4.6 Article

Interactions between soil covers and rainfall affect post-mining plant restoration in a semi-arid Banded Iron Formation

期刊

ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
卷 159, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.106101

关键词

Topsoil; Waste rock; Mining restoration; Rainfall deficit; Germination; Seedling emergence; Climate change

资金

  1. Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited (SMC)
  2. Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority (BGPA), Perth, Western Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that under low rainfall conditions, seedling emergence rates were low, but were higher under median and high rainfall conditions. Soil covers containing topsoil helped increase seedling emergence rates, and blended soil covers performed similarly to topsoil covers when rainfall was sufficient.
Soil moisture and physical characteristics strongly influence plant-available water and surface crust strength, which affect seedling emergence. We test interactions between rainfall amount and topsoil and waste rock blends and their impact on restoration outcomes in a semi-arid environment. Seedling emergence was evaluated in eight species across three winter rainfall treatments (low (ambient) 68 mm, equivalent to 1st decile; median 144 mm; and high 182 mm, 8th decile) and three soil cover treatments (topsoil, waste rock and topsoil+waste rock blend (3:1)) to assess the effect of rainfall amounts, soil cover blend, and their interactions on plant recruitment in restoration. Seedling emergence for all species was <1% under the low winter rainfall (i.e. deficit) and significantly higher (1-5%) for median and high rainfall scenarios. Soil covers that included topsoil had nearly 3-times more seedling emergence than waste rock cover. Thus, restoration success can be significantly hampered in years with below median rainfall. When rainfall conditions were favourable, however, blended soil covers performed similarly to topsoil covers, and may be a useful approach for restoration when topsoil is a limited resource.

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