| Literature DB >> 26916152 |
Jinman Wang1,2, Hongdan Wang1, Yingui Cao1, Zhongke Bai1,2, Qian Qin1.
Abstract
Vegetation plays an important role in improving and restoring fragile ecological environments. In the Antaibao opencast coal mine, located in a loess area, the eco-environment has been substantially disturbed by mining activities, and the relationship between the vegetation and environmental factors is not very clear. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the effects of soil and topographic factors on vegetation restoration to improve the fragile ecosystems of damaged land. An investigation of the soil, topography and vegetation in 50 reclamation sample plots in Shanxi Pingshuo Antaibao opencast coal mine dumps was performed. Statistical analyses in this study included one-way ANOVA and significance testing using SPSS 20.0, and multivariate techniques of detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) and redundancy analysis (RDA) using CANOCO 4.5. The RDA revealed the environmental factors that affected vegetation restoration. Various vegetation and soil variables were significantly correlated. The available K and rock content were good explanatory variables, and they were positively correlated with tree volume. The effects of the soil factors on vegetation restoration were higher than those of the topographic factors.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26916152 PMCID: PMC4768095 DOI: 10.1038/srep22058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Descriptive statistical analysis of the soil data.
| Soil factors | Number | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Median | CV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soil bulk density (g cm−3) | 50 | 1.01 | 1.72 | 1.35 | 1.35 | 12% |
| Soil total porosity (%) | 50 | 34.42 | 61.76 | 48.53 | 47.84 | 18% |
| Soil water content (g g−1) | 50 | 3.44 | 8.74 | 6.45 | 6.44 | 13% |
| Rock content (%) | 50 | 0 | 0.58 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 77% |
| Total N (%) | 50 | 0.03 | 0.3 | 0.09 | 0 | 57% |
| Soil organic matter (%) | 50 | 0.46 | 9.96 | 2.73 | 1.75 | 89% |
| Available P (mg kg−1) | 50 | 2.42 | 11.63 | 4.91 | 4.29 | 44% |
| Available K (mg kg−1) | 50 | 56 | 274 | 151.3 | 147.5 | 33% |
| Clay content (<0.002 mm, %) | 50 | 0 | 25.1 | 8.39 | 1.53 | 109% |
| Silt content (0.002–0.05 mm, %) | 50 | 12.1 | 51.17 | 28.63 | 28.22 | 34% |
| Sand content (0.005–2 mm, %) | 50 | 42.3 | 85.49 | 62.98 | 64.39 | 16% |
Results of the one-way ANOVA and significance testing of the effect of soil and topographic factors on vegetation.
| Influence factors | Single variable | F-ratio | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Topographic factors | Slope | 1.575 | 0.130 |
| Slope aspect | 1.932 | 0.122 | |
| Slope position | 2.13 | 0.109 | |
| Soil factors | Soil bulk density | 1.986 | 0.318 |
| Soil total porosity | 1.986 | 0.318 | |
| Soil water content | 0.115 | 0.621 | |
| Rock content | 1.03 | 0.488 | |
| Total N | 8.741 | 0.108 | |
| Soil organic matter | 4.749 | 0.352 | |
| Available P | 1.56 | 0.364 | |
| Available K | 5.94 | 0.006** | |
| Clay(<0.002 mm) | 0.446 | 0.997 | |
| Silt(0.002–0.05 mm) | 9.458 | 0.026* | |
| Sand(0.005–2 mm) | 10.857 | 0.237 |
*significant difference at the 0.05 level; **significant difference at the 0.01 level.
Ordination results of the RDA in the study area.
| RDA axes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Total variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eigenvalues | 0.333 | 0.025 | 0.013 | 0 | 1 |
| Vegetation-environment correlations | 0.636 | 0.492 | 0.432 | 0.295 | |
| Cumulative percentage variance of vegetation data | 33.3 | 35.8 | 37.1 | 37.1 | |
| Cumulative percentage variance of vegetation-environment relationship | 89.7 | 96.3 | 99.9 | 100 | |
| Sum of all eigenvalues | 1 | ||||
| Sum of all canonical eigenvalues | 0.371 | ||||
| Test of significance of all canonical axes | 0.675 | 5.6 | 0.016 |
Figure 1Ordination diagram showing the result of the RDA analysis of vegetation, soil, and topographic variables.
Abbreviations of vegetation, soil, and topographic variables: TreV, tree volume; HerC, herb coverage; AGB, above-ground biomass; CanD, canopy density; Slop, slope; Posi, slope position; Aspe, slope aspect; SWC, soil water content; BD, soil bulk density; BP, soil total porosity; RC, rock content; SoOM, soil organic matter; TN, total N; AP, available P; and AK, available K.
Correlation analysis of influence factors in an opencast coal mine dump in a loess area.
| Influence factors | Slope | Aspe | Posi | BD | SWC | BP | RC | TN | SoOM | AP | AK | Clay | Silt | Sand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Slop | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Aspe | 0.1213 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Posi | 0.5576** | 0.1289 | 1 | |||||||||||
| BD | −0.1474 | 0.0069 | −0.0004 | 1 | ||||||||||
| SWC | −0.002 | 0.1356 | 0.0956 | 0.1062 | 1 | |||||||||
| BP | 0.1082 | −0.0104 | −0.0834 | −0.9606** | −0.0225 | 1 | ||||||||
| RC | 0.3779 | 0.0312 | 0.3347 | −0.0472 | 0.0989 | 0.0853 | 1 | |||||||
| TN | 0.1 | 0.2507 | 0.428* | −0.0326 | −0.081 | 0.0563 | 0.2372 | 1 | ||||||
| SoOM | 0.1047 | 0.0891 | 0.385 | −0.0424 | −0.0333 | 0.0609 | 0.226 | 0.8746** | 1 | |||||
| AP | −0.2126 | 0.1344 | −0.1247 | 0.0605 | 0.1111 | −0.0289 | −0.019 | −0.0098 | −0.1645 | 1 | ||||
| AK | −0.0945 | 0.1546 | 0.0005 | 0.207 | 0.1157 | −0.1568 | 0.0619 | 0.3035 | 0.1909 | −0.0454 | 1 | |||
| Clay | 0.1622 | −0.1087 | −0.0757 | −0.1817 | 0.0374 | 0.2151 | 0.1766 | −0.5092* | −0.4684* | 0.3111 | −0.0878 | 1 | ||
| Silt | −0.2103 | 0.1279 | −0.1196 | 0.1305 | 0.268 | −0.1498 | −0.1932 | −0.0377 | 0.0718 | −0.084 | 0.1395 | −0.422* | 1 | |
| Sand | 0.0548 | −0.0243 | 0.1827 | 0.0391 | −0.29 | −0.0508 | 0.0255 | 0.4953* | 0.3538 | −0.2003 | −0.0542 | −0.4984* | −0.5756** | 1 |
Abbreviations of soil and topographic variables: Posi, slope position; Aspe, slope aspect; SWC, soil water content; BD, soil bulk density; BP, soil total porosity; RC, rock content; SoOM, soil organic matter; TN, total N; AP, available P; and AK, available K.
Figure 2Layout of the sampling points at the Antaibao opencast coal-mine dumps, and it was processed using ArcGIS software based on SPOT satellite image obtained in 2014.
Basic information of the sampling plots.
| Sample plot | Species | Revegetation year | Revegetation model | Elevation | Tree number | Average DBH (cm) | Average height (m) | Canopy density | Herbage coverage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1375.01 | 19 | 17.9 | 3.9 | 0.15 | 35 |
| 2 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1434.74 | 8 | 19.5 | 2.53 | 0.4 | 35 |
| 3 | Black locust/Chinese pine/Poplar | 1992 | Model B | 1408.68 | 32 | 7.8 | 1.82 | 0.05 | 60 |
| 4 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1426.78 | 35 | 29.4 | 6.13 | 0.45 | 30 |
| 5 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1450.05 | 35 | 35.3 | 6.01 | 0.18 | 10 |
| 6 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1441.66 | 15 | 27 | 4.42 | 0.4 | 25 |
| 7 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1444.1 | 27 | 36.2 | 8.17 | 0.6 | 5 |
| 8 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1430.54 | 56 | 21.7 | 3.95 | 0.3 | 35 |
| 9 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1402.74 | 11 | 26.8 | 4.6 | 0.2 | 25 |
| 10 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1386.74 | 19 | 28.8 | 5.99 | 0.55 | 15 |
| 11 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1329.16 | 32 | 25 | 4.82 | 0.52 | 35 |
| 12 | Black locust/Elm/Chinese pine | 1992 | Model B | 1454.21 | 35 | 27.5 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 5 |
| 13 | Black locust/Elm/Ailanthus | 1992 | Model C | 1375.55 | 28 | 27.1 | 7 | 0.6 | 20 |
| 14 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1450.26 | 30 | 28.1 | 5.83 | 0.55 | 8 |
| 15 | Black locust/Elm/Poplar | 1992 | Model A | 1359.03 | 11 | 19 | 3.67 | 0.1 | 40 |
| 16 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1344.35 | 9 | 24.89 | 8.49 | 0.2 | 40 |
| 17 | Black locust/Chinese pine/Elm | 1992 | Model B | 1351.54 | 28 | 37.6 | 7.53 | 0.65 | 20 |
| 18 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1438.52 | 64 | 23.5 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 30 |
| 19 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1431.64 | 75 | 17.1 | 6.88 | 0.4 | 10 |
| 20 | Apricot/Chinese pine | 1992 | Model B | 1391.25 | 160 | 16.9 | 3.82 | 0.85 | 5 |
| 21 | Black locust/Elm | 1992 | Model A | 1343.21 | 19 | 25.9 | 4.06 | 0.5 | 9 |
| 22 | Black locust | 1992 | Model A | 1362.8 | 13 | 39.9 | 7.67 | 0.25 | 70 |
| 23 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1498.23 | 20 | 5.3 | 21.6 | 0.25 | 20 |
| 24 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1484.46 | 21 | 5.16 | 30.63 | 0.4 | 25 |
| 25 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1514.52 | 19 | 4.53 | 21.5 | 0.25 | 21 |
| 26 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1488.11 | 31 | 5.75 | 28 | 0.3 | 25 |
| 27 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1485.72 | 27 | 6.1 | 27.55 | 0.42 | 35 |
| 28 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1519.56 | 61 | 4.34 | 22 | 0.4 | 2 |
| 29 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1457.43 | 6 | 5.72 | 41.4 | 0.25 | 28 |
