Ambio

pp 1–15 | Cite as

Mine land rehabilitation in Brazil: Goals and techniques in the context of legal requirements

  • Markus Gastauer
  • Pedro Walfir Martins Souza Filho
  • Silvio Junio Ramos
  • Cecílio Frois Caldeira
  • Joyce Reis Silva
  • José Oswaldo Siqueira
  • Antonio Eduardo Furtini Neto
Review
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Environmental legislation in many countries demands the rehabilitation of degraded areas to minimize environmental impacts. Brazilian laws require the restitution of self-sustaining ecosystems to historical conditions but ignore the emergence of novel ecosystems due to large-scale changes, such as species invasions, extinctions, and land-use or climate changes, although these novel ecosystems might fulfill ecosystem services in similar ways as historic ecosystems. Thorough discussions of rehabilitation goals, target ecosystems, applied methods, and approaches to achieving mine land rehabilitation, as well as dialogues about the advantages and risks of chemical inputs or non-native, non-invasive species that include all political, economic, social, and academic stakeholders are necessary to achieve biological feasibility, sociocultural acceptance, economic viability, and institutional tractability during environmental rehabilitation. Scientific knowledge of natural and rehabilitating ecosystems is indispensable for advancing these discussions and achieving more sustainable mining. Both mining companies and public institutions are responsible for obtaining this knowledge.

Keywords

Biological invasions Environmental legislation Historical reference systems Novel ecosystems Sustainable mining 

Notes

Acknowledgements

SJR (305831/2016-0), JOS (303580/2013-5), and AEFN (303224/2013-4) are grateful for productivity scholarships from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).

