Next Article in Journal
Micro-Actuators with Light and Magnetism Dual-Control for Maneuverable Movements
Previous Article in Journal
Design Strategies for Mobile Click-and-Load Waiting Scenarios
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Potential for Restoring the Activity of Oxidoreductases and Hydrolases in Soil Contaminated with Petroleum Products Using Perlite and Dolomite
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/app15126718
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Restoration of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trails in a Hyper-Arid Area for Nature and Landscape Conservation

by
Pua Bar (Kutiel)
*,†,
Eran Doron
and
Michael Dorman
†
The Department of Environmental, Geoinformatics and Urban planning Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Be’er Sheva 84105, Israel
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 6718; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126718
Submission received: 30 March 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 6 June 2025 / Published: 16 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Rehabilitation Due to Land Uses)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent decades, the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for challenging outdoor trips has increased significantly worldwide, impacting soil, vegetation, and wildlife. This study was conducted in Sde Zin, Israel, a hyper-arid desert zone. The area has a high concentration of trails created unintentionally over the years by ORVs. The study sought to examine whether the degraded trails will be restored naturally or if there is a need for active intervention. Five ORV trails were selected, with a plot of 40 × 15 m in each trail, comprising three subplot treatments: one session of disk tillage, no tillage, and an adjacent control subplot. Soil and vegetation parameters were measured for two consecutive years. The results indicated that the measured soil parameters did not differ between treatments except for the degree of soil compaction, which was a significant factor in plant survival and restoration. The highest H′ Shannon diversity was found in the disk-tillage treatment, where the plant assemblage differed from that of the non-tillage and control subplots. The conclusion derived from this study is that active management to prevent soil compaction is needed in severely degraded desert areas to stimulate soil and vegetation restoration processes.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) for challenging outdoor trips has increased significantly worldwide. This significantly impacts ecosystems, beginning with changes in soil properties and loss of vegetation cover, eventually modifying plant species diversity and community structure and functioning, affecting the fauna that inhabits them [1]. Furthermore, the accelerated development of a dense network of trails and roads, including in previously remote restricted-access areas, results in the fragmentation of large areas, which ultimately changes ecosystems’ structure and functioning, followed by alteration of the landscape [2,3,4]).
The effects of ORVs on soil and plants in natural and semi-natural open spaces have been extensively studied in temperate climates, primarily in the U.S. (e.g., [1,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]). The general conclusion from these studies can be summarized as follows: Soil compaction caused by vehicles is 30% greater than that caused by the same number of hiker crossings. Moreover, even under relatively low ORV intensities, there is physical damage to the vegetation and a significant increase in soil compaction, which reduces porosity, aeration, and infiltration rates and decreases soil organic matter and moisture content. Under these conditions, notable changes occur in vegetation characteristics: A decrease in plant cover, plant height and productivity, species richness, species diversity, and species composition.
Cole [10] divided plants into three groups according to their resistance to pedestrian and ORV impacts: resistant, tolerant, and sensitive. Resistant plants can withstand temporary stress without being harmed, highly tolerant plants can endure successive disturbance cycles over a short period and recover, and susceptible plants are immediately damaged and disappear.
Herbaceous plants, hemicryptophytes, geophytes, and therophytes are more resilient to trampling and ORV impacts than woody plants because they have flexible stems and leaves that can bend and recover, a higher reproduction rate, and a higher tolerance for physical stress because they can allocate resources more efficiently to repair damaged tissues [7,9,11,12,14,15,16,17]. Planar areas are less affected by ORV than slopes, and stony soils are more resistant to ORV impacts than stoneless soils [7].
Similar trends are seen in semi-arid regions, with ecosystem damage varying mainly by soil type [2,18,19,20]. Sandy soils are more susceptible to compaction at low trampling intensities due to their low organic matter and clay mineral content. In contrast, clayey soils are rich in organic matter, which prevents the soil from being compacted immediately due to properties that promote the aggregation and stability of soil particles [20]. Likewise, the type of vehicle used, frequency and intensity of use, and operator techniques (e.g., acceleration, braking, and velocity) are among the factors determining the severity of ORV disturbance [17,21].
Several studies were conducted on this subject in hyper-arid regions. The soils of arid deserts are particularly vulnerable to disturbance, as soil formation and recovery in these regions are slow. Soil compaction by ORVs and disruption of cryptobiotic soil surfaces (composed of cyanobacteria, lichens, and mosses) can decrease soil porosity, reduce hydraulic conductivity and water diffusion, and decrease the amount of air and nutrients in the soil [1,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. Soil surface compaction also reduces the heterogeneity of the upper soil layer and, consequently, decreases potential germination pockets [9,30].
In protected areas, where the goal is to preserve species composition and ecosystem structure and functioning, decision makers have two main options: passive management, e.g., closing disturbed trails to pedestrians and ORVs, or active management, such as restoration or reclamation. The purpose of restoration is to restore the ecosystem to its original state, with all its components and functions. Reclamation, on the other hand, aims to recover a disturbed ecosystem to some productive state, creating a stable ecosystem that sustains itself without necessarily including all the original components that characterized the ecosystem before the disturbance. Ecosystem restoration without human intervention in arid and semiarid climatic conditions may take hundreds and thousands of years [6,9,30].
Trail closures in a desert area in California showed that differences between trails closed 77 years earlier and those closed 12 years earlier were small and insignificant [31]. This fact indicates the need to actively intervene in natural restoration processes. Active reclamation management is expected to recover the disturbed trails within a reasonable time. Soil compaction is included as one of the crucial factors affecting vegetation recovery. Therefore, disturbing the soil surface may reduce soil compaction and accelerate the reclamation processes [32]. It may also increase soil microtopography and create more favorable conditions for recovery processes by destroying the soil crust, increasing water permeability, leading to a subsequent increase in soil moisture, and generally encouraging seed germination within the newly produced niches [9,31].
Studies that examined the ecological impacts of ORV activity on hot desert ecosystems, focusing on vegetation loss, soil disturbance, and wildlife effects, did not deal with ORV trail restoration. However, the broader field of ORV-induced degradation and restoration offers valuable insights.
Our study aimed to examine the restoration capacity of trails in a hyper-arid area under intense ORV impact and closures for ten years and with negation of vegetation recovery using an active and low-cost management tool. Since soil compaction is a limiting factor for vegetation establishment, we hypothesized that reducing soil compaction, i.e., reducing the upper soil layer bulk density by mechanical means, will enable local vegetation recovery.
We employed disk tillage as a means of breaking soil surface and reducing its compaction, using a single chisel session in parts of impacted ORV trails, compared to untilled sections of the same trails and undisturbed (control) plots.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description, Experimental Design, and Methods

The study was conducted in Sde Zin (30°86′ N, 34°79′ E, 475 m. a.s.l.), adjacent to the Sde Boker settlement, in the arid central Negev of southern Israel (Figure 1). The site is a plateau (with a mean slope incline of 1.0%) surrounded by rocky hills. The lithology consists of the Dead Sea Group conglomerate, and the soil series is classified as calcic xerosol [33].
Mean annual depth of precipitation at the site is 90 mm and the evaporation potential is about 2000 mm. The ratio of precipitation to potential evaporation (P/PET) is 0.04–0.05. The annual temperature is 18 °C, average daily minimum temperature ranges between 6 and 8 °C in January, and daily maximum temperature ranges between 32 and 34 °C in August (https://in.bgu.ac.il/en/bidr/Pages/meteorology-online.aspx).
The vegetation consists of Haloxylon scoparia as the dominant dwarf shrub and herbaceous species and mainly annuals, such as Erodium crassifolium, Reboudia pinnata, Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia, and Factorovskya aschersoniana [34]. Since the 1950s, the Sde Zin site has been prone to high anthropogenic pressures imposed by the establishment of the nearby settlement (Kibbutz Sde Boker) and specifically to intensive vegetation cropping, heavy livestock grazing, and ORV activity due to the existence of natural and archeological sites unique to the region (Figure 1).
Five ORV trails were selected, each containing a plot of 40 × 15 m in size. The plot was divided into two subplots: one subplot was subjected to disk tillage in August (“Disk”) to a depth of 10 cm, and the second was an impacted ORV trail subplot without soil tillage (“No Disk”). Next to the trail, at a distance of 5 m, another subplot was selected, in an undisturbed area, that served as a “Control” subplot. The depth of the surface soil disk tillage was determined based on previous studies performed in the Sde Zin, which showed that most of the plant seed bank is concentrated mainly in the upper soil layer at a depth of 0–2.5 cm [35].
Five 1 × 1 m quadrats, with one meter between each quadrat, were established in each subplot, from which vegetation data and soil measures were collected for two consecutive years. A total of 25 quadrats were examined in each treatment: Disk, No Disk, and Control. Altogether, 75 quadrats of 1 × 1 each were analyzed (Figure 2). All the chosen trails were similar (almost without vegetation cover and with a compacted upper soil layer). The trails were distributed in the area at distances of about 500 m from each other.
Each quadrat at each plot was examined for the degree of soil compaction, soil moisture at a depth of 10 cm, and water infiltration duration at saturation using a penetrometer, TDR wet sensor, and infiltrometer, respectively. Soil compaction was measured by soil penetration resistance between the subplots so as not to damage the various subplot soil crusts. In addition, the vegetation (annual and perennial) cover percentage was visually evaluated, whereas the percentage of each species was estimated based on its relative contribution to the overall vegetation cover. The number of individuals of each species was counted, and their height was measured.
The soil analyses were carried out for two consecutive years between November and May. The vegetation measures were also conducted for two consecutive years at the flowering and seed production peak from January to March.

2.2. Data Analysis

We used two-way ANOVAs with independent variables of treatments (“Control”, “No Disk”, and “Disk”) and plots (A, B, C, D, and E), followed by Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) tests, to evaluate the pairwise differences between the three treatments. Compact letter display (CLD) was used to specify significant (p < 0.05) differences (Figure 3a, Figure 4 and Figure 6).
Species diversity (Figure 6e) was estimated using the Shannon index. Species composition was evaluated using canonical correspondence analysis (CCA), with “treatment” and “plot” as environmental constraints. Then, we assessed the effect of treatment using permutation tests.
Statistical analyses were performed in R [36]. CCA was carried out using R package vegan [37]. Figures were prepared using the R package ggplot2 [38].

3. Results

3.1. Soil

The average penetration depth was similar in the “Control” and “Disk” treatments but was significantly lower in the “No Disk” treatment (Figure 3a, Appendix A). All three treatments exhibited a trend of decreasing penetration depth from the beginning of winter through to the spring (Figure 3b).
No significant differences in the average infiltration time were detected between the treatments (Figure 4, Appendix A).
The average soil moisture content throughout the year did not differ between the Control, the Disk, and the No Disk treatments. It was higher at the beginning of the winter season (December–January), dropped sharply till the beginning of February, and remained constant until the end of the winter (Figure 5).

3.2. Vegetation

The average vegetation cover in the Control subplots reached 5.6%, significantly higher than in the other subplot types: Disk and No Disk trails (Figure 6a). The vegetation cover in the Disk subplot was slightly higher than in the No Disk subplot (2.5% and 0.9%, respectively) (Figure 6a). Likewise, the average number of plant individuals per square meter was significantly higher in the Control subplots (88 individuals) than in the Disk and No Disk trail subplots (36 and 27 individuals per square meter, respectively) (Figure 6b). There was no significant difference in average plant height between the various subplots (Figure 6c).
The average species numbers per square meter in the Control and the Disk trail subplots were 6.8 and 8.6, respectively. This differed significantly from the species richness in the No Disk trail, where the average number of species was 4.3 per square meter (Figure 6d). Additionally, the average species diversity H′ was significantly higher in the Disk subplots than in the Control and No Disk trail subplots (Figure 6e).
Plant assemblages in the Disk trail subplots differed significantly from those in the No Disk and Control subplots. The latter two assemblages were almost similar (Figure 7a, Appendix A).
The dominant perennial species in the Control plots are Hs (Haloxylon scoparium, Amaranthaceae), a xero-halophytic dwarf shrub species, and Ec (Erodium crassifolium, Geraniaceae), a herbaceous geophyte, accompanied by an annual dominant species Gm (Gymnarrhena micrantha, Asteraceae), a sprawling species. The No Disk trail was dominated by three herbaceous plants, Gm and Aw (Avena wiestii, Poaceae) annual plants, and the geophyte Ec. The annual species Rp (Reboudia pinnata, Cruciferae) dominated the Disk trail, followed by the other three annual species Ma (Malva aegyptia, Malvaceae), Ca (Calendula arvensis, Asteraceae), and Nc (Nasturtiopsis coronopifolia, Cruciferae) as well as and the geophyte Ec (Figure 7b).

4. Discussion

Sde Zin is a nature reserve in a hyper-arid desert area in Israel. This area is a disturbed by a network of trails, which have been created inadvertently over the years by ORVs exploring the area, mainly during winter and spring due to the beauty and uniqueness of the region in many respects, such as heritage, landscapes, flora, fauna, and water bodies. In response, the Israel Nature and Parks Authority blocked many trails to prevent the passage of ORVs. These trails have not shown significant visual changes in the vegetation cover and upper soil compaction after their closure for over 10 years. The present study examined the restoration capacity of the soil and vegetation of trails that were severely degraded by ORVs within a shorter period after active reclamation strategies by a simple and inexpensive management method.

4.1. Soil

The upper soil layer’s physical conditions allow us to understand the factors limiting the occurrence or abundance of certain plant species on ORV trails. Water availability is the major limiting factor for plants in semiarid and arid conditions [39,40]. However, our results indicate that the soil moisture content at a depth of 10 cm did not differ significantly between the Disk trails, the No Disk trails, and the Control subplots. The differences in the time needed for water infiltration into the soil were also insignificant in the three treatments.
However, the surface soil compaction level in the No Disk trail soil was significantly higher than in the Disk trail and Control. Soil compaction reduces the soil’s effective porosity and the water’s capillary rise to the soil surface [41,42].

4.2. Vegetation

ORV activity negatively affects vegetation cover and plant individuals’ abundance, species richness, diversity, and composition [1]. The soil tillage significantly improved the state of the trails during the first two years following the Disk treatment, in terms of vegetation cover, species richness, and diversity and vegetation composition as well as in terms of cover (Figure 2b, Figure 6a,d,e and Figure 7b).
The vegetation cover and abundance of plant individuals in the Disk trail treatment were lower than in the Control but slightly higher in the Disk-treated trails. However, the species’ richness was significantly higher in the Disk-treated trails than in untreated ones and almost similar to that in Control. Moreover, the species diversity H′ was significantly higher on the Disk-treated trails than in the Control and the non-treated trails. The shallow tillage created microtopographic variations (e.g., small pits and mounds) that enabled seed accumulation and enhanced germination opportunities to support a range of plant species with different ecological requirements [43].
Boeken and Shachak [44,45] found that under arid conditions in Israel, micro-scale differences in the soil surface cause the annual plant seeds to be trapped in soil pits and germinate during winter (Figure 2b). The early colonizers are wind-dispersed. Later, the dispersal mode does not affect colonization. Disturbance removes the seed bank from such micro-habitants. However, the sink function of pits for colonization increases with the removal of vegetation, soil crust, and seed bank as well as with the capacity of patches to capture resources, plant propagules, and water. Sink function decreased with time due to the decreasing availability of new species but increased in more substantial sink patches in the vicinity.
The intermediate disturbance hypothesis and ecological exclusion can also explain the high diversity of species in the disk-treated trails. The temporary change in the compacted trails due to the shallow tillage represents early successional stages, with more herbaceous species and very few late-successional species, as found in our study (Figure 7b). At this stage, the competing potential with woody, dominant species is very low, and it is not severe enough to eliminate sensitive species. In the Control patches, a few competitive species (e.g., shade-tolerant or climax species) dominate, reducing evenness and herbaceous diversity [43,46].
The plant assemblage that developed in the Disk trails differs significantly from that in the Control and compacted No Disk trails. This difference stems from species composition, especially the relative abundance distribution within the plant community, as expressed in the species diversity H′. Individual seedlings of dwarf shrub species, such as the Haloxylon scoparia and Reaumuria hirtella (Tamaricaceae), appeared in the Disk subplots in the first and second years. Four years and even twenty years after the single disk tillage, developed dwarf shrubs were seen in these plots (Figure 2b).
Two dominant herbaceous species can be found in the Control and the No Disk trails: Gymnarrhena micrantha and Erodium crassifolium. The amphicarpic annual dwarf Gymnarrhena micrantha, usually stemless, has aerial and subterranean achenes that differ in morphology, dispersal ability, and germination behavior. The aerial achenes are smaller and equipped with a pappus, while the subterranean achenes are relatively large and lack a pappus. Subterranean achenes remain attached to the dead mother plant and germinate in situ (atelechory), thus protecting the seed from seedeaters until they germinate [47,48].
At the end of the seed ripening season, the main root shrinks and buries the inflorescence with its seeds deep in the soil. When these seeds germinate, they will already be found at the appropriate depth in the soil. They will not have to penetrate the hard crust that typically forms on the loess soil surface characteristic of the habitat of G. micrantha, which usually prevents seeds from penetrating.
On the other hand, the upper inflorescence produces smaller seeds with pappus that are dispersed to great distances. This species is characterized by the divergent differentiation of diaspores and their transformation along several lines of morphological differentiation, which correspond to the multiple strategies of seed dispersal and germination [49].
Erodium crassifolium, a perennial herbaceous plant, is common in the three treatment types. The plant has a thickened perennial root with long, thin horizontal roots.
Elongated tubers develop on the side roots. Furthermore, the fruit of E. crassifolium has five feathered, single-seeded mericarps dispersed by wind-like feathers that are then caught on the ground or in other plants. In springtime, there are days when the desert air is full of these flying diaspores. When the winds die down, millions of E. crassifolium diaspores are seen with their diaspore “screwing” into cracks in the soil [30], further penetrating it using a “drill” mechanism of the fruit awn [50]. In a study conducted in the Mojave Desert in California on the effect of ORVs, it was found that Erodium cicutarium became a dominant species due to its dispersal mechanism and its ability to cope with high topsoil compaction conditions [51].
E. crassifolium is also found on the Disk trail but is not the sole dominant species. The main dominant species in the Disk subplots is Rp (Reboudia pinnata, Brassicaceae), a typical desert species that is distributed in the Eastern Sharo-Arabian deserts, followed by Ma (Malva aegyptia, Malvaceae) and Ca (Calendula arvensis, Asteraceae), a Mediterranean species that invades disturbed areas in the desert.
The resilience of plants to the pressures of ORVs is determined based on their morphological, anatomical, and physiological characteristics. Flexible stems, dwarf stature, sprawling nature (like G. micrantha), small and thin leaves, and perennial storage subterranean organs (like in E. crassifolium) are some of the traits that make plants highly resistant to growing under the abundance of trampling and walking by hikers [9,10,16,42].
Stavi et al. [28] studied the impact of a single disk-tillage session on a disturbed area in Sde Boker to assess its restoration capacity. The treatments included deep disk tillage (35 cm), shallow disk tillage (20 cm), and a control area (no tillage). Assessments of the vegetation parameters revealed a general similarity between the two disk-tillage treatments, which were generally better than those of the no-till subplots. However, the soil measures were of somewhat better quality for the deep disk-tillage treatment. Still, they were not significantly expressed in the vegetation parameters (cover percentage, species richness, and Shannon diversity index). This was attributed to the extremely dry rainy season in the studied year, with the cumulative rainfall of only 57% of the inter-annual average. Our study found no significant differences in soil moisture between the control plots and the treated and untreated trails. The regeneration of vegetation, especially herbaceous plants, both annual and perennial, on the Disk-treated trails occurred following a single session of chiseling soil tillage. We assume that after only one session of shallow soil tillage, the soil does not respond to immediate and significant changes in its properties, which may affect its soil moisture. However, such tillage significantly reduces the soil surface’s compaction, allowing the seeds to establish under sufficient rainfall for herbaceous plants, especially annuals.
Annual plants are characteristic of semiarid and arid areas, especially in the Mediterranean Basin and its surroundings [52,53,54]. They appear in the desert only during rainy season and consume water mainly from the upper 10–15 cm soil layer, which allows them, under such conditions, to complete an entire life cycle.
We therefore suggest that, in arid regions characterized by already-limited rainfall, the major negative edaphic effect of ORV activity is soil compaction that impairs soil hydraulics and inhibits seed penetration and germination.
Blocking ORV trails, particularly in arid drylands, does not solve the problem of soil compaction, which has been described as a limiting factor for vegetation recovery and establishment. On the other hand, active intervention such as shallow soil tillage has led to a significant change in various ecological indicators, which has initiated the restoration of degraded trails. The soil-tillage method is a simple and inexpensive way to deal with large areas. In an annual management plan, conducting shallow soil tillage during the seed-dispersal seasons is possible, thereby improving the chances of seed accumulation in the microhabitats produced due to soil tillage. According to Li et al. [43], shallow tillage in hot and arid environments increases the relative importance of the stochastic processes dominated by dispersal limitation, mitigating plant competition in the communities. However, long-term and continuous monitoring of species composition is needed to ensure that invasive species do not invade the habitat. Reversible processes can be implemented if invasive species intrude or the plant community differs from the natural plant communities that characterize the entire ecosystem. Based on this and other studies on this issue, such as the study by Stavi et al. [28] and the experience of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, which relied solely on trial closures, many trails are currently undergoing soil tillage (Figure 2b) as part of the overall reclamation of the desert system, which is particularly sensitive to disturbance.

