Journal of Resources and Ecology >
The Effect of Improving Slag Vegetative Substrate at the Dump of Open-pit Coal Mine in Rujigou, Ningxia, China
YANG Xinrui, E-mail: yangxinrui_1999@163.com |
Received date: 2022-08-20
Accepted date: 2023-01-30
Online published: 2023-07-14
Supported by
Key Research and Development Program of China(2017YFC0504406)
The Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region(2018BFG02002)
While promoting economic and social development of China, open-pit coal mining will also cause irreversible harm to the surrounding environment due to disturbing the topsoil. Therefore, ecological restoration measures are urgently required. Vegetation cover is an important part of mine ecological restoration work. Suitable soil structure and nutrient conditions are the basis of normal plant growth and development. In this study, the slag, sand, humic acid, diammonium phosphate (DAP) and urea were selected as the improved materials to adjust the structure and fertility of the slag and improve the slag into a suitable vegetative substrate for plant growth. From among various configurations of the vegetative substrate, the most suitable substrate for plant growth was filtered by comparing the physical and chemical properties and their effects on Alfalfa growth under different treatments. The results showed that the application of fertilizers could increase the nutrient content of the vegetative substrate and increase the pH, but the growth of Alfalfa was not optimal under the high fertilization treatment. The addition of sand could mitigate the structural problems of slag, and sand also showed a certain degree of regulation on fertility. Moreover, the addition of appropriate amounts of humic acid can enhance slag maturation and stabilize the chemical properties of the vegetative substrate. According to the results, the most optimal slag-sand-humic acid ratio for the vegetative substrate of the dump site of the Dafeng Open-pit Coal Mine is 18:1:1. The findings are expected to offer a reference for the improvement method of slag in this area, which alleviates the shortage of soil resources. It provides support for ecological environmental protection in soil source area, and also offers a new idea for the resource utilization of slag in the ecological restoration.
Key words: open-pit coal mine; optimal ratio; pot experiment
YANG Xinrui , SHI Changqing , ZHAO Tingning , HU Yang , ZHANG Junjiao . The Effect of Improving Slag Vegetative Substrate at the Dump of Open-pit Coal Mine in Rujigou, Ningxia, China[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2023 , 14(4) : 775 -783 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2023.04.010
Fig. 1 Location and topographic of the study area |
Table 1 Ratio of vegetative substrates |
Vegetative substrate | Slag (%) | Sand (%) | Peat humic acid (%) |
---|---|---|---|
S1 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
S2 | 95 | 0 | 5 |
S3 | 90 | 5 | 5 |
S4 | 85 | 10 | 5 |
S5 | 80 | 15 | 5 |
S6 | 75 | 20 | 5 |
S7 | 70 | 25 | 5 |
S8 | 65 | 30 | 5 |
S9 | 60 | 35 | 5 |
Table 2 Fertilization level of vegetative substrates |
Fertilization level | Diammonium (g kg‒1) | Urea (g kg‒1) |
---|---|---|
No fertilization | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Low fertilization | 0.01 | 0.41 |
Medium fertilization | 0.02 | 1.24 |
High fertilization | 0.06 | 2.35 |
Table 3 Experimental treatments |
Treatments | Vegetative substrate | Fertilization level | Treatments | Vegetative substrate | Fertilization level |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | S1 | No fertilization | 19 | S5 | Medium fertilization |
2 | S1 | Low fertilization | 20 | S5 | High fertilization |
3 | S1 | Medium fertilization | 21 | S6 | No fertilization |
4 | S1 | High fertilization | 22 | S6 | Low fertilization |
5 | S2 | No fertilization | 23 | S6 | Medium fertilization |
6 | S2 | Low fertilization | 24 | S6 | High fertilization |
7 | S2 | Medium fertilization | 25 | S7 | No fertilization |
8 | S2 | High fertilization | 26 | S7 | Low fertilization |
9 | S3 | No fertilization | 27 | S7 | Medium fertilization |
10 | S3 | Low fertilization | 28 | S7 | High fertilization |
11 | S3 | Medium fertilization | 29 | S8 | No fertilization |
12 | S3 | High fertilization | 30 | S8 | Low fertilization |
13 | S4 | No fertilization | 31 | S8 | Medium fertilization |
14 | S4 | Low fertilization | 32 | S8 | High fertilization |
15 | S4 | Medium fertilization | 33 | S9 | No fertilization |
16 | S4 | High fertilization | 34 | S9 | Low fertilization |
17 | S5 | No fertilization | 35 | S9 | Medium fertilization |
18 | S5 | Low fertilization | 36 | S9 | High fertilization |
Fig. 2 Physical and chemical properties of vegetative substrates at different fertility levelsNote: “No” means no fertilization; “Low” means low fertilization; “Medium” means medium fertilization; “High” means high fertilization. |
Fig. 3 Physicochemical properties of different vegetative substrates |
Table 4 Component load and weight of principal component analysis |
Indicator | PC1 component load | Index weight | Initial eigenvalues | Cumulative variance explained rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|
TB | 0.736 | 0.491 | 2.251 | 56.283 |
RSR | 0.732 | 0.488 | ||
SH | 0.829 | 0.553 | ||
ROE | 0.697 | 0.464 |
Table 5 Comprehensive score of the effect of vegetative substrate on Alfalfa growth |
Vegetative substrate | Score | Rank | Vegetative substrate | Score | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 no fertilization | ‒0.094 | 23 | S1 medium fertilization | 0.184 | 18 |
S2 no fertilization | 0.858 | 7 | S2 medium fertilization | 0.625 | 11 |
S3 no fertilization | 1.096 | 2 | S3 medium fertilization | 0.921 | 5 |
S4 no fertilization | ‒0.013 | 21 | S4 medium fertilization | ‒0.236 | 25 |
S5 no fertilization | 0.834 | 8 | S5 medium fertilization | ‒0.220 | 24 |
S6 no fertilization | 0.032 | 20 | S6 medium fertilization | 0.542 | 12 |
S7 no fertilization | ‒0.093 | 22 | S7 medium fertilization | ‒0.630 | 28 |
S8 no fertilization | 0.129 | 19 | S8 medium fertilization | ‒0.862 | 31 |
S9 no fertilization | ‒0.618 | 27 | S9 medium fertilization | ‒0.699 | 29 |
S1 low fertilization | 0.899 | 6 | S1 high fertilization | 0.222 | 16 |
S2 low fertilization | 1.037 | 4 | S2 high fertilization | 0.186 | 17 |
S3 low fertilization | 1.049 | 3 | S3 high fertilization | ‒0.906 | 32 |
S4 low fertilization | 0.225 | 15 | S4 high fertilization | ‒0.971 | 33 |
S5 low fertilization | 0.688 | 10 | S5 high fertilization | ‒0.859 | 30 |
S6 low fertilization | 0.446 | 13 | S6 high fertilization | ‒0.585 | 26 |
S7 low fertilization | 0.829 | 9 | S7 high fertilization | ‒1.569 | 34 |
S8 low fertilization | 1.105 | 1 | S8 high fertilization | ‒1.761 | 35 |
S9 low fertilization | 0.309 | 14 | S9 high fertilization | ‒2.101 | 36 |
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |