Advertisement

Plant Assemblages of Abandoned Ore Mining Heaps: A Case Study from Roşia Montană Mining Area, Romania

  • Anamaria Roman
  • Dan Gafta
  • Tudor-Mihai Ursu
  • Vasile Cristea
Chapter
Part of the Geobotany Studies book series (GEOBOT)

Abstract

Plant assemblages and successional pathways were studied on large, abandoned ore mining heaps located around the open-cast pits from Roşia Montană, Romania. Four differently aged mining spoils with relatively homogenous substrate and one control plot were investigated using the chronosequence approach.

The effects of the waste dump age, slope steepness, position on slope, terrain curvature and potential solar radiation on the plant species composition of different assemblages from spontaneously revegetated primary sites were evaluated. Relevés were grouped into floristically similar vegetation types using non-hierarchical cluster analysis (Fuzzy c-Means). The ecological interpretation of the plant assemblages was performed through indicator species values (IndVal) and non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS).

This study reinforces several important concepts about the deterministic patterns of primary succession. First, the multiple comparisons between plant assemblages reveal that the highest differences are caused by the age of the spoil heap and substrate acidity. Further differences, lower but significant, are determined by terrain curvature and potential solar radiation. Also, environmental factors acting prior to the establishment of the observed plant assemblages (age, substrate pH, slope steepness and position on slope), have subsequently induced a structural differentiation in terms of species richness, vegetation cover and relative cover of the N-fixing species. There are two main possible successional pathways, determined, most likely, by the long term changes in substrate pH under the influence of both abiotic and biotic factors. Two successional series were clearly distinguished: the weakly acidophilous series, comprising communities of Poo compresae-Tussilaginetum farfarae, Festuco rubrae-Agrostietum capillaris and Carpino-Fagetum, and respectively the acidophilous series, comprising plant assemblages of Deschampsietum flexuosae, Pinetum sylvestris sensu lato, Festuco rubrae-Genistetum sagittalis and Vaccinio-Callunetum vulgaris. The spontaneous succession progresses towards woodland and appears to be an ecologically suitable way of restoring the studied disturbed sites, because species typical of natural and semi-natural vegetation have become dominant over time. Within our study area, spontaneous vegetation succession resulted in plant assemblages that resemble the original semi-natural vegetation.

Keywords

Ecological ordination Habitat chronosequence Indicator species analysis Plant community classification Primary succession Successional pathways Topographic variables Vegetation series 

References

  1. Banásová VO, Hora M, Ciamporová M, Nadubinská M, Lichtscheidl I (2006) The vegetation of metalliferous and non-metalliferous grasslands in two former mine regions in Central Slovakia. Biologia 61:433–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bezdek JC (1981) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective functions. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradshaw AD (1983) The reconstruction of ecosystem. Presidential address to the British Ecological Society. J Appl Ecol 20:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw AD (1987) Restoration: the acid test for ecology. In: Jordan WR, Gilpin ME, Aber JD (eds) Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 23–29Google Scholar
  5. Cadenasso ML, Meiners SJ, Pickett STA (2009) The success of succession: a symposium commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Buell-Small Succession Study. Appl Veg Sci 12:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coldea G (1991) Prodrome des associations végétales des Carpates du sud-est (Carpates Roumaines). Doc Phytosociol 13:326–522Google Scholar
  7. Coldea G, Oprea A, Sârbu I, Sîrbu C, Ştefan N (eds) (2012) Les associations végétales de Roumanie. Les associations anthropogènes, 2. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-NapocaGoogle Scholar
  8. Connell JH, Slayter RO (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. Am Nat 111:1119–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cristea V, Hodişan I, Pop I, Bechiş E, Groza G, Gălan P (1990) Reconstrucţia ecologică a haldelor de steril minier. I. Dezvoltarea vegetaţiei spontane. Contrib Bot 30:33–37Google Scholar
  10. Cristea V, Gafta D, Pedrotti F (2004) Fitosociologie. Presa Universitară Clujeană, Cluj-NapocaGoogle Scholar
  11. De Cáceres M, Oliva F, Font X, Vives S (2007) Ginkgo, a program for non-standard multivariate fuzzy analysis. Adv Fuzzy Sets Syst 2:41–56Google Scholar
  12. De Cáceres M, Font X, Vicente P, Oliva F (2009) Numerical reproduction of traditional classifications and automated vegetation identification. J Veg Sci 20:620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Cáceres M, Font X, Oliva F (2010) The management of numerical vegetation classifications with fuzzy clustering methods. J Veg Sci 21:1138–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dufrêne M, Legendre P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366Google Scholar
  15. Duma S (2008) Impact of mining activity upon environment in Roşia Montană. Rom Rev Reg Stud 4:87–96Google Scholar
  16. ESRI (2009) ArcGIS 9.3.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghişa E, Pop I, Hodişan I, Ciurchea M (1960) Vegetaţia Muntelui Vulcan-Abrud. Studii şi Cercetări de Biologie (Cluj) 11(2):255–264Google Scholar
  18. Ghişa E, Resmeriţă I, Spârchez Z (1970) Contribuţii la studiul callunetelor din Munţii Apuseni. Contrib Bot 10:183–190Google Scholar
  19. Gómez-Aparicio L (2009) The role of plant interactions in the restoration of degraded ecosystems: a meta-analysis across life-forms and ecosystems. J Ecol 97:1202–1214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klironomos JN, McCune J, Hart M, Neville J (2000) The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on the relationship between plant diversity and productivity. Ecol Lett 3:137–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Legendre P, Legendre L (1998) Numerical ecology. Developments in environmental modelling, vol 20. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. Lockwood JL (1997) An alternative to succession: assembly rules offer guide to restoration efforts. Restor Manag Notes 15:45–50Google Scholar
  23. Marsili-Libelli S (1989) Fuzzy clustering of ecological data. Coenoses 4:95–106Google Scholar
  24. Martínez-Ruiz C, Fernández-Santos B, Putwain PD, Fernández-Gómez MJ (2007) Natural and man-induced revegetation on mining wastes: changes in the floristic composition during early succession. Ecol Eng 3:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meiners SJ, Pickett STA (2011) Succession. In: Simberloff D, Rejmanek M (eds) Encyclopedia of biological invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 651–657Google Scholar
  26. Mucina L (1997) Classification of vegetation: past, present and future. J Veg Sci 8:751–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2002) Ecosystem as a multidimensional concept: meaning, model and metaphor. Ecosystems 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML (2005) Vegetation succession. In: van der Maarel E (ed) Vegetation ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 172–198Google Scholar
  29. Pickett STA, McDonnell MJ (1989) Changing perspectives in community dynamics: a theory of successional forces. Trends Ecol Evol 4:241–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML, Meiners SJ (2009) Ever since Clements: from succession to vegetation dynamics and understanding to intervention. Appl Veg Sci 12:9–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pickett STA, Meiners SJ, Cadenasso ML (2011) Domain and propositions of succession theory. In: Scheiner SM, Willig MR (eds) The theory of ecology. University of Chicago Press, Berkeley, pp 185–216Google Scholar
  32. Podani J (2001) SYN-TAX 2000—Computer program for data analysis in ecology systematics. User’s manual. Scientia, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  33. Pop I (1970) Făgetele şi făgeto-molidetele de pe dealul Şturţ-Abrud (Jud. Alba). Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai (Biologia) 2:9–13Google Scholar
  34. Pop I (1976) Contribuţii la cunoaşterea vegetaţiei munceilor din împrejurimile Abrudului (jud. Alba). Contrib Bot 16:123–132Google Scholar
  35. Prach K (1987) Succession of vegetation on dumps from strip coal mining, northwest Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 22:339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prach K, Walker LR (2011) Four opportunities for studies of ecological succession. Trends Ecol Evol 26:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prach K, Pyšek P, Jarošík V (2007) Climate and pH as determinants of vegetation succession in Central European man-made habitats. J Veg Sci 18:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Prach K, Lencová K, Rehounková K, Dvoráková H, Jírová A, Konvalinková P, Mudrák O, Novák J, Trnková R (2013) Spontaneous vegetation succession at different central European mining sites: a comparison across seres. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:7680–7685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prach K, Řehounková K, Lencová K, Jírová A, Konvalinková P, Mudrák O, Študent V, Vaněček Z, Tichý L, Petřík P, Šmilauer P, Pyšek P (2014) Vegetation succession in restoration of disturbed sites in Central Europe: the direction of succession and species richness across 19 seres. Appl Veg Sci 17:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Punz W, Mucina L (1997) Vegetation on anthropogenic metalliferous soils in the eastern Alps. Folia Geobotanica et Phytotaxonomica 32:283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. RBGE (2011) Flora Europaea database—PANDORA taxonomic database system of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. http://rbgweb2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html
  42. Rola K, Osyczka P (2014) Cryptogamic community structure as a bioindicator of soil condition along a pollution gradient. Environ Monit Assess 18:5897–5910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rola K, Osyczka P, Nobis M, Drozd P (2015) How do soil factors determine vegetation structure and species richness in post-smelting dumps? Ecol Eng 75:332–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roman A (2013) Vegetation structure and dynamics from former silver-gold mining sites from Roşia Montană (Alba County). PhD Thesis, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-NapocaGoogle Scholar
  45. Roman A, Cristea V (2012) Spontaneous vegetation development on mining waste dumps from Roşia Montană (România). Stud Biol UBB 57(1):15–20Google Scholar
  46. Roman A, Gafta D (2013) Proximity to successionally advanced vegetation patches can make all the difference to plant community assembly. Plant Ecol Divers 6(2):269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Roman A, Gafta D, Cristea V, Mihuţ S (2009) Small-scale structure change in plant assamblages on abandoned gold mining dumps (Roşia Montană, România). Contrib Bot 44:83–91Google Scholar
  48. Sanda V (2002) Vademecum ceno-structural privind covorul vegetal din România. Editura Vergiliu, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  49. Sänger H (1995) Flora and vegetation on dumps of uranium mining in the southern part of the former GDR. Acta Soc Bot Pol 64:409–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sänger H, Jetschke G (2004) Are assembly rules apparent in the regeneration of a former uranium mining site? In: Temperton VM, Hobbs RJ, Nuttle T, Halle S (eds) Assembly rules and restauration ecology—Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Island, Washington, pp 305–324Google Scholar
  51. Sântimbrean A (2012) Roşia Montană deposit and its associated mineral substances. In: Pompei C (ed) Roşia Montană in Universal History. Cluj University Press, Cluj-Napoca, pp 18–23Google Scholar
  52. SAS Institute (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s guide. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  53. Skubała K (2011) Vascular flora of sites contaminated with heavy metals on the example of two post-industrial spoil heaps connected with manufacturing of zinc and lead products in Upper Silesia. Arch Environ Prot 37:55–74Google Scholar
  54. Tămaş C (2002) Structuri de breccia pipe asociate unor zăcăminte hidrotermale din România. PhD Thesis, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-NapocaGoogle Scholar
  55. Tichý L, Chytrý M, Šmarda P (2011) Evaluating the stability of the classification of community data. Ecography 34:807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van der Heijden MGA, Horton TR (2009) Socialism in soil? The importance of mycorrhizal fungal networks for facilitation in natural ecosystems. J Ecol 97:1139–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van der Heijden MGA, Klironomos JN, Ursic M, Moutoglis P, Streitwolf-Engel R, Boller T (1998) Mycorrhizal fungal diversity determines plant biodiversity, ecosystem variability and productivity. Nature 396:72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walker LR, del Moral R (2009) Lessons from primary succession for restoration of severely damaged habitats. Appl Veg Sci 12:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walker LR, Walker J, Hobbs R (2007) Linking restoration and ecological succession. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker LR, Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Clarkson BD (2010) The use of chronosequences in studies of ecological succession and soil development. J Ecol 98:725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiegleb G, Felinks B (2001) Predictability of early stages of primary succession in post-mining landscapes of lower Lusatia. Appl Veg Sci 4:5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anamaria Roman
    • 1
  • Dan Gafta
    • 2
  • Tudor-Mihai Ursu
    • 1
  • Vasile Cristea
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Biological Research, National Institute of Research and Development for Biological SciencesCluj-NapocaRomania
  2. 2.Department of Taxonomy and EcologyBabeș-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations