schindler, B.Y.; Blaustein, L.; Lotan, R.; Shalom, H.; Kadas, G.J.; Seifan, M. Green roof and photovoltaic panel integration: Effects on plant and arthropod diversity and electricity production. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 225, 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Blaydes, H.; Potts, S.G.; Whyatt, J.D.; Armstrong, A. Opportunities to enhance pollinator biodiversity in solar parks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tang, A.M.; Hughes, P.N.; Dijkstra, T.A.; Askarinejad, A.; Brenčič, M.; Cui, Y.J.; Diez, J.J.; Firgi, T.; Gajewska, B.; Gentile, F.; et al. Atmosphere–vegetation–soil interactions in a climate change context: Impact of changing conditions impacting on engineered transport infrastructure slopes in Europe. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2018, 1, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rusch, A.; Binet, D.; Delbac, L.; Thiéry, D. Local and landscape effects of agricultural intensification on Carabid community structure and weed seed predation in a perennial cropping system. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 2163–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. De Heij, S.E.; Willenborg, C.J. Connected Carabids: Network interactions and their impact on biocontrol by Carabid beetles. Bioscience 2020, 70, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Foffová, H.; Ćavar Zeljković, S.; Honěk, A.; Martinková, Z.; Tarkowski, P.; Saska, P. Which seed properties determine the preferences of Carabid beetle seed predators? Insects 2020, 11, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hurajová, E.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Havel, L.; Děkanovský, I.; Winkler, J. Relationship between vegetation succession and earthworm population in vineyards. J. Ecol. Eng. 2024, 25, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Batten, K.M.; Scow, K.M.; Davies, K.F.; Harrison, S.P. Two invasive plants alter soil microbial community composition in serpentine grasslands. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lutgen, E.R.; Rillig, M.C. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) management treatments on arbuscular mycorrhizae and soil aggregation. Weed Sci. 2004, 52, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Marler, M.J.; Zabinski, C.A.; Callaway, R.M. Mycorrhizae indirectly enhance competitive effects of an invasive forb on a native bunchgrass. Ecology 1999, 80, 1180–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Walston, L.J.; Li, Y.; Hartmann, H.M.; Macknick, J.; Hanson, A.; Nootenboom, C.; Lonsdorf, E.; Hellmann, J. Modeling the ecosystem services of native vegetation management practices at solar energy facilities in the Midwestern United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sajwan, K.S.; Twardowska, I.; Punshon, T.; Alva, A.K. Coal Combustion Byproducts and Environmental Issues; Springer Science + Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Braga, L.; Furia, E.; Buldrini, F.; Mercuri, A.M. Pollen and flora as bioindicators in assessing the status of polluted sites: The case study of the Mantua Lakes (SIN “Laghi di Mantova e Polo Chimico”; N Italy). Sustainability 2023, 15, 9414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Więckol-Ryk, A.; Pierzchała, Ł.; Bauerek, A.; Krzemień, A. Minimising coal mining’s impact on biodiversity: Artificial soils for post-mining land reclamation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Martínez-Garza, C.; Peña, V.; Ricker, M.; Campos, A.; Howe, H.F. Restoring tropical biodiversity: Leaf traits predict growth and survival of late-successional trees in early-successional environments. For. Ecol. Manag. 