| Literature DB >> 32192173 |
Xinhui Li1,2, Shaogang Lei1,2, Feng Liu3, Weizhong Wang3.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: ecological stability; plant community characteristics; refuse dumps; restoration; soil properties
Year: 2020 PMID: 32192173 PMCID: PMC7143547 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17061975
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of the study area. A, B, and C represent the WLHD coal mine, the LLG coal mine, and the JZT coal mine, respectively.
Basic conditions of the natural reference areas and the refuse dumps with different restoration ages in various coal mines.
| Site | Location | Topography | Soil Type | Restoration Age | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLHD Coal mine | 111°13′00″– | Highland erosion hilly topography | Chestnut and skeleton soils | NA | Grass, sub-shrub, shrub |
| RA14 | Grass, sub-shrub, shrub | ||||
| RA15 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA16 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA17 | Grass | ||||
| RA18 | Grass | ||||
| LLG Coal mine | 110°26′25″– | Highland erosion hilly topography | Cinnamon soil | NA | Grass, sub-shrub, shrub |
| RA14 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA15 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA16 | Grass | ||||
| RA17 | Grass | ||||
| RA18 | Grass | ||||
| JZT Coal mine | 110°19′21″– | Low hilly and valley topography | Cinnamon and aeolian sandy soils | NA | Grass, sub-shrub, shrub |
| RA12 | Grass, sub-shrub, shrub | ||||
| RA13 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA16 | Grass, sub-shrub | ||||
| RA17 | Grass | ||||
| RA18 | Grass | ||||
Note: RA12 means the areas reclaimed in 2012 a; RA13 means the areas reclaimed in 2013 a; RA14 means the areas reclaimed in 2014 a; RA15 means the areas reclaimed in 2015 a; RA16 means the areas reclaimed in 2016 a; RA17 means the areas reclaimed in 2017 a; RA18 means the areas reclaimed in 2018 a; NA means the natural reference area.
Categories and standards of ecological stability and the vegetation and soil development degree.
| D | Categories (Ecological Stability) | f(x)/f(y) | Sub-Categories (Vegetation and Soil Development Degree) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 < D ≤ 0.2 | Extremely unstable | f(x)/f(y) > 1.2 | VL |
| 0.8 ≤ f(x)/f(y) ≤ 1.2 | VSL | ||
| f(x)/f(y) < 0.8 | SL | ||
| 0.2 < D ≤ 0.4 | Unstable | f(x)/f(y) > 1.2 | VL |
| 0.8 ≤ f(x)/f(y) ≤ 1.2 | VSL | ||
| f(x)/f(y) < 0.8 | SL | ||
| 0.4 < D ≤ 0.6 | Sub-stable | f(x)/f(y) > 1.2 | VL |
| 0.8 ≤ f(x)/f(y) ≤ 1.2 | VSD | ||
| f(x)/f(y) < 0.8 | SL | ||
| 0.6 < D ≤ 0.8 | Nearly stable | f(x)/f(y) > 1.2 | VL |
| 0.8 ≤ f(x)/f(y) ≤ 1.2 | VSD | ||
| f(x)/f(y) < 0.8 | SL | ||
| 0.8 < D ≤ 1.0 | Stable | f(x)/f(y) > 1.2 | VL |
| 0.8 ≤ f(x)/f(y) ≤ 1.2 | VSD | ||
| f(x)/f(y) < 0.8 | SL |
Note: D represents the threshold of ecological stability; VL represents the lagging type of vegetation restoration; SL represents the lagging type of soil restoration; VSL represents the synchronous lagging type of vegetation soil restoration; VSD represents the synchronous development type of vegetation soil restoration.
Figure 2Soil properties of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the WLHD coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test).
Figure 3Soil properties of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the LLG coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 4Soil properties of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the JZT coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 5Plant community characteristics of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the WLHD coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 6Plant community characteristics of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the LLG coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 7Plant community characteristics of different restoration ages and natural reference areas in the JZT coal mine (mean values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the p = 0.05 level; mean values followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at the p < 0.05 level, according to Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 8Triplot of the first two redundancy analysis (RDA) axes of plant community characteristics, soil properties, and plots. Black arrows indicate the plant parameters, while red arrows indicate the soil parameters. SMC: soil moisture content; TS: total salt content; OM: organic matter; TN: total nitrogen; AN: available nitrogen; AK: available potassium; AP: available phosphorus; SD: soil bulk density; SP: plant species; NP: total number of plants; (a) WLHD coal mine; (b) LLG coal mine; (c) JZT coal mine.
Results of ecological stability and vegetation and soil development degree across the different restoration ages and natural reference areas.
| Restoration Age | D | Ecological Stability | f(x)/f(y) | Vegetation and Soil Development Degree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLHD coal mine | RA14 | 0.51 | Sub-stable | 0.93 | VSD |
| RA15 | 0.49 | Sub-stable | 0.64 | SL | |
| RA16 | 0.47 | Sub-stable | 0.57 | SL | |
| RA17 | 0.22 | Unstable | 0.67 | SL | |
| RA18 | 0.13 | Extremely unstable | 0.21 | SL | |
| NA | 0.63 | Nearly stable | 0.95 | VSD | |
| LLG coal mine | RA14 | 0.75 | Nearly stable | 1.17 | VL |
| RA15 | 0.67 | Nearly stable | 1.49 | VL | |
| RA16 | 0.44 | Sub-stable | 2.48 | VL | |
| RA17 | 0.37 | Unstable | 0.25 | SL | |
| RA18 | 0.33 | Unstable | 0.11 | SL | |
| NA | 0.90 | Stable | 1.34 | VL | |
| JZT coal mine | RA12 | 0.85 | Stable | 1.02 | VSD |
| RA13 | 0.82 | Stable | 0.98 | VSD | |
| RA16 | 0.40 | Unstable | 3.60 | VL | |
| RA17 | 0.28 | Unstable | 3.92 | VL | |
| RA18 | 0.17 | Extremely unstable | 0.14 | SL | |
| NA | 0.81 | Stable | 2.22 | VL |
Note. See Table 2 for an explanation of the abbreviations.
Figure 9Change law of ecological stability of the refuse dumps in different coal mine areas across different restoration ages; y represents the value of ES and x represents the restoration time; equation (1) represents the logistic succession model of ecological stability in WLHD coal mine, equation (2) represents the logistic succession model of ecological stability in LLG coal mine, and equation (3) represents the logistic succession model of ecological stability in JZT coal mine (* p < 0.05, (a) WLHD coal mine; (b) LLG coal mine; (c) JZT coal mine).