4.6 Article

Efficacy of two different reclamation strategies to improve chemical properties and to reduce Al toxicity in a lignite mine dump during a 20-year period

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 658-669

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.3253

关键词

acidity; lignite mine; mine dump; pyrite; reclamation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, the efficacy of two different strategies, used for 20 years (1992-2012) to restore a lignite mine dump, was investigated. The reclamation strategies were selection of the sterile materials, avoiding surface placement of pyritic materials, or surface application of topsoil material. Representative plots corresponding to each of both strategies were selected, as well as a control plot where reclamation techniques were not applied. An increase in total C, soluble Al, and exchangeable Al, as well as a decrease in pH, electrical conductivity, sulfate, and exchangeable cations concentrations took place during the study period. Avoiding pyritic materials on surface was the strategy giving the best acid-base conditions in the whole period, showing higher pH values (6.1-6.7) than application of topsoil (4.7-5.3), as well as the highest exchangeable Ca values (0.71-6.83 vs. 0.55-3.00 cmol((+)) kg(-1)), and less exchange Al (0.22-2.80 vs. 0.99-3.72 cmol((+)) kg(-1)) and soluble Al (0.04-0.60 vs. 0.19-37.47 mg L-1). Regarding fractionation of Al in soil solution, labile forms predominated throughout the study period, although organic forms (nonlabile Al and acid-soluble Al) showed an increase over time, which was in accordance with an increase in C concentration. The most toxic Al species (Al3+ and Al-OH) were less abundant where pyritic materials were not placed on surface, compared with plots treated with topsoil (which did not differ from control plot for most parameters). The results of the study indicate that surface application of topsoil would not be justified as strategy to effectively restore lignite mine dump areas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据