2005, 217, 365–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Grime, J.P. Plant Strategies, Vegetation Processes, and Ecosystem Properties; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  84. Winkler, J.; Vaverková, M.D.; Havel, L. Anthropogenic life strategy of plants. Anthr. Rev. 2023, 10, 455–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mahaut, L.; Cheptou, P.O.; Fried, G.; Munoz, F.; Storkey, J.; Vasseur, F.; Violle, C.; Bretagnolle, F. Weeds: Against the rules? Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 1107–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Environments 12 00401 g001
Figure 1. Map of the landfill and spatial arrangement of the monitored sites.
Figure 1. Map of the landfill and spatial arrangement of the monitored sites.
Environments 12 00401 g001
Environments 12 00401 g002
Figure 2. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to life form and taxonomic classification.
Figure 2. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to life form and taxonomic classification.
Environments 12 00401 g002
Environments 12 00401 g003
Figure 3. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to biological relevance.
Figure 3. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to biological relevance.
Environments 12 00401 g003
Environments 12 00401 g004
Figure 4. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to attractiveness to pollinators.
Figure 4. Representation of functional groups of plant species according to attractiveness to pollinators.
Environments 12 00401 g004
Environments 12 00401 g005
Figure 5. Relationship between monitored habitats and plant species (result RDA; F-ratio = 1.9, p-value = 0.008. Explanatory notes of abbreviations: ◯ (green)—restored landfill, ▯ (purple)—actively used landfill, □ (brown)—composting plant. Plant species: AbuTheo—Abutilon theophrasti, AesHipp—Aesculus hippocastanum, AlnGlut—Alnus glutinosa, AmaRetr—Amaranthus retroflexus, AnaArve—Anagallis arvensis, ArcLapp—Arctium lappa, ArrElat—Arrhenatherum elatius, AtrPatu—Atriplex patula, AtrPros—Atriplex prostrata, AtrSagi—Atriplex sagittata, BasScop—Bassia scoparia, BraNapu—Brassica napus, BroHord—Bromus hordeaceus, BroJapo—Bromus japonicus, BroSter—Bromus sterilis, BroTect—Bromus tectorum, BunOrie—Bunias orientalis, CapBurs—Capsella bursa-pastoris, CarAcan—Carduus acanthoides, CicInty—Cichorium intybus, CirArve—Cirsium arvense, ConCana—Conyza canadensis, CorSang—Cornus sanguinea, CucMaxi—Cucurbita maxima, CucPepo—Cucurbita pepo, DauCaro—Daucus carota, DesSoph—Descurainia sophia, EpiAlsi—Epilobium alsinifoliu, EriAnnu—Erigeron annuus, EupLath—Euphorbia lathyris, FesArun—Festuca arundinacea, FraExce—Fraxinus excelsior, GalTetr—Galeopsis tetrahit, GalParv—Galinsoga parviflora, GalApar—Galium aparine, GerPusi—Geranium pusilum, GerPyre—Geranium pyrenaicum, GeuUrba—Geum urbanum, HolLana—Holcus lanatus, HorMuri—Hordeum murinum, CheMaju—Chelidonium majus, CheAlbu—Chenopodium album, ChePedu—Chenopodium album subsp. pedunculare, CheSuec—Chenopodium suecicum, IriGerm—Iris germanica, LacSerr—Lactuca serriola, LapComm—Lapsana communis, LeiAren—Leimus arenarius, LolPere—Lolium perenne, MatDisc—Matricaria discoidea, MatCham—Matricaria chamomilla, MelOffi—Melilotus officinalis, MerAnnu—Mercurialis annua, MicPerf—Microthlaspi perfoliatum, NonLute—Nonea lutea, OenBien—Oenothera biennis, ParInse—Parthenocissus inserta, PinSylv—Pinus sylvestris, PlaLanc—Plantago lanceolata, PoaAnnu—Poa annua, PoaPrat—Poa pratensis, PotAnse—Potentilla anserina, PruArme—Prunus armeniaca, PruAviu—Prunus avium, PruSpin—Prunus spinosa, RanAcri—Ranunculus acris, ResLute—Reseda luteola, RubIdea—Rubus ideaus, RumAcet—Rumex acetosa, SalFrag—Salix fragilis, SamNigr—Sambucus nigra, SaxCune—Saxifraga cuneifolia, SedSpur—Sedum spurium, SenVulg—Senecio vulgaris, SinArve—Sinapis arvensis, SisLoes—Sisymbrium loeselii, SolLyco—Solanum lycopersicum, SolCana—Solidago canadensis, SymOffi—Symphytum officinale, TamRamo—Tamarix ramosissima, TanPart—Tanacetum parthenium, TarTar—Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, ThlArve—Thlaspi arvense, TriFrag—Trifolium fragiferum, TriHybr—Trifolium hybridum, TriPrat—Trifolium pratense, TriRepe—Trifolium repens, TriInod—Tripleurospermum inodorum, TusFarf—Tussilago farfara, UrtDioi—Urtica dioica, VerDens—Verbascum densiflorum, VioArve—Viola arvensis.
Figure 5. Relationship between monitored habitats and plant species (result RDA; F-ratio = 1.9, p-value = 0.008. Explanatory notes of abbreviations: ◯ (green)—restored landfill, ▯ (purple)—actively used landfill, □ (brown)—composting plant. Plant species: AbuTheo—Abutilon theophrasti, AesHipp—Aesculus hippocastanum, AlnGlut—Alnus glutinosa, AmaRetr—Amaranthus retroflexus, AnaArve—Anagallis arvensis, ArcLapp—Arctium lappa, ArrElat—Arrhenatherum elatius, AtrPatu—Atriplex patula, AtrPros—Atriplex prostrata, AtrSagi—Atriplex sagittata, BasScop—Bassia scoparia, BraNapu—Brassica napus, BroHord—Bromus hordeaceus, BroJapo—Bromus japonicus, BroSter—Bromus sterilis, BroTect—Bromus tectorum, BunOrie—Bunias orientalis, CapBurs—Capsella bursa-pastoris, CarAcan—Carduus acanthoides, CicInty—Cichorium intybus, CirArve—Cirsium arvense, ConCana—Conyza canadensis, CorSang—Cornus sanguinea, CucMaxi—Cucurbita maxima, CucPepo—Cucurbita pepo, DauCaro—Daucus carota, DesSoph—Descurainia sophia, EpiAlsi—Epilobium alsinifoliu, EriAnnu—Erigeron annuus, EupLath—Euphorbia lathyris, FesArun—Festuca arundinacea, FraExce—Fraxinus excelsior, GalTetr—Galeopsis tetrahit, GalParv—Galinsoga parviflora, GalApar—Galium aparine, GerPusi—Geranium pusilum, GerPyre—Geranium pyrenaicum, GeuUrba—Geum urbanum, HolLana—Holcus lanatus, HorMuri—Hordeum murinum, CheMaju—Chelidonium majus, CheAlbu—Chenopodium album, ChePedu—Chenopodium album subsp. pedunculare, CheSuec—Chenopodium suecicum, IriGerm—Iris germanica, LacSerr—Lactuca serriola, LapComm—Lapsana communis, LeiAren—Leimus arenarius, LolPere—Lolium perenne, MatDisc—Matricaria discoidea, MatCham—Matricaria chamomilla, MelOffi—Melilotus officinalis, MerAnnu—Mercurialis annua, MicPerf—Microthlaspi perfoliatum, NonLute—Nonea lutea, OenBien—Oenothera biennis, ParInse—Parthenocissus inserta, PinSylv—Pinus sylvestris, PlaLanc—Plantago lanceolata, PoaAnnu—Poa annua, PoaPrat—Poa pratensis, PotAnse—Potentilla anserina, PruArme—Prunus armeniaca, PruAviu—Prunus avium, PruSpin—Prunus spinosa, RanAcri—Ranunculus acris, ResLute—Reseda luteola, RubIdea—Rubus ideaus, RumAcet—Rumex acetosa, SalFrag—Salix fragilis, SamNigr—Sambucus nigra, SaxCune—Saxifraga cuneifolia, SedSpur—Sedum spurium, SenVulg—Senecio vulgaris, SinArve—Sinapis arvensis, SisLoes—Sisymbrium loeselii, SolLyco—Solanum lycopersicum, SolCana—Solidago canadensis, SymOffi—Symphytum officinale, TamRamo—Tamarix ramosissima, TanPart—Tanacetum parthenium, TarTar—Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, ThlArve—Thlaspi arvense, TriFrag—Trifolium fragiferum, TriHybr—Trifolium hybridum, TriPrat—Trifolium pratense, TriRepe—Trifolium repens, TriInod—Tripleurospermum inodorum, TusFarf—Tussilago farfara, UrtDioi—Urtica dioica, VerDens—Verbascum densiflorum, VioArve—Viola arvensis.
Environments 12 00401 g005
Table 1. Functional groups of plant species according to preference of monitored habitats.
Table 1. Functional groups of plant species according to preference of monitored habitats.
Preferred Habitat
(Color in Figure 5)		Functional GroupPlant Species
Restored site (green)Annual dicotyledonous herbsCapsella bursa-pastoris, Erigeron annuus, Microthlaspi perfoliatum, Viola arvensis
Perennial dicotyledonous herbsArctium lappa, Cichorium intybus, Cirsium arvense, Daucus carota, Euphorbia lathyris, Oenothera biennis, Potentilla anserina, Ranunculus acris, Rumex acetosa, Solidago canadensis, Tanacetum parthenium, Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, Trifolium fragiferum, Trifolium pratense, Trifolium hybridum, Trifolium repens
Perennial monocotyledonous grassesArrhenatherum elatius, Festuca arundinacea, Holcus lanatus, Lolium perenne, Poa pratensis,
Woody speciesAesculus hippocastanum, Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior, Pinus sylvestris, Prunus armeniaca, Salix fragilis
Restored and actively used site (blue)Annual monocotyledonous herbsBromus hordeaceus, Bromus japonicus, Bromus tectorum
Perennial dicotyledonous herbsGeranium pyrenaicum, Melilotus officinalis, Plantago lanceolata, Urtica dioica, Verbascum densiflorum
Actively used site (purple)Annual dicotyledonous herbsAtriplex patula, Atriplex prostrata, Conyza canadensis, Geranium pusilum, Lapsana communis, Matricaria chamomilla, Matricaria discoidea, Sinapis arvensis
Perennial dicotyledonous herbsBunias orientalis, Carduus acanthoides, Chelidonium majus, Geum urbanum, Epilobium alsinifoliu, Parthenocissus inserta, Reseda luteola, Saxifraga cuneifolia, Sedum spurium, Symphytum officinale, Tussilago farfara
Perennial monocotyledonous grassesIris germanica, Leimus arenarius
Woody speciesCornus sanguinea, Prunus avium, Prunus spinosa, Rubus ideaus, Sambucus nigra, Tamarix ramosissima
Actively used site and composting plant (red)Annual dicotyledonous herbsAbutilon theophrasti, Galium aparine, Lactuca serriola, Nonea lutea, Senecio vulgaris
Annual monocotyledonous herbsPoa annua
Composting plant (brown)Annual dicotyledonous herbsAmaranthus retroflexus, Anagallis arvensis, Atriplex sagittata, Bassia scoparia, Brassica napus, Chenopodium album, Chenopodium album subsp. pedunculare, Chenopodium suecicum, Cucurbita maxima, Cucurbita pepo, Descurainia sophia, Galeopsis tetrahit, Galinsoga parviflora, Mercurialis annua, Sisymbrium loeselii, Solanum lycopersicum, Thlaspi arvense, Tripleurospermum inodorum
Annual monocotyledonous herbsBromus sterilis, Hordeum murinum
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Winkler, J.; Tomaník, M.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Děkanovský, I.; Sitek, W.; Vaverková, M.D. The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study. Environments 2025, 12, 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12110401

AMA Style

Winkler J, Tomaník M, Martínez Barroso P, Děkanovský I, Sitek W, Vaverková MD. The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study. Environments. 2025; 12(11):401. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12110401

Chicago/Turabian Style

Winkler, Jan, Marek Tomaník, Petra Martínez Barroso, Igor Děkanovský, Wiktor Sitek, and Magdalena Daria Vaverková. 2025. "The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study" Environments 12, no. 11: 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12110401

APA Style

Winkler, J., Tomaník, M., Martínez Barroso, P., Děkanovský, I., Sitek, W., & Vaverková, M. D. (2025). The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study. Environments, 12(11), 401. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12110401

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop