Plant and Soil

, Volume 353, Issue 1–2, pp 305–320 | Cite as

Soil and vegetation development during early succession on restored coal wastes: a six-year permanent plot study

  • Josu G. Alday
  • Rob H. Marrs
  • Carolina Martínez-Ruiz
Regular Article

Abstract

Aims

Little is known about how soil parameters change during early stages of revegetation dynamics on newly-restored coal mines, particularly in a Mediterranean climate. Our aim was to explore the short-term interactions of changes in soil physico-chemical properties and vegetation succession (composition and structure) in these newly-forming ecosystems, and discuss potential functional relationships.

Methods

Between 2004 and 2009, we monitored soil and vegetation changes in nine permanent plots (20 m2 each one) at a restored open-pit coal mine annually; these plots were set up in a structured way to account for site aspect (north, south and flat). We used linear mixed models and multivariate analysis to derive patterns of soil parameters changes through time and to relate soil variables with vegetation structure or floristic compositional changes.

Results

Soil variables showed a general trend over time of increasing soil organic matter, total carbon and nitrogen, sand content and exchangeable calcium, but a reduction in soil pH, clay and lime contents, whereas electrical conductivity, P, Mg2+ and K+ showed no change through time. More importantly, these changes in soil properties were independent of aspect, whereas vegetation functional/structural changes were related to the accumulation of organic matter and sand content, and pH reduction. Surprisingly, floristic compositional changes had little relationship with soil factors.

Conclusions

The results indicate that age since restoration was the main driving agent, at least in the short-term, of soil and vegetation compositional changes during ecosystem development through the restoration of a coal mine, whereas vegetation functional/structural changes are involved in the mechanism that induce some soil changes, favouring the increase of plant community complexity in such mined areas. Finally, these results suggest that if soil-forming material is sufficiently good for vegetation development, floristic compositional differences are mainly driven by a combination of abiotic and stochastic factors in the short-term.

Keywords

Soil disturbance Soil physico-chemical properties Floristic composition Vegetation structure Soil organic carbon Restoration work DCA ordination Vegetation dynamics 

References

  1. Abreu Z, Llambí DL, Sarmiento L (2009) Sensitivity of soil restoration indicators during Páramo succession in the high tropical Andes: chronosequence and permanent plot approaches. Restor Ecol 17:619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alday JG, Marrs RH, Martínez-Ruiz C (2010) The importance of topography and climate on short-term revegetation of coal wastes in Spain. Ecol Eng 36:579–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alday JG, Marrs RH, Martínez-Ruiz C (2011a) Vegetation convergence during early succession on coal wastes: a 6 years permanent plot study. J Veg Sci 22:1072–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alday JG, Marrs RH, Martínez-Ruiz C (2011b) Vegetation succession on reclaimed coal wastes in Spain: the influence of soil and environmental factors. Appl Veg Sci 14:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen SE (1989) Chemical analysis of ecological materials. Blackwell’s, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson JM, Ingram JSI (1993) Tropical soil biology and fertility: a handbook of methods, 2nd edn. C.A.B. International, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Banning NC, Grant CD, Jones DL, Murphy DV (2008) Recovery of soil organic matter, organic matter turnover and nitrogen cycling in a post-mining forest rehabilitation chronosequence. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2021–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen total. In: Miller AL, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  9. Bronick CJ, Lal R (2005) Soil structure and management: a review. Geoderma 124:3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference-a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Cañadas EM, Jimenez MN, Valle F, Fernandez-Ondono E, Martin-Peinado F, Navarro FB (2010) Soil-vegetation relationships in semi-arid Mediterranean old fields (SE Spain): Implications for management. J Arid Environ 74:1525–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cortez J, Garnier E, Pérez-Harguindeguy N, Debussche M, Gillon D (2007) Plant traits, litter quality and decomposition in a Mediterranean old-field succession. Plant Soil 296:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. John Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day P (1965) Particle fractionation and particle size analysis. In: Black CA (ed) Method of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 565–566Google Scholar
  15. Dazy M, Jung V, Férard JF, Masfaraud JF (2008) Ecological recovery of vegetation on coke-factory soil: role of plant antioxidant enzymes and possible implications in site restoration. Chemosphere 74:57–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Kovel CGF, Van Mierlo EM, Wilms YJO, Berendse F (2000) Carbon and nitrogen in soil and vegetation at sites differing in successional age. Plant Ecol 149:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. R Development Core Team (2009) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
  18. Dölle M, Schmidt W (2009) Impact of tree species on nutrient and light availability: evidence from a permanent plot study of old-field succession. Plant Ecol 203:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frouz J, Prach K, Pižl V, Háněl L, Starý J, Tajovský K, Materna J, Balík V, Kalčík J, Řehounková K (2008) Interactions between soil development, vegetation and soil fauna during spontaneous succession in post mining sites. Eur J Soil Biol 44:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García H, Tarrasón D, Mayol M, Male-Bascompte N, Riba M (2007) Patterns of variability in soil properties and vegetation cover following abandonment of olive groves in Catalonia (NE Spain). Acta Oecol 31:316–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. González-Alday J, Marrs RH, Martínez-Ruiz C (2008) The influence of aspect on the early growth dynamics of hydroseeded species in coal reclamation area. Appl Veg Sci 11:405–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Alday J, Marrs RH, Martínez-Ruiz C (2009) Soil seed bank formation during early revegetation after hydroseeding in reclaimed coal wastes. Ecol Eng 35:1062–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halingerová M, Frouz J, Šantrůčková H (2010) Microbial activity in reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining sites near Sokolov (Czech Republic). Ecol Eng 36:768–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herath DN, Lamont BB, Enright NJ, Miller BP (2009) Comparison of post-mine rehabilitated and natural shrubland communities in southwestern Australia. Restor Ecol 17:577–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hill MO (1979) DECORANA – A Fortran program for detrended correspondence analysis and reciprocal averaging. Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobbs RJ, Norton DA (1996) Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restor Ecol 4:93–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hodkinson ID, Coulson SJ, Webb NR (2003) Community assembly along proglacial chronosequences in the high Arctic: vegetation and soil development in north-west Svalbard. J Ecol 91:651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Isermann M (2005) Soil pH and species diversity in coastal dunes. Plant Ecol 178:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jenny H (1980) The Soil Resource. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knops JMH, Tilman D (2000) Dynamics of soil nitrogen and carbon accumulation for 61 years after agricultural abandonment. Ecology 81:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Legendre P, Legendre L (2003) Numerical ecology, 3rd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Magee L (1990) R 2 measures based on Wald and likelihood ratio joint significance tests. Am Stat 44:250–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marrs RH (2004) Why we should conserve Limiting factors, at least sometimes! J Veg Sci 15:573–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marrs RH, Bradshaw AD (1993) Primary succession on man-made wastes: the importance of resource acquisition. In: Miles J, Walton DWH (eds) Primary succession on land. Blackwell’s Scientific Publications, Oxford, pp 221–248Google Scholar
  35. Marrs RH, Granlund IH, Bradshaw AD (1980a) Ecosystem development on reclaimed china clay wastes. IV. Recycling of above-ground plant nutrients. J Appl Ecol 17:803–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marrs RH, Roberts RD, Bradshaw AD (1980b) Ecosystem development on reclaimed china clay wastes. I. Assessment of vegetation and capture of nutrients. J Appl Ecol 17:709–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Martínez-Ruiz C, Marrs RH (2007) Some factors affecting successional change on uranium mine wastes: insights for ecological restoration. Appl Veg Sci 10:333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martínez-Ruiz C, Fernández-Santos B, Gómez-Gutiérrez JM (2001) Effects of substrate coarseness and exposure on plant succession in uranium-mining wastes. Plant Ecol 155:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matlack GR (2009) Long-term changes in soils of second-growth forest following abandonment from agriculture. J Biogeogr 36:2066–2075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meriläa P, Malmivaara-Lämsäb M, Spetzb P, Starkc S, Vierikkod K, Deromec J, Fritze H (2010) Soil organic matter quality as a link between microbial community structure and vegetation composition along a successional gradient in a boreal forest. Appl Soil Ecol 46:259–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moreno-de las Heras M (2009) Development of soil physical structure and biological functionality in mining spoils affected by soil erosion in a Mediterranean-Continental environment. Geoderma 149:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreno-de las Heras M, Nicolau JM, Espigares T (2008) Vegetation succession in reclaimed coal-mining slopes in a Mediterranean-dry environment. Ecol Eng 34:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oades JM (1988) The retention of organic matter in soils. Biogeochemistry 5:35–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara RG, Simpson GL, Solymos P, Henry M, Stevens H, Wagner H (2010) vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.17-0, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  45. Olsen SR, Sommers LE (1982) Phosphorus. In: Miller AL, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 403–427Google Scholar
  46. Pinheiro J, Bates D (2000) Mixed-effects models in S- and S-Plus. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2009) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3:1–96Google Scholar
  48. Porta J, Lopez-Acevedo M, Roquero De Laburu C (1994) Edafología para la agricultura y el medio ambiente. Mundi Prensa, MadridGoogle Scholar
  49. Prach K, Pyšek P, Jarosik V (2007) Climate and pH as determinants of vegetation succession in Central-European man-made habitats. J Veg Sci 18:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts RD, Marrs RH, Bradshaw AD (1980) Ecosystem development on reclaimed china clay wastes. II. Nutrient compartmentation and cycling. J Appl Ecol 17:719–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schadek U, Strauss B, Biedermann R, Kleyer M (2009) Plant species richness, vegetation structure and soil resources of urban brownfield sites linked to successional age. Urban Ecosystem 12:115–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Šourková M, Frouz J, Šantrùčková H (2005) Accumulation of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus during soil formation on alder spoil heaps after brown-coal mining, near Sokolov (Czech Republic). Geoderma 124:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turner MG, Baker WL, Peterson CJ, Peet RK (1998) Factors influencing succession: lessons from large, infrequent natural disturbances. Ecosystems 1:511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. van Breemen N, Driscoll CT, Mulder J (1984) Acidic deposition and internal proton sources in acidification of soils and waters. Nature 307:599–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walker LR, del Moral R (2009) Lessons from primary succession for restoration of severely damaged habitats. Appl Veg Sci 12:55–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Walkley A (1947) A critical examination of rapid method for determining organic carbon in soils. Soil Sci 63:251–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josu G. Alday
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rob H. Marrs
    • 1
  • Carolina Martínez-Ruiz
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Applied Vegetation Dynamics Laboratory, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute UVa-INIAPalenciaSpain
  3. 3.Área de Ecología, E.T.S. de Ingenierías Agrarias de PalenciaUniversidad de ValladolidPalenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations