| Literature DB >> 35607493 |
Desmond Asare1, Michael Ansong1, Boateng Kyereh1, Frederick Gyasi Damptey2, Winston Adams Asante1.
Abstract
Artisanal small-scale mining (ASM) is one of the essential rural non-agricultural livelihood activities in Ghana. However, basic and rudimentary practices and tools associated with ASM activities lead to vegetation and soil destruction. Given the limitation of state-sponsored reclamation of abandoned ASM sites, the role of natural recovery in abandoned mine sites is deemed a viable option, as it lowers financial obligations, promotes pioneer species and improves local ecology. The residual impacts of different ASM methods (alluvial or chamfi) and their implications for reclamation are less explored. Using a randomised sampling approach, one hundred and eight (108) plots representing 54 abandoned mined (27 alluvial and 27 chamfi) and 54 unmined areas (control plots) were demarcated for seedling and sapling assessments. A total of 6,157 seedlings belonging to 133 species and 4,536 saplings belonging to 42 species were recorded. Pielou's evenness and Shannon indices showed that both seedlings and saplings were equitably distributed between mined-out sites and their controls for both methods but showed evidence of environmental variability. This variability was more conspicuous in chamfi mined-out sites, confirming some degradation impacts. Chromolaena odorata (L.) and Mimosa pudica L. were the dominant seedlings recorded, while Hymenostegia afzelii (Oliv.) Harms and Musanga cecropioides M. Smithii R. Br. dominated the saplings. The alluvial method exerted a far greater effect on stand features such as basal area and stand density for saplings owing to its greater soil damage. Assisted restoration measures directed at abandoned mined sites can facilitate ecosystem recovery to a trajectory reminiscent of that of nearby undisturbed forests.Entities:
Keywords: Abandoned mine site; Artisanal small-scale mining; Mining methods; Species diversity and composition; Species recruitment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35607493 PMCID: PMC9123227 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09434
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Characteristics of each ASM method in terms of approach, impacts on soil, and key tools employed in their respective operations (Mantey et al., 2017).
| Mining Types | Impacts on soil | Approach | Key materials/tools used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chamfi | Mostly done rudimentarily and manually using shovels, pickaxes, earth chisels, and other simple equipment with minimal soil impact | This occurs typically in land-locked areas, either near or far from water bodies. However, requires water for simultaneous mining and the gold extraction process | Diesel-powered engine, retort, pans, shovels, pickaxe |
| Alluvial | Soil impact is extensive with the use of heavy-duty machines like excavators, dozers, and loaders. | It takes place with simultaneous mining and gold extraction process. It mainly occurs in wetland areas, rivers/creeks/streams banks. | Sluice board, washing plant/trommel, Excavator, dozer, loader |
Figure 1Study area map showing the three districts in the region and the sampling sites for both mined and unmined (control) plots.
Species attributes and diversity indices of seedlings and saplings for the study site (N = 27 per site). CM: chamfi main, CC: chamfi control, AM: alluvial main and AC: alluvial control.
| Attributes | Seedlings | Saplings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM | CC | AM | AC | CM | CC | AM | AC | |
| No. of Species | 84 | 64 | 71 | 54 | 21 | 25 | 13 | 12 |
| No. of Individuals | 2174 | 1189 | 1841 | 953 | 56 | 141 | 42 | 108 |
| Pielou's Evenness(J) | 0.966 | 0.961 | 0.961 | 0.972 | 0.991 | 0.985 | 0.991 | 0.981 |
| Shannon (H′) | 2.724 | 2.530 | 2.714 | 2.263 | 0.350 | 1.090 | 0.270 | 0.624 |
Figure 2Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (n-MDS) ordination of seedling species composition for (A) alluvial (red: control, blue: main) and (B) chamfi (green: control, pink: main) plots (54 sample plots per site). Highly correlated species (correlation at 0.4) for each site and plot are overlaid. The distance between the individual plots and sites reflects the degree of dissimilarity of species composition among plots and sites.
Seedling contribution (based on SIMPER) to the dissimilarity between sites A) chamfi main (CM) and chamfi control (CC) and B) alluvial main (AM) and alluvial control (AC) plots. (Av. Ab. = Average abundance, Contr = contribution percentage, Cum = cumulative contribution).
| A | CM | CC | Contr% | Cum | B | AM | AC | Contr | Cum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.33 | 0.60 | 6.33 | 6.33 | 1.86 | 0.44 | 6.16 | 6.16 | ||
| 0.76 | 1.72 | 5.08 | 11.41 | 1.58 | 0.00 | 6.02 | 12.18 | ||
| 0.97 | 1.19 | 3.61 | 15.01 | 2.50 | 1.61 | 4.19 | 16.36 | ||
| 1.19 | 0.82 | 3.59 | 18.60 | 1.20 | 1.32 | 3.94 | 20.30 | ||
| 1.08 | 0.31 | 3.46 | 22.06 | 0.38 | 0.98 | 3.86 | 24.16 | ||
| 0.92 | 0.62 | 3.40 | 25.46 | 0.84 | 0.32 | 3.32 | 27.48 | ||
| 0.79 | 0.91 | 3.36 | 28.82 | 0.98 | 0.71 | 3.17 | 30.65 | ||
| 1.05 | 0.28 | 3.31 | 32.13 | 0.75 | 0.76 | 3.09 | 33.74 | ||
| 2.17 | 1.80 | 3.14 | 35.27 | 0.66 | 0.36 | 2.94 | 36.68 | ||
| 1.06 | 0.94 | 3.03 | 38.29 | 0.76 | 0.30 | 2.82 | 39.50 | ||
| 0.50 | 0.55 | 2.74 | 41.03 | 0.59 | 0.36 | 2.68 | 42.19 | ||
| 0.80 | 0.00 | 2.59 | 43.62 | 0.12 | 0.70 | 2.65 | 44.84 | ||
| 0.72 | 0.00 | 2.53 | 46.14 | 0.59 | 0.49 | 2.43 | 47.26 | ||
| 0.58 | 0.51 | 2.25 | 48.39 | 0.62 | 0.36 | 2.37 | 49.63 | ||
| 0.60 | 0.00 | 2.20 | 50.59 | 0.44 | 0.31 | 2.06 | 51.69 |
Figure 3Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling (n-MDS) ordination of sapling species composition for (A) alluvial (red: control, blue: main) and (B) chamfi (green: control, pink: main) plots (54 sample plots per site). Highly correlated species (correlation at 0.4) for each site and plot are overlaid. The distance between the individual plots reflects the degree of dissimilarity of species composition among plots and sites.
Sapling contribution (based on SIMPER) to the dissimilarity between sites A) chamfi main (CM) and chamfi control (CC) and B) alluvial main (AM) and alluvial control (AC) plots. (Av. Ab. = Average abundance, Contr = contribution percentage, Cum = cumulative contribution).
| A | CM | CC | Contr% | Cum | B | AM | AC | Contr | Cum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.18 | 0.41 | 10.41 | 10.41 | 0.19 | 0.69 | 19.91 | 19.91 | ||
| 0.04 | 0.37 | 7.98 | 18.40 | 0.23 | 0.51 | 16.04 | 35.95 | ||
| 0.04 | 0.28 | 7.55 | 25.95 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 9.25 | 45.20 | ||
| 0.13 | 0.25 | 6.72 | 32.66 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 9.23 | 54.44 | ||
| 0.00 | 0.27 | 5.88 | 38.55 | ||||||
| 0.13 | 0.24 | 5.55 | 44.10 | ||||||
| 0.04 | 0.23 | 5.51 | 49.61 | ||||||
| 0.10 | 0.20 | 4.73 | 54.34 |
Figure 4Box plots of A) sapling basal area, B) density of saplings and C) sapling mean height in the alluvial control (AC), alluvial main (AM), chamfi control (CC), and chamfi main (CM) plots. The line in the box represents the median value, and the box limits are the 25th and 75th percentiles. Error bars show the 10th and 90th percentiles on a log scale.