| 30 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1456.52 | 23 | 7.33 | 32.2 | 0.49 | 18 |
| 31 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1499.13 | 40 | 4.63 | 28.31 | 0.62 | 9 |
| 32 | Elm/Willow | 1995 | Model C | 1470.44 | 9 | 5.28 | 34.51 | 0.28 | 30 |
| 33 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1440.21 | 35 | 3.45 | 16.46 | 0.19 | 8 |
| 34 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1436.4 | 22 | 6.18 | 30.26 | 0.23 | 30 |
| 35 | Elm/Willow | 1995 | Model C | 1426.25 | 12 | 5.98 | 37.2 | 0.21 | 21 |
| 36 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1460.16 | 8 | 3.66 | 17.8 | 0.31 | 32 |
| 37 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1421.54 | 13 | 6.06 | 34.35 | 0.32 | 41 |
| 38 | Elm/Willow | 1995 | Model C | 1417.32 | 24 | 6.41 | 29.29 | 0.2 | 13 |
| 39 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1429.19 | 13 | 2.65 | 22.82 | 0.15 | 51 |
| 40 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1441.71 | 52 | 3.56 | 24.93 | 0.42 | 6 |
| 41 | Elm/Willow | 1995 | Model C | 1425.86 | 17 | 5.73 | 28.53 | 0.31 | 12 |
| 42 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1433.46 | 9 | 5.92 | 37.8 | 0.15 | 32 |
| 43 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1416.59 | 21 | 3.05 | 18.43 | 0.39 | 23 |
| 44 | Elm/Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1372.35 | 14 | 4.73 | 34 | 0.31 | 36 |
| 45 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1420.87 | 19 | 3.24 | 32.21 | 0.25 | 37 |
| 46 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1438.52 | 51 | 5 | 20.8 | 0.78 | 9 |
| 47 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1420.34 | 10 | 3.86 | 29.55 | 0.31 | 32 |
| 48 | Elm | 1995 | Model C | 1423.59 | 90 | 6.42 | 21.8 | 0.3 | 2 |
| 49 | Elm/Willow | 1995 | Model C | 1401.69 | 14 | 4.98 | 37.36 | 0.15 | 5 |
| 50 | Chinese pine | 1995 | Model B | 1385.46 | 13 | 7.67 | 39.9 | 0.25 | 70 |
Topography data of each sampling point in the study area.
| Sample | Slope | Slope aspect | Slope position | Sample | Slope | Slope aspect | Slope position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 26 | 40 | 1.0 | 0.1 |
| 2 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 27 | 34 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 3 | 41 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 28 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 4 | 34 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 29 | 19 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 30 | 32 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 6 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 31 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 7 | 41 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 32 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 8 | 23 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 33 | 43 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 9 | 36 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 34 | 39 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 10 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 35 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 11 | 19 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 36 | 43 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 12 | 19 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 37 | 0 | 0.3 | 1.0 |
| 13 | 0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 38 | 41 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 14 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 39 | 35 | 1.0 | 0.4 |
| 15 | 42 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 40 | 0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| 16 | 5 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 41 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 17 | 12 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 42 | 41 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 18 | 28 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 43 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 |
| 19 | 0 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 44 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 20 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 45 | 25 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 21 | 45 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 46 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| 22 | 40 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 47 | 42 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| 23 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 48 | 23 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 24 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 49 | 9 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 25 | 23 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 50 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.1 |