5. Conclusions

An increase in the number and density of ORV-impacted trails and roads leads to significant local and spatial degradation in dryland ecosystems. These effects are particularly severe in arid environments, where recovery is slow due to limited water and fragile soil structure. Thus, closure of such degraded trails is often ineffective for improving soil conditions and restoring the local vegetation.
Our study found that upper soil compaction is the main limiting factor due to its negative impacts on soil hydraulics and seed penetration and germination.
By conducting a single session of shallow soil tillage in the hyper-arid Sde Boker area, Israel, we improved the upper soil layer conditions by loosening the compacted layer, enhancing a favorable environment for seed germination and growth, and accelerating vegetation recovery. Species diversity (H′) was most strongly affected positively by this practice. Additionally, the species assemblage differed significantly from the untreated trails and control patches. However, effectiveness depends on water availability and the presence of native seed banks. The results of this study provide a foundation for policy development for arid ecosystem management and reclamation, along with the long-term and continuous monitoring of species composition, which is needed to ensure that invasive species do not invade the habitat.
To obtain optimal reclamation, policymakers may support additional actions that can be used besides the soil disk tillage, such as reseeding appropriate species characteristic to the natural area, planting shrubs or other perennial plants that are known as “environmental engineers”, and restoring the cryptobiotic soil surfaces, which may increase soil surface heterogeneity and thus serve as a seed-capture substrate. Such actions have a great chance of success in reclamation plans. Nonetheless, the size of the damaged areas in the Negev is considerable; therefore, the feasibility of carrying out such actions is impractical. On the other hand, carrying out “spot treatment” in limited areas may be meaningless. The method of surface soil disk tillage makes it possible to deal with large areas with inexpensive and straightforward means. In an annual management plan, examining the seasons in which seeds are distributed is possible, thereby increasing the chances of better absorption of the local seed bank.
In conclusion, our study demonstrates how a simple, short measure of shallow soil disk tillage can assist in removing a major limiting factor on reclaiming ORV-impacted ecosystems. We expect this practice to be especially effective in arid environments, where recovery is inherently slow due to lack of water and where plant species’ recovery may be inhibited by multiple factors that are both inherent to the environment and imposed by soil compaction. Nevertheless, we emphasize that further considerations need to be taken when adapting (rather than adopting) our results in other arid environments since local conditions and limiting factors may vary among environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.B. and E.D.; Methodology, P.B., E.D. and M.D.; Software, M.D.; Validation, P.B., E.D. and M.D.; Formal analysis, P.B., E.D. and M.D.; Investigation, P.B. and E.D.; Resources, P.B.; Data curation, E.D. and M.D.; Writing—original draft, P.B.; Writing—review & editing, P.B. and M.D.; Visualization, M.D.; Supervision, P.B.; Project administration, P.B.; Funding acquisition, P.B. 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 presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the data are part of an extensive database that currently serves as the basis for the work of several research proposals.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the Israeli Nature and Parks Authority for allowing us to conduct the research within the nature reserve of Sde-Zin, which is its responsibility. Special thanks to Ofir Katz, who reviewed the article and made constructive comments that contributed significantly to its final state.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Statistical Test Results of Treatment Comparison

Table A1. Pairwise comparison of penetration depth in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 3a). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
Table A1. Pairwise comparison of penetration depth in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 3a). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
ComparisonDifferenceLowerUpperAdj. p-Value
No disk–Control−6.63−10.6459−2.61410.0023
Disk–Control1.6587−2.35725.67450.531
Disk–No disk8.28874.272812.30450.0004
Table A2. Pairwise comparison of infiltration time in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 4). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
Table A2. Pairwise comparison of infiltration time in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 4). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
ComparisonDifferenceLowerUpperAdj. p-Value
No disk–Control14.8833−0.756430.52310.0651
Disk–Control7.5228−8.11723.16250.4799
Disk–No disk−7.3606−23.00038.27920.4949
Table A3. Pairwise comparison of five plant-related variables in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 6). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
Table A3. Pairwise comparison of five plant-related variables in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using ANOVA (Figure 6). Columns meaning: difference = the difference in the observed means; lower = the lower end point of the interval; upper = the upper end point; adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
VariableComparisonDifferenceLowerUpperAdj. p-Value
Cover (%)No disk–Control−4.7057−7.9648−1.44650.0026
Cover (%)Disk–Control−3.0863−6.34550.17280.0673
Cover (%)Disk–No disk1.6193−1.63984.87850.4649
# of individualsNo disk–Control−61.45−82.8085−40.0915<0.001
# of individualsDisk–Control−52.8667−74.2252−31.5082<0.001
# of individualsDisk–No disk8.5833−12.775229.94180.6046
Height (cm)No disk–Control−1.7678−4.8281.29240.3566
Height (cm)Disk–Control−1.9374−4.99761.12270.291
Height (cm)Disk–No disk−0.1696−3.22982.89050.9904
# of speciesNo disk–Control−2.4333−4.5462−0.32050.0199
# of speciesDisk–Control1.8667−0.24623.97950.0943
# of speciesDisk–No disk4.32.18716.4129<0.001
Diversity H’No disk–Control−0.2869−0.58710.01340.0642
Diversity H’Disk–Control0.39670.09640.69690.0063
Diversity H’Disk–No disk0.68350.38330.9838<0.001
Table A4. Pairwise comparison of plant composition in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using CCA (Figure 7a). Columns meaning: adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
Table A4. Pairwise comparison of plant composition in three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk, using CCA (Figure 7a). Columns meaning: adj. p-value = the p-value after adjustment for the multiple comparisons.
ComparisonAdj. p-Value
No disk–Control0.067
Disk–Control0.003
Disk–No disk0.003

References

  1. Ploughe, L.W.; Fraser, L.H. Find New RoadsTM? A Systematic Review on the Impacts of Off-Road Vehicle Activity on Soil, Vegetation, and Wildlife. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 9, 805707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kutiel, P. Tendencies in the development of tracks in open areas. Environ. Manag. 1999, 23, 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kutiel, P.; Zhevelev, H.; Harrison, R. The effect of recreational impacts on soil and vegetation of stabilised coastal dunes in the Sharon Park, Israel. Ocean Coast. Manag. 1999, 42, 1041–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Landscape modification and habitat fragmentation: A synthesis. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2007, 16, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leney, F. The Effect of Public Recreation on Picnic Sites. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Botany, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, 1974. [Google Scholar]
  6. Liddle, M.; Greig-Smith, P. A survey of tracks and paths in a sand dune ecosystem I. Soils. J. Appl. Ecol. 1975, 12, 893–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Weaver, T.; Dale, D. Trampling effects of hikers, motorcycles and horses in meadows and forests. J. Appl. Ecol. 1978, 15, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bowles, J.M.; Maun, M.A. A study of the effects of trampling on the vegetation of Lake Huron sand dunes at Pinery Provincial Park. Biol. Conserv. 1982, 24, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kuss, F.R. A review of major factors influencing plant responses to recreation impacts. Environ. Manag. 1986, 10, 637–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cole, D.N. Research on soil and vegetation in wilderness: A state-of-knowledge review. In Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 23–26 July 1987; pp. 135–177. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cole, D.N. Experimental trampling of vegetation. I. Relationship between trampling intensity and vegetation response. J. Appl. Ecol. 1995, 32, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cole, D.N. Experimental trampling of vegetation. II. Predictors of resistance and resilience. J. Appl. Ecol. 1995, 32, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rickard, C.; McLachlan, A.; Kerley, G. The effects of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on dune vegetation in South Africa. Ocean Coast. Manag. 1994, 23, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liddle, M. A theoretical relationship between the primary productivity of vegetation and its ability to tolerate trampling. Biol. Conserv. 1975, 8, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hall, C.N.; Kuss, F.R. Vegetation alteration along trails in Shenandoah National park, Virginia. Biol. Conserv. 1989, 48, 211–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, D.; Liddle, M.J. Plant morphological characteristics and resistance to simulated trampling. Environ. Manag. 1993, 17, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kutiel, P.; Eden, E.; Zhevelev, Y. Effect of experimental trampling and off-road motorcycle traffic on soil and vegetation of stabilized coastal dunes, Israel. Environ. Conserv. 2000, 27, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kutiel, P.; Zhevelev, Y. Recreational use impact on soil and vegetation at picnic sites in Aleppo pine forests onMount Carmel, Israel. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2001, 49, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kutiel, P.; Eden, Z.; Zhevelev, H. The impact of motorcycle traffic on soil and vegetation of stabilized coastal dunes, Israel. J. Coast. Conserv. 2001, 7, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bar, P. Visitor trampling impacts on soil and vegetation: The case study of Ramat Hanadiv Park, Israel. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 64, 145–161. [Google Scholar]
  21. Li, L.; Sandu, C. On the impact of cargo weight, vehicle parameters, and terrain characteristics on the prediction of traction for off-road vehicles. J. Terramech. 2007, 44, 221–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Assaeed, A.M.; Al-Rowaily, S.L.; El-Bana, M.I.; Abood, A.A.; Dar, B.A.; Hegazy, A.K. Impact of off-road vehicles on soil and vegetation in a desert rangeland in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 26, 1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dregne, H.E. Soil and soil formation in arid regions. In Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
  24. Belnap, J. Surface disturbances: Their role in accelerating desertification. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1995, 37, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Webb, R.H.; Wilshire, H.G. Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles: Impacts and Management in Arid Regions; Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Webb, R.H. Compaction of Desert Soils by Off-Road Vehicles. In Environmental Effects of Off-Road Vehicles; Springer Series on Environmental Management; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 51–79. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dubey, A.A.; Dhami, N.K.; Ravi, K.; Mukherjee, A. Erosion mitigation with biocementation: A review on applications, challenges, & future perspectives. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2023, 22, 1059–1091. [Google Scholar]
  28. Stavi, I.; Siegal, Z.; Drori, B.; Hyams, E.; Shafir, A.; Kamiski, Y.; Al-Ashhab, A.; Dorman, M.; Tsoar, A. Single Session of Chiseling Tillage for Soil and Vegetation Restoration in Severely Degraded Shrublands. Water 2018, 10, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stavi, I.; Pulido Fernández, M.; Argaman, E. Long-term passive restoration of severely de-graded drylands—Divergent impacts on soil and vegetation: An Israeli case study. J. Geogr. Sci. 2023, 33, 529–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cole, D.N.; Landres, P.B. Indirect effects of recreation on wildlife. In Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research; Knight, R.L., Gutzwiller, K.J., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; Chapter 11; pp. 183–202. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bolling, J.D.; Walker, L.R. Plant and soil recovery along a series of abandoned desert roads. J. Arid Environ. 2000, 46, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kuss, F.R.; Hall, C.N. Ground flora trampling studies: Five years after closure. Environ. Manag. 1991, 15, 715–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. FAO. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, Update 2015; Technical Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Danin, A. Desert Vegetation of Israel and Sinai; Cana: Jerusalem, Israel, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gutterman, Y.; Gendler, T.; Huang, Z.Y. Plant dispersal strategies, seed bank distribution and germination of Negev desert species. In Seeds: Biology, Development and Ecology; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2007; pp. 407–415. [Google Scholar]
  36. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  37. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.; Blanchet, F.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.; O’Hara, R.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.; Szoecs, E.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package, R Package Version 2.6-8. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Snyder, K.; Tartowski, S. Multi-scale temporal variation in water availability: Implications for vegetation dynamics in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. J. Arid Environ. 2006, 65, 219–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pereira, J.S.; Chaves, M.M.; Caldeira, M.C.; Correia, A.V. Water availability and productivity. In Plant Growth and Climate Change; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 118–145. [Google Scholar]
  41. Alaoui, A.; Lipiec, J.; Gerke, H. A review of the changes in the soil pore system due to soil deformation: A hydrodynamic perspective. Soil Tillage Res. 2011, 115, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brown, G.; Schoknecht, N. Off-road vehicles and vegetation patterning in a degraded desert ecosystem in Kuwait. J. Arid Environ. 2001, 49, 413–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, Z.; Gao, X.; Hong, G.; Yang, H.; Hu, E.; Liu, C.; Wang, X.; Liu, G.; Gao, R. Shallow tillage mitigates plant competition by increasing diversity and altering plant community assembly process. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1409493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Boeken, B.; Shachak, M. The dynamics of abundance and incidence of annual plant species during colonization in a desert. Ecography 1998, 21, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Boeken, B.; Shachak, M. Colonization by annual plants of an experimentally altered desert landscape: Source—Sink relationships. J. Ecol. 1998, 86, 804–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Grime, J.P. Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 1973, 242, 344–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gutterman, Y. Gymnarrhena micrantha. In Handbook of Flowering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2019; pp. 356–360. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kollwr, D.; Roth, N. Studies on the ecological and physiological significance of amphicarpy in Gymnarrhena micrantha (Compositae). Am. J. Bot. 1964, 51, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kravtsova, T. Fruit structure in amphicarpic annual Gymnarrhena micrantha (Asteraceae, Gymnarrheneae) in relation to the species biology. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2023, 14, 397–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Abraham, Y.; Elbaum, R. Hygroscopic movements in Geraniaceae: The structural variations that are responsible for coiling or bending. New Phytol. 2013, 199, 584–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davidson, E.; Fox, M. Effects of off-road motorcycle activity on Mojave Desert vegetation and soil. Madrono 1974, 22, 381–390. [Google Scholar]
  52. Fischer, R.; Turner, N.C. Plant productivity in the arid and semiarid zones. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1978, 29, 277–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alhamad, M.N. Ecological and species diversity of arid Mediterranean grazing land vegetation. J. Arid Environ. 2006, 66, 698–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hegazy, A.K.; Doust, J.L. Plant Ecology in the Middle East; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 15 06718 g001
Figure 1. The study area: map (a) and the research area with the ORV trails (b).
Figure 1. The study area: map (a) and the research area with the ORV trails (b).
Applsci 15 06718 g001
Applsci 15 06718 g002
Figure 2. Schematic description of the experimental design (a) and their characteristic appearance: From left to right: Disk tillage (Disk) trail and a section of trail that was not treated (No Disk); a close-up of a Disk section eight months after the disk tillage; a close-up of a section of the trail that was not treated; Control section; a close-up of a Disk section three years after the soil tillage; a section of the Disk section 21 years after the soil tillage; soil tillage of ORV trails as part of the Nature and Parks Authority’s management for the restoration of the ecosystem in the area of Sde Zin (b).
Figure 2. Schematic description of the experimental design (a) and their characteristic appearance: From left to right: Disk tillage (Disk) trail and a section of trail that was not treated (No Disk); a close-up of a Disk section eight months after the disk tillage; a close-up of a section of the trail that was not treated; Control section; a close-up of a Disk section three years after the soil tillage; a section of the Disk section 21 years after the soil tillage; soil tillage of ORV trails as part of the Nature and Parks Authority’s management for the restoration of the ecosystem in the area of Sde Zin (b).
Applsci 15 06718 g002
Applsci 15 06718 g003
Figure 3. The average penetration depth (a) and its temporal changes in the Control, No Disk, and Disk treatments (b). The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters–no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. The average penetration depth (a) and its temporal changes in the Control, No Disk, and Disk treatments (b). The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters–no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Applsci 15 06718 g003
Applsci 15 06718 g004
Figure 4. The time (seconds) required for water to infiltrate the soil in a state of saturation in each of the three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk. The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters–no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. The time (seconds) required for water to infiltrate the soil in a state of saturation in each of the three treatments: Control, No Disk, and Disk. The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters–no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Applsci 15 06718 g004
Applsci 15 06718 g005
Figure 5. The amount of rainfall in the study area during 2002–2003 and the percentage of soil moisture in the top 10 cm of the soil in the winter between December 2002 and April 2003.
Figure 5. The amount of rainfall in the study area during 2002–2003 and the percentage of soil moisture in the top 10 cm of the soil in the winter between December 2002 and April 2003.
Applsci 15 06718 g005
Applsci 15 06718 g006
Figure 6. The average plant cover (a), number of individuals (b), height (c), species richness (d), and species diversity H′ (e) in 1 m2 samples in each of the three treatments. For detailed statistical analysis, see Appendix A. The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters—no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Figure 6. The average plant cover (a), number of individuals (b), height (c), species richness (d), and species diversity H′ (e) in 1 m2 samples in each of the three treatments. For detailed statistical analysis, see Appendix A. The letters indicate the significance of the differences between the different treatments. Different letters indicate a significance at p < 0.05. Similar letters—no significant difference between the treatments at p < 0.05.
Applsci 15 06718 g006
Applsci 15 06718 g007
Figure 7. Plant assemblages (a) and the dominant species (b) in each of the three treatments (Control, No Disk, and Disk).
Figure 7. Plant assemblages (a) and the dominant species (b) in each of the three treatments (Control, No Disk, and Disk).
Applsci 15 06718 g007
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

Bar, P.; Doron, E.; Dorman, M. Restoration of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trails in a Hyper-Arid Area for Nature and Landscape Conservation. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6718. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126718

AMA Style

Bar P, Doron E, Dorman M. Restoration of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trails in a Hyper-Arid Area for Nature and Landscape Conservation. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(12):6718. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126718

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bar (Kutiel), Pua, Eran Doron, and Michael Dorman. 2025. "Restoration of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trails in a Hyper-Arid Area for Nature and Landscape Conservation" Applied Sciences 15, no. 12: 6718. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126718

APA Style

Bar, P., Doron, E., & Dorman, M. (2025). Restoration of Off-Road Vehicle (ORV) Trails in a Hyper-Arid Area for Nature and Landscape Conservation. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6718. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126718

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