Syntaxonomy of restoration vegetation in quarry sites in Central Polissya of Ukraine, including 25 classes, 36 orders, 62 alliances, 116 associations, and two unranked communities, is presented. Based on the frequency of occurrence of vegetation plots, we have identified typical and atypical environments in existing and abandoned quarries. The classes Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, Artemisietea vulgaris, Phragmiti-Magnocaricetea, Plantagenetea majoris, and Epilobietea angustifolii were found to be the most common. Predominance of the grassland stage in vegetation restoration under significant or moderate anthropogenic impact is demonstrated. The environmental factors and features of seed dispersal affect the mode and tempo of vegetation restoration in disturbed habitats of open pit mining. Meadow vegetation is predominant on the plateau around the zone of active production; herbaceous and woody plants penetrate the slopes simultaneously. Steep vertical outcrops of crystalline rocks for a long time remain uninhabited by higher vascular plants. Plants grow exclusively in the crevices of crystal blocks filled with loose rocks, soil, and small organic residues. On the slopes of loose sedimentary rocks, the meadow stage is not gradually transformed into the phanerophyte stage. The rate of vegetation restoration depends on the slope angle. Such successions form large ecotone areas due to numerous unfilled ecological niches in the quarry ecosystems. These areas are most vulnerable to the penetration of invasive plant species.

Keywords: disturbed habitats, ecosystem dynamics, phytocenotic diversity, primary successions

Full text: PDF (Ukr) 514K

1. Baasc A., Kirmer A., Tischer S. 2012. Nine years of vegetation development in a postmining site: Effects of spontaneous and spontaneous and assisted site recovery. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49: 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664-2011.0286x
2. Bashutska U.B. 2006. Naukovyi visnyk NLTU Ukrainy, 4: 174–178.
3. Bell S.S., Fonseca M.S., Motten L.B. 1997. Linking restoration and landscape ecology. Restoration Ecology, 15: 318–323. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100X.1997.00545.x
4. Bilyk R.G., Didukh Ya.P. 1999. Ukranian Botanical Journal, 56(2): 144–149.
5. Braun-Blanquet J. 1928 (1964). Grundzüge der Vegetationskunde. In: Pflanzensoziologie. Ed. J. Braun-Blanquet. Berlin: Verlag von Julius Springer, 865 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-8110-2
6. Didukh Ya.P. 2012. Osnovy bioindykatsii. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 342 pp.
7. Dubyna D.V., Dzyuba T.P., Yemelyanova S.M., Bahrikova N.O., Borysova O.V., Borsukevych L.M., Vynokurov D.S., Hapon S.V., Hapon Yu.V., Davydov D.A., Dvoretskyi T.V., Didukh Ya.P., Zhmud O.I., Kozyr M.S., Konishchuk V.V., Kuzemko A.A., Pashkevych N.A., Ryff L.E., Solomakha V.A., Felbaba-Klushyna L.M., Fitsaylo T.V., Chorna H.A., Chorney I.I., Shelyah-Sosonko Yu.R., Yakushenko D.M. 2019. Prodrome of the Vegetation of Ukraine. Eds. D.V. Dubyna, T.P. Dzyuba. Kyiv: Naukova Dumka, 782 pp.
8. Ghorbani J., Le Duc M.G., McAllister H.A., Pakeman R.J., Marrs R.H. 2007. Temporal responses of propagule banks during ecological restoration in the United Kingdom. Restoration Ecology, 15: 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2006.00195.x
9. Hennekens S.M. 2009. TURBOVEG for Windows. Version 2. Ed. S.M. Hennekens. Wageningen: Inst. voor Bos en Natur, 96 pp.
10. Hennekens S.M., Schaminée J.H.J. 2001. TURBOVEG. A comprehensive data base management system for vegetation data. Journal of Vegetation Science, 12(4): 589–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3237010
11. Hobbs R.J. 2004. Setting effective and realistic restoration goals: Key directions for research. Restoration Ecology, 15: 354–357. https://doi.org/abs/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00225.x
12. Khomiak I.V. 2011. Scientific Notes of NaUKMA, 119: 70–72.
13. Khomiak I., Harbar O., Demchuk N., Kotsiuba I., Onyshchuk I. 2019. Above-ground phytomas dynamics in autogenic succession of an ecosystem. Forestry Ideas, 57: 136–146.
14. Khomiak I.V., Vasylenko O.M., Harbar D.A., Andriichuk T.V., Kostiuk V.S., Vlasenko R.P., Shpakovska L.V., Demchuk N.S., Harbar O.V., Onyshchuk I.P., Kotsiuba I.Iu. 2020. Ecological Sciences, 32: 136–141.
15. Mosyakin S.L., Fedoronchuk M.M. 1999. Vascular plants of Ukraine. A nomenclatural checklist. Kyiv, 345 pp. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2985.0409
16. Parpan V.I., Nespliak O.S. 2011. Naukovyi visnyk NLTU Ukrainy, 21: 82–87.
17. Povkh V.N., Zhukov S.P. 1995. Introduktsiya i akklimatizatsiya rasteniy, 22: 89–91.
18. Protopopova V.V., Shevera M.V., Orlov O.O., Panchenko S.M. 2015. The transformer species of the Ukrainian Polissya. Biodiversity Research and Conservation, 39: 7–18. https://doi.org/1515/biorc-2015-0020
19. Yunatov A.A. 1972. Tipy i soderzhanie geobotanicheskikh sssledovaniy. Probnye ploshchadi i ekologicheskie profili. In: Polevaya geobotanika, vol. 3. Moscow, Leningrad: Izd-vo AN SSSR, pp. 7–38.
20. Zhang Q., Zhang T., Li X. 2018. Index system to evaluate the quarries ecological restoration. Sustainability, 10: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030619
21. Zhukov S.P. 2011. Industrial Botany, 11: 36–41.
22. Zhukov S.P. 2012. Industrial Botany, 12: 19–24.