Monitoring Geomorphic and Traditional Post-Mine Reclamation using Digital Imagery: Vegetative Heterogeneity and Sampling Efficiency |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Plant Physiologist, Northwest Watershed Research Center, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Boise, ID 83712, USA;2. Ecologist, Range and Meadow Forage Management Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Burns, OR 97720, USA;3. Center Director, Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center, University of California, Browns Valley, CA 95918, USA;4. Biological Sciences Technician, National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA;5. Research Geneticist, National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA;6. Supervisory Plant Physiologist, National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA;7. Rangeland Scientist, Range and Meadow Forage Management Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Burns, OR 97720, USA;8. Rangeland Management Specialist, Rangeland and Pasture Research Station, USDA-ARS, Woodward, OK 73801, USA;9. Research Hydraulic Engineer, Northwest Watershed Research Center, USDA-ARS, Boise, ID 83712, USA;1. University of Alberta, Augustana Campus, 4901 46 Ave., Camrose, AB T4V 2R3, Canada;2. InnoTech Alberta Inc. Edmonton, AB, T6N 1E4, Canada;3. Canadian Forest Service, Edmonton, AB, T6H 3S5, Canada;4. Enviro Q&A Services, Edmonton, AB, T6K 0S1, Canada;5. Teck Resources Ltd., 421 Pine Ave., Sparwood, BC, V0B 2G0, Canada;6. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, AB, Canada;7. Alberta Environment and Parks, Environmental Monitoring & Science Division, Edmonton, AB, T5J 5C6, Canada;8. Eco-Logical Consulting Ltd., Gibbons, Alberta, T0A 1N0, Canada;1. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft 2600 GA, the Netherlands;2. Baggermaatschappij Boskalis BV, Papendrecht 3350 AE, the Netherlands;3. College of Harbor, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China;4. Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences (GELIFES), University of Groningen, Groningen 9700 CC, the Netherlands;5. Department of Coastal Systems, NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research and Utrecht University, Den Burg 1790 AB, the Netherlands;6. Unit of Marine and Coastal Systems, Deltares, Delft 2600 MH, the Netherlands;1. Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Ceará, Fortaleza, Brazil;2. University of Valladolid, Campus La Yutera, Palencia, Spain;3. Federal University of Ceará, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Campus do Pici, Bloco 804, 60.450-760, Fortaleza, Brazil |
| |
| Abstract: | Geomorphic reclamation creates variable topography and surface architecture, including rolling hillslopes and drainages. In contrast, traditional methods of reclamation result in landscapes susceptible to erosion due to steep, linear gradients. Geomorphic approaches to surface mine reclamation are relatively new, and hypotheses suggest the use of geomorphic principles in reclamation will improve vegetation outcomes relative to traditional methods. Topographic variability created by geomorphic reclamation likely results in more environmental heterogeneity, which should correlate with greater plant diversity. We examined revegetation outcomes of traditional and geomorphic reclamation on two reclaimed surface mines in Wyoming using nadir image sampling. Functional group diversity and measures of cover were compared between reclamation methods and undisturbed rangeland. Geomorphic reclamation supported greater total richness and greater native functional group richness relative to traditional reclamation. Native species cover on geomorphic reclamation, particularly for native perennial grasses, was either similar to undisturbed rangeland or greater than undisturbed rangeland and traditional reclamation. Reclamation shrub cover differed significantly from undisturbed sites, but was greater in geomorphic treatments. Results of nadir image analysis are compared to line-point intercept data from the same locations and outcomes are discussed in light of different reclamation techniques and sampling methods. Significant differences in cover categories were observed between nadir image and line-point intercept methods, however both methods revealed similar patterns between study sites. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