References

  1. Aronson, J., P.H.S. Brancalion, G. Durigan, R.R. Rodrigues, V.L. Engel, M. Tabarelli, J.M.D. Torezan, S. Gandolfi, et al. 2011. What role should government regulation play in ecological restoration? Ongoing debate in São Paulo State, Brazil. Restoration Ecology 19: 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhardt, E.S., M.A. Palmer, J.D. Allan, G. Alexander, K. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, et al. 2005. Ecology—synthesizing US river restoration efforts. Science 308: 636–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bisone, S., V. Chatain, D. Blanc, M. Gautier, R. Bayard, F. Sanchez, and R. Gourdon. 2016. Geochemical characterization and modeling of arsenic behavior in a highly contaminated mining soil. Environmental Earth Science 75: 306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5203-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boanares, D., and C.S. Azevedo. 2014. The use of nucleation techniques to restore the environment: A bibliometric analysis. Brazilian Journal of Nature Conservation 12: 93–98.Google Scholar
  5. Boukili, V.K., and R.L. Chazdon. 2017. Environmental filtering, local site factors and landscape context drive changes in functional trait composition during tropical forest succession. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 24: 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brudvig, L.A. 2011. The restoration of biodiversity: Where has research been and where does it need to go? American Journal of Botany 98: 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulleri, F., J.F. Bruno, B.R. Silliman, and J.J. Stachowicz. 2016. Facilitation and the niche: Implications for coexistence, range shifts and ecosystem functioning. Functional Ecology 30: 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho, J.M., S.J. Ramos, A.E. Furtini Neto, M. Gastauer, C.F. Caldeira Junior, J.O. Siqueira, and M.L.S. Silva. 2017. Influence of nutrient management on growth and nutrient use efficiency of two plant species for mineland revegetation. Restoration Ecology.Google Scholar
  9. Casazza, M.L., C.T. Overton, T.D. Bui, J.M. Hull, J.D. Albertson, J.D. Albertson, V.K. Bloom, S. Bobzien, et al. 2016. Endangered species management and ecosystem restoration: Finding the common ground. Ecology and Society 21: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Catford, J.A., R. Jansson, and C. Nilsson. 2014. Reducing redundancy in invasion ecology by integrating hypotheses into a single theoretical framework. Diversity and Distributions 15: 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chase, J.M., and J.A. Myers. 2011. Disentangling the importance of ecological niches from stochastic processes across scales. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Serie B 366: 2351–2363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chazdon, R.L., E.N. Broadbent, D.M.A. Rozendaal, F. Bongers, A.M.A. Zambrano, T.M. Aide, et al. 2016. Carbon sequestration potential of second-growth forest regeneration in the Latin American tropics. Sci. Adv. 2016: e1501639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christensen Jr., N.L. 2014. An historical perspective on forest succession and its relevance to ecosystem restoration and conservation practice in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 330: 312–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation. Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corbin, J.D., and K.D. Holl. 2012. Applied nucleation as a forest restoration strategy. Forest Ecology and Management 265: 37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cordell, S., R. Ostertag, J. Michaud, and L. Warman. 2016. Quandaries of a decade-long restoration experiment trying to reduce invasive species: Beat them, join them, give up, or start over? Restoration Ecology 24: 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corlett, R.T. 2016. Restoration, reintroduction, and rewilding in a changing world. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31: 453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cowles, H.C. 1899. The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of lake Michigan. Botanical Gazette 27: 361–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cristecu, R.H., C. Frère, and P.B. Banks. 2012. A review of fauna in mine rehabilitation in Australia: Current state and future directions. Biological Conservation 149: 60–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cruz, R.E., and R.B. Segura. 2010. Developing the bioliteracy of school children for 24 years: A fundamental tool for ecological restoration and conservation in perpetuity of the Area de Conservacion Guanacaste, Costa Rica. Ecological Restoration 28: 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DellaSala, D.A., A. Martin, R. Spivak, T. Schulke, B. Bird, M. Criley, C. Van Daalen, J. Kreilick, et al. 2003. A citizen’s call for ecological forest restoration: Forest restoration principles and criteria. Ecological Restoration 21: 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Derhe, M.A., H. Murphy, G. Monteith, and R. Menéndez. 2016. Measuring the success of reforestation for restoring biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 1714–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dini-Andrade, F., J.C. Stegen, J.D. Elsas, and J.F. Salles. 2015. Disentangling mechanisms that mediate the balance between stochastic and deterministic processes in microbial succession. PNAS.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414261112.Google Scholar
  24. Elliott, S., D. Blakesley, and K. Hardwick. 2013. Restoring tropical forests: A practical guide. Kew: Royal Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
  25. Elmqvist, T., C. Folke, M. Nyström, G. Peterson, B. Walker, and J. Norberg. 2003. Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Feeley, K.J., and M.R. Selma. 2016. Disappearing climates will limit the efficacy of Amazonian protected areas. Diversity and Distributions 22: 1081–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franks, D.M. 2015. Mountain movers: Mining, sustainability and the agents of change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Gastauer, M., S.R. Silva, C.F. Caldeira, S.J. Ramos, P.F.M. Souza Filho, A.E. Furtini Neto, and J.O. Siqueira. 2018. Mine land rehabilitation: Modern ecological approaches for more sustainable mining. Journal of Cleaner Production.Google Scholar
  29. Gleason, H.A. 1939. The individualistic concept of the plant association. American Midland Naturalist 21: 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gunningham, N., R.A. Kagan, and D. Thornton. 2004. Social license and environmental protection: Why business go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry 29: 307–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Halofski, J.S., J.E. Halofsky, M.A. Hemstrom, A.T. Morzillo, and X. Zhou. 2017. Divergent trends in ecosystem services under different climate-management futures in a fire-prone forest landscape ecosystem. Climatic Change 142: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological restoration and global climate change. Restoration Ecology 14: 170–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Higgs, E., D.A. Falk, A. Guerrini, M. Hall, J. Harris, R.J. Hobbs, S.T. Jackson, J. Rhemtulla, and W. Throop. 2014. The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 12: 499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hobbs, R.J., S. Arico, J. Aronson, J.S. Baron, P. Bridgewater, V.A. Cramer, P.R. Epstein, J.J. Ewel, C.A. Klink, et al. 2006. Novel ecosystems: Theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X.2006.00212.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hobbs, R.J., E. Higgs, and J.A. Harris. 2009. Novel ecosystems: Implications for conservation and restoration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24: 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hobbs, R.J., E. Higgs, C.M. Hall, P. Bridgewater, F.S. Chapin, E.C. Ellis, et al. 2014. Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid and novel ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 557–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Holden, M.H., J.P. Nyrop, and S.P. Ellner. 2016. The economic benefit of time-varying surveillance effort for invasive species management. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 712–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holl, K.D., and T.M. Aide. 2011. When and where to actively restore ecosystems? For Ecol Manag 261: 1558–1563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Holl, K.D., V.M. Stout, J.L. Reid, and R.A. Zahawi. 2013. Testing heterogeneity-diversity relationships in tropical forest restoration. Oecologia 173: 569–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Holl, K.D., J.L. Reid, J.M. Chaves-Fallas, F. Oviedo-Brenes, and R.A. Zahawi. 2016. Local tropical forest restoration strategies affect tree recruitment more strongly than does landscape forest cover. Journal of Applied Ecology 54: 1091–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jangid, K., W.B. Whitman, L.M. Condron, B.L. Turner, and M.A. Williams. 2013. Soil bacterial community succession during long-term ecosystem development. Molecular Ecology 22: 3415–3424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jordan, W.R., and G.M. Lubick. 2012. Making nature whole: A history of ecological restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 9781597265126.Google Scholar
  43. Kattan, G.H., J. Aronson, and C. Murcia. 2016. Does the novel ecosystem concept provide a framework for practical applications and a path forward? A reply to Miller and Bestelmeyer. Restoration Ecology 24: 714–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kollmann, J., S.T. Meyer, R. Bateman, T. Conradi, M.M. Gossner, M.S. Mendonça Jr., G.W. Fernandes, J.-M. Hermann, et al. 2016. Integrating ecosystem functions into restoration ecology—recent advances and future directions. Restoration Ecology 24: 722–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kondolf, G.M., and K. Podolek. 2011. Space and time scales in human-landscape systems. Environmental Management 53: 76–87.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0078-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Laroche, F., P. Jarne, T. Perrot, and F. Massol. 2016. The evolution of the competition–dispersal trade-off affects α- and β-diversity in a heterogeneous metacommunity. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 283: 20160548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liebsch, D., M.C.M. Marques, and R. Goldenberg. 2008. How long does the Atlantic Rain Forest take to recover after a disturbance? Changes in species composition and ecological features during secondary succession. Biological Conservation 141: 1717–1725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lu, Y., S. Ranjitkar, R.D. Harrison, J. Xu, X. Ou, X. Ma, and J. He. 2017. Selection of native tree species for subtropical forest restoration in Southwest China. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170418.Google Scholar
  49. Lugo, A.E., and E. Helmer. 2004. Emerging forests on abandoned land: Puerto Rico’s new forests. Forest Ecology and Management 190: 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mansourian, S. 2017. Governance and forest landscape restoration: A framework to support decision-making. Journal of Nature Conservation 37: 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin, D.M. 2017. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century. Restoration Ecology 25: 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Martin, K.L., M.D. Hurteau, B.A. Hungate, G.W. Koch, and M.P. North. 2015. Carbon tradeoffs of restoration and provision of endangered species habitat in a fire-maintained forest. Ecosystems 18: 76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mascaro, J., K.K. Becklund, R.F. Hughes, and S.A. Schnitzer. 2008. Limited native plant regeneration in novel, exotic-dominated forests on Hawai’i. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 593–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Matlaba, V.J., J.A. Mota, M.C. Maneschy, and J.F. Santos. 2017. Social perception at the onset of a mining development in Eastern Amazonia, Brazil. Resources Policy 54: 157–166.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2017.09.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matos, F.A.R., L.F.S. Magnago, M. Gastauer, J.M.B. Carreiras, M. Simonelli, J.A.A. Meira-Neto, and D.P. Edwards. 2017. Effects of landscape configuration and composition on phylogenetic diversity of trees in a highly fragmented tropical forest. J Ecol. 105: 265–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Matthews, J.W., and A.G. Endress. 2008. Performance criteria, compliance success, and vegetation development in compensatory mitigation wetlands. Environmental Management 41: 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mesquita, C.A.B., C.G.D. Holvorcem, C.H. Lyrio, P.D. de Menezes, J.D. da Silva Dias, and J.F. Azevedo Jr. 2010. COOPLANTAR: A Brazilian initiative to integrate forest restoration with job and income generation in rural areas. Ecological Restoration 28: 199–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miller, J.R., and B.T. Bestelmeyer. 2016. What’s wrong with novel ecosystems, really? Restoration Ecology 24: 577–582.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morrison, E.B., and C.A. Lindell. 2011. Active or passive forest restoration? Assessing restoration alternatives with avian foraging behavior. Restoration Ecology 19: 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morse, N.B., P.A. Pellissier, E.N. Cianciola, R.L. Brereton, M.M. Sullivan, N.K. Shonka, T.B. Wheeler, and W.H. McDowell. 2014. Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: A revision of the novel ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society 19: 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Muñoz-Erickson, T.A., A.E. Lugo, and B. Quintero. 2014. Emerging synthesis themes from the study of social-ecological systems of a tropical city. Ecology and Society 19: 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Newsome, T.M., A.C. Greenville, D. Ćirović, C.R. Dickman, C.N. Johnson, M. Krofel, M. Letnic, W.J. Ripple, E.G. Ritchie, S. Stoyanov, and A.J. Wirsing. 2017. Top predators constrain mesopredator distributions. Nature Communications 8: 15469.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Palmer, M.A., and J.B. Ruhl. 2015. Aligning restoration science and the future of law to sustain ecological infrastructure for the future. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 512–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Paradella, W.R., A. Ferretti, J.C. Mura, D. Colombo, F.F. Gama, A. Tamburini, A.R. Santos, F. Novali, et al. 2015. Mapping surface deformation in open pit iron mines of Carajás Province (Amazon Region) using an integrated SAR analysis. Engineering Geology 193: 61–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2015.04.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pardo, T., M.P. Bernal, and R. Clemente. 2017. Phytostabilisation of severely contaminated mine tailings using halophytes and field addition of organic and inorganic amendments. Chemosphere 178: 556–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Partel, M., R. Szava-Kovats, and M. Zobel. 2011. Dark diversity: Shedding light on absent species. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26: 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Peña-Domene, M., C. Martínez-Garza, S. Palmas-Pérez, E. Rivas-Alonso, and H.F. Howe. 2014. Roles of birds and bats in early tropical-forest restoration. PLoS ONE 9: 1–6.Google Scholar
  68. Perring, M.P., R.J. Standish, J.N. Price, M.D. Graig, T.E. Erickson, K.X. Ruthrof, A.S. Whiteley, L.E. Valentine, and R.J. Hobbs. 2016. Advances in restoration ecology: Rising to the challenges of the coming decades. Ecosphere 6: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perry, L.G., L.V. Reynolds, T.J. Beechie, M.J. Collins, and P.B. Shafroth. 2015. Incorporating climate change projections into riparian restoration planning and design. Ecohydrol. 8: 863–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Richardson, B.J. 2016. The emerging age of ecological restoration law. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law 25: 277–290.  https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Richardson, B.J., and T. Lefroy. 2016. Restoration dialogues: Improving the governance of ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 24: 668–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rodrigues, R.R., R.A.F. Lima, S. Gandolfi, and A.G. Nave. 2009. On the restoration of high diversity forests: 30 years of experiences in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biological Conservation 142: 1242–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rodrigues, R.R., and S. Gandolfi. 1996. Recomposition of native forests: General príncipes and assistence for a metodological definition. Revista Brasileira de Horticultura 2: 4–15. (in portuguese).Google Scholar
  74. Sartori, R.A. 2015. Guia Prático para Elaboração de Projeto de Recuperação de Áreas Degradadas (PRAD) em APP. Instituto Brasileiro de Administração Municipal – IBAMA.Google Scholar
  75. Schrama, M., J. Jouta, M.P. Berg, and H. Olff. 2013. Food web assembly at the landscape scale: Using stable isotopes to reveal changes in trophic structure during succession. Ecosystems 16: 627–638.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-013-9636-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. SER (Society for Ecological Restoration). 2004. The SER International primer on ecological restoration. Tucson, Arizona, USA: Society for Ecological Restoration International.Google Scholar
  77. Simberloff, D. 2009. We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biological Invasions 11: 149–157.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-008-9317-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Simberloff, D. 2015. Non-native invasive species and novel ecosystems. F1000Prime Reports 7: 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Simberloff, D., J.-L. Martin, P. Genovesi, V. Maris, D.A. Wardle, J. Aronson, F. Courchamp, B. Galil, et al. 2013. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Skirycz, A., A. Castilho, C. Chapparo, N. Carvalho, G. Tzotzos, and J.O. Siqueira. 2014. Canga biodiversity, a matter of mining. Frontiers in Plant Science 5: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Skousen, J. 2010. Revegetation species and practices, 460. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension, Publication.Google Scholar
  82. Souza Filho, P.W.M., E.B. Souza, R.O. Silva Júnior, W.R. Nascimento Jr., B.R.V. Mendonça, T.F. Guimarães, R. Dall’Agnol, and J.O. Siqueira. 2016. Four decades of land-cover, land-use and hydroclimatology changes in the Itacaiúnas River watershed, southeastern Amazon. Journal of Environmental Management 167: 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Suding, K.N., K.L. Gross, and G.R. Houseman. 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Suganuma, M.S., and G. Durigan. 2015. Indicators of restoration success in riparian tropical forests using multiple reference ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 23: 238–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thompson, R.M., U. Brose, J.A. Dunne, R.O. Hall Jr., S. Hladyz, R.L. Kitching, N.D. Maritinez, H. Rantala, et al. 2012. Food webs: Reconciling the structure and function of biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 689–697.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tilman, D. 1985. The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. The American Naturalist 125: 827–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tuomisto, H. 2010. A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33: 2–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05880.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Virah-Sawmy, M., J. Ebeling, and R. Taplin. 2014. Mining and biodiversity offsets: A transparent and science-based approach to measure “no-net-loss”. Journal of Environmental Management 143: 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vieira, D.L.M., and A. Scariot. 2006. Principles of natural regeneration of tropical dry forests for restoration. Restoration Ecology 14: 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vogel, H.F., J.B. Campos, and F.C. Bechara. 2015. Early bird assemblages under different subtropical forest restoration strategies in Brazil: Passive, nucleation and high diversity plantation. Tropical Conservation Science 8: 912–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wagner, A.M., D.L. Larson, J.A. DalSoglio, J. Harris, P. Labus, E. Rosi-Marshall, and K.E.I. Skrabisz. 2016. A framework for establishing restoration goals for contaminated ecosystems. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 12: 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Walker, L.R., J. Walker, and R.J. Hobbs. 2007. Linking restoration and ecological succession. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wang, K., Z. Lin, and R. Zhang. 2016. Impact of phosphate mining and separation of mined materials on the hydrology and water environment of the Huangbai River basin, China. Science of the Total Environment 543: 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Watanabe, T., S. Jansen, and M. Osaki. 2006. Al-Fe interactions and growth enhancement in Melastoma malabathricum and Miscanthus sinensis dominating acid sulphate soils. Plant, Cell and Environment 29: 2124–2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wheeler, C.E., P.A. Omeja, C.A. Chapman, M. Glipin, C. Tumwesigye, and S.L. Levis. 2016. Carbon sequestration and biodiversity following 18 years of active tropical forest restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 373: 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Winter, M., O. Schweiger, S. Klotz, W. Nentwig, et al. 2009. Plant extinctions and introductions lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora. PNAS 106: 21721–21725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ye, S., G. Zeng, H. Wu, C. Zhang, J. Dai, J. Liang, J. Yu, X. Ren, et al. 2017. Biological technologies for the remediation of co-contaminated soil. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 37: 1062–1076.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2017.1304357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Gastauer
    • 1
  • Pedro Walfir Martins Souza Filho
    • 1
    • 3
  • Silvio Junio Ramos
    • 1
  • Cecílio Frois Caldeira
    • 1
  • Joyce Reis Silva
    • 1
  • José Oswaldo Siqueira
    • 1
  • Antonio Eduardo Furtini Neto
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Tecnológico ValeBelémBrazil
  2. 2.Agro Up Consultoria Agropecuária LtdaLavrasBrazil
  3. 3.Universidade Federal do ParáBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations