CONSERVING OF THE RESOURCES
Assessment of vegetation establishment on different tailings depot at an iron ore-mining site of Gol-e-Gohar, Sirjan, Iran, three years after depot
- 1 International Desert Research Center, University of Tehran, Iran
- 2 Gol- e- Gohar Mining and Industrial Company, Sirjan, Iran
Nowadays, the ecological restoration of mining tailings has become one of the urgent tasks for mine managers and environmental engineers all over the world. The present paper aims to highlight how the reaction of different iron ore tailin gs to the natural revegetation process. For this purpose, three tailing forms were selected in Gol-e- Gohar mining region, Sirjan city, Kerman province, Iran. These types of mineral tailing are dry tailings depots, wet tailings, and overburden and three years passed after their depot . These three Iron ore tailing forms are the main elements of iron exploitation. For vegetation assessment, using 2m2 plots in each different tailing depot, plant species were recorded. All plant data was transferred to R software. Finally, 45 plant species belong to 18 genera were recorded in the adjacent un-mine site as a control area. To evaluate the diversity of vegetation composition, the Shannon – Wiener index was performed and plant diversity was obtained for each tailing. According to the results, the Overburden vegetation with an index of 1.49 has the highest diversity after the control area (1.95) and supports a larger number of plant species (21 species). Wet tailings and un-stabilized dry tailings have the least plant diversity (0.00), while mulch-stabilized dry tailings support a larger number of plant species (Four species and 0.96 Shannon index). The results show that to restore the vegetation of different tailings, local raw materials and overburden should be u sed due to their nutrients and strong seed bank.
- M. Buta, G. Blaga, L. Paulette, I. Păcurar, S. Roșca, O. Borsai, C. Negruș ier, Sustainability, 11, 3393 (2019).
- V. Sheoran, A. S. Sheoran, P. Poonia, Int J Soil Sediment Water, 3, 13 (2010).
- N. K. Kundu, M. K. Ghose, J. soil water conserv. India 25(1), 28 (1997).
- M. I. Lone, Z. L. He, P. J. Stoffella, X. E. Yang, J Zhejiang Univ Sci B, 9, 210 (2008).
- V. N. Kavamura, E. Esposito, Biotechnol Adv, 28, 61 (2010).
- D. Yan, F. Zhao, O. J. Sun, Environ Manage, 52, 748 (2013).
- J. S. Adiansyah, M. Rosano, S. Vink, G. Keir, J. Clean. Prod., 108, 1050 (2015).
- M. R. Moghaddam, Rangeland. Uni of Tehran Pub, 482 (2012).
- A. P. Marques, H. Moreira, A. R. Franco, A. O. Rangel, P. M. Chemosphere, 92, 74 (2013).
- A. Bradshaw, Ecol. Eng., 8, 255 (1997).
- W. Sun, B. Ji, S. A. Khoso, H. Tang, R. Liu, L. Wang, Y. Hu, Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 25, 33911 (2018).
- P. D. Putwain, D. A. Gillham, Biol. Conserv, 52, 1 (1990).
- P. M. Holmes, Restor. Ecol., 9, 71 (2001).
- B. L. Foster, C. A. Murphy, K. R. Keller, T. A. Aschenbach, E. J. Questad, K. Kindscher, Restor. Ecol., 15, 652 (2007).
- P. García‐ Palacios, F. T., Maestre, A. Gallardo, J. Ecol., 99(2), 551-562. (2011).