Next Article in Journal
Modelling and Predicting Self-Compacting High Early Age Strength Mortars Properties: Comparison of Response Models from Full, Fractioned and Small Central Composite Designs
Next Article in Special Issue
Soil Quality in Rehabilitated Coal Mining Areas
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Two Self-Fitting User Interfaces for Bimodal CI-Recipients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/app13148412
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Trends of Global Scientific Research on Reclaimed Coal Mine Sites between 2015 and 2020

by
Marko Spasić
,
Ondřej Drábek
,
Luboš Borůvka
and
Václav Tejnecký
*
Department of Soil Science and Soil Protection, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(14), 8412; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148412
Submission received: 9 June 2023 / Revised: 12 July 2023 / Accepted: 18 July 2023 / Published: 20 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Soil Rehabilitation Due to Land Uses)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Open-cast coal mining is one of the most often-debated industries in the world. Due to the significant environmental and health issues it causes, many of these sites have been reclaimed over the years, and many scientific publications and research has followed. In this paper, we have tried to assess the trends in recent research performed on reclaimed coal mining sites (RMS) by analyzing the publications visible on Web of Science (WoS) between 2015 and 2020 and dividing the research into six categories. The results show that there is a trend of rapid increase in research that deals with carbon and its pooling, nutrients, vegetation, and microbiology, and a significant decline in research on RMS soil physical properties, whereas other categories have shown an increasing but relatively steady trend. The application of modern technologies is also discussed. China, the USA, and India are the countries that quantitatively take the lead in coal RMS research, with India slowly overtaking the US in more recent years.

1. Introduction

Coal mining sites present a serious issue for modern society. Open-cast coal mining significantly changes the landscape and utterly destroys soil functions, making these vast sites practically desolate, thus positioning itself as probably the most disputed industry in the world [1,2,3,4]. Besides disturbing the landscape and soil, it also impacts the integrity of the habitat, environmental flows, and ecosystem functions, as well as water and air quality, thus often leading to human health problems [5].
Many countries have developed legislation about the ways that these sites need to be treated after the excavation process is done [3,6,7,8], and our knowledge expands every year with various research results that we obtain from these localities. Despite the fact that they have been more precisely defined in recent years, the so-called R4 terms (reclamation, rehabilitation, restoration, and remediation) are still a source of confusion for many [5,9]. Many researches have shown that technical reclamation, an approach widely used in the 20th century, might have its flaws, and there are other, in many cases, more feasible and efficient solutions, such as natural succession [8,10]. Technical reclamation is still the most common approach used on post-mining sites, and it is even a mandatory practice in some areas, due to many countries’ legislation [9]. The full effects of the reclamation process can be visible only after some time has passed, usually ranging from several decades to the scale of centuries. As stated by Karan et al. [11], continuous monitoring of reclamation sites should be given emphasis in order to devise a feasible and effective policy for degraded land reclamation and restoration.
In order to observe the research trends on coal mining sites, for the purpose of this research it was decided to split the research into different categories. Although it could roughly be said that research on coal reclaimed mine sites (RMS) is most usually of a physical, chemical, or biological nature, recent technological achievements such as satellite imagery, remote sensing, the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), GIS, modelling, and various new theories and equipment which require calibration or testing often demand a section of their own [1,12]. Review papers, as well as the implementation of new technologies with data and measurements from older research, can be considered a separate, although not less important, category, since they often provide more comprehensive information and interconnect various scientific branches. Keeping in mind that soil organic matter (SOM) is one of the segments that is most drastically impacted by open-cast coal mining, and its physical, chemical, and biological properties and functions are deeply interrelated, as well as the fact that it is an unavoidable and very abundant component of much modern soil RMS research, a section of its own is called for. Soil organic carbon (SOC) research, as well as the capability of certain soils to sequester it, is becoming more and more abundant in recent years [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Since nutrients, most commonly nitrogen, are often investigated together with soil carbon, sometimes it is difficult to divide these as well. Being interested mainly in the direction that research on coal reclamation sites is going towards, the main purpose of this paper is not to compare the effectiveness of one restoration strategy or method over the other, distinguish between the terminology issues mentioned, or compare the vegetation species, age, or effectiveness, but only to point out the general trends and abundance of certain research categories over others. This paper does not provide comprehensive statistical and/or bibliometric analysis, but merely aims to reflect the trends of research performed on these sites over a specified time period, in publications visible in the Web of Science (WoS) online library.

2. Materials and Methods

The materials used were scientific publications from the Web of Science (WoS) website. In order to obtain as many publications related to coal reclamation sites as possible, the input query words were “coal AND soil AND reclama* OR reclaim*.” The search filter was set to “topic,” and the time span was 2015–2020. This search included journal articles and conference proceedings that appeared in the search up until 30 March 2020.
Having in mind current research activities on coal reclamation sites, they were split into 6 categories:
  • C, N, and SOM;
  • Physical;
  • Biological;
  • Chemical;
  • Technology;
  • Review and Metadata.
Each publication from the search query was analyzed, and accredited with one point in total. If the research was precisely focused on only one of the categories, that category received a full 1 point. If the research was split between two categories, each of the categories received 0.5 points if they were equally distributed throughout the research, or an uneven fraction of the point if they were not. Thus, several categories could have equally or unequally distributed points, but the sum of all fractions of all 6 categories for each single publication had to be one.
The category C, N, and SOM comprises all the research that deals with soil organic matter, soil carbon (both organic and inorganic), and macronutrients, mainly nitrogen. If the topic of the research deals with nutrients in greater detail, it can be commonly interrelated with the Chemical section. The Physical category encompasses soil physical and hydrological research, including bulk density, soil structure, soil texture, porosity, water retention and transport, compaction, etc. The Biological category deals with topics of soil micro- and macro-fauna and its activities, as well as vegetation and its establishment. The Chemical category is related to mine soil’s chemical characteristics and its changes, acidification, element toxicity, etc. The category Technology has been introduced in order to fill the gap for the research that is related to the introduction and use of new technologies, models, statistical methods, and equipment, and their research, development, calibration, etc. The Review and Metadata category deals with reviews, state-of-the-art papers, and processing metadata.
The results with distributed category points are presented in a tabular form, together with references and the country a particular study originates from, as well as in the form of graphs showing the trends in the observed period.

3. Results

The Web of Science search engine, searching before the date of 30 March 2020, has given 153 search results for the parameters given in the query. Out of those, eight publications needed to be removed from the analysis for not complying with the topic (different type of mining, oriented solely to mining engineering, its process and techniques, etc.), for being an administrative mistake such as multiple appearances of the same publication, or, in two cases, for being a reprint of an older publication.
The list of publications processed, with the points accredited to them, as well as research locations (countries of origin), can be seen in Table 1:
After processing the results and excluding the six publications from 2020, which had yet to yield their other publications, it is noticeable that, for this topic and these search results, 2018 was the year with the largest number of publications (32) visible on the WoS website, followed by 2017 (30) and 2019 (28). The year 2015 had a slightly lesser number of visible publications (26), with 2016 being at the list’s rear with 23 (Table 2).
The Biological category gained the largest number of overall points, 34.14, closely followed by the C, N, and SOM category, with 34.04, Chemical with 30.78., Physical with 24.31 points, followed by Technology with 11.08, and Review & Metadata with 4.66. The results of the individual and summary values for all categories over the years are presented in Table 2.
The overall share and distribution of points over the years for the six mentioned categories are presented in Figure 1. After the observation of this distribution, as well as each category’s respective linear trend lines (not shown), it can be said that there is noticeable growth in categories Biological and C, N, and SOM (which also obtained the greatest number of overall points). The categories Chemical, Technology, and Review and Metadata have shown some, but not as significant, growth, whereas the category Physical has shown a drastic decline during these five years.
The research encompassed in these publications came from 14 different countries all across the globe, with the greatest number of publications originating from China, the USA, and India, with 39, 21, and 16% shares of the total number of publications, respectively. These values are presented in Table 3.
Another visible trend is the increase in the overall number of publications coming from China and India in more recent years compared to those coming from the USA. The USA was equal to China in 2015 in its number of publications, and was leading in 2016. Since then, in the last three years, it has shown a significant decline, whereas India’s values caught up with it, and China’s, in some cases, more than doubled.

4. Discussion

Ever since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was held in 1988, the sequestration of carbon in terrestrial and non-terrestrial ecosystems has been one of the strategies for mitigating the negative effects of climate change, and has been recognized as an effective and viable method for the reduction of greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol [156]. Since then, many projects have been developed to fund research and strategies related to carbon sequestration.
Reclaimed mine lands offer significant potential for carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems, according to some sources, up to the rate of one ton per hectare per year [157,158]. If the reclaimed land is converted to forests, it is stated that these values can reach up to roughly 2.5 tons per hectare per year, due to the ability of forests to store more carbon in their vegetative parts compared to other land use types, although the soil carbon levels among them can be similar [158]. Since organic carbon and organic matter levels on coal mining spoil heaps are usually severely depleted, these sites present big natural laboratories for monitoring the changes in carbon levels. It was also noticed that reclamation sites have shown great potential as soil organic carbon sinks [159,160] and that the pre-mining levels of soil organic carbon can be achieved after only 20 years [161]. These are some of the reasons that explain the results of the C, N, and SOM category and its trends.
Keeping in mind the fact that China, the USA, and India combined, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy [162], accounted for more than two thirds of the global increase in energy demand in 2018, and that, along with the Russian Federation and Australia, have the greatest coal reserves in the world, it is no wonder that these three countries have had such a share of research performed on reclaimed mine sites.
Around the world, RMS research topics can vary due to many reasons, depending not only on current scientific interests, but also, on a broader scale, on geographical, geological, socio-economic, financial, cultural, and other factors. In some European countries and the USA, for example, where some reclamation sites and strategies are close to a century old, the tendencies are to further improve and research the good techniques used, and suppress the ones that might, in the long run, cause certain risks. A good example of this would be the decline in choosing non-native afforestation species, like black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) or red oak (Quercus rubra) in many developed European countries [9,10,163], due to their potential invasiveness, and despite their many benefits (in case of R. pseudoacacia, anti-erosion potential, nitrogen fixation, honey production, tolerance to various environmental factors, etc.), whereas, in many Asian, and even some developing European countries, it is still a common practice due to their mentioned benefits, low mortality rate, and, above all, low cost. The same applies for creating monoculture forest stands instead of mixed forests on RMS. On the other hand, in certain areas, where it is difficult to establish vegetation for various reasons (e.g., parent or overburden material which can be eco-toxic, compacted, or overly clayey, severe climatic conditions or erosion, the presence of water, etc.), this can direct the way that measures are taken and the course of action and subsequent research practices that are prioritized. The creation of younger RMS, especially in developing countries where the energy demand is great and funds for post-mining reclamation/restoration are scarce, can be limited due to these reasons.
The declining trends in research on soil’s physical and hydrological properties in more recent years can be, among other things, explained by the recent tendencies of trying to make a change from technical reclamation practices to ecological restoration [5,9,164]. During the second half of 20th century, when technical reclamation was most widely used, some of the main goals of this approach were to create a stable landscape and support establishing vegetation. Thus, geotechnical, mining, and forestry engineering methods and research were more common. Nowadays, with tendencies towards ecological restoration, a vast number of developing sub-sciences from the field of ecology is involved, gathering scientists from many different branches and making the field much broader than before.
A potential problem when trying to assess research performed on coal mine sites can be defining the key words to use in the search, since sometimes the results encompass some other types of mining activity. Also, defining the R4 (reclamation, rehabilitation, restoration, and remediation) term that you want to use is a problem of greater significance, dating more than a few decades back, and is still an ever-present issue, as explained in a paper by Lima and associates [5,9]. In the mentioned paper, the definitions of each of the R4 terms are updated and more clearly given. This problem was more recently also explained by Gerwing et al. [164], where a new term, “ecological reclamation”, was also introduced, and some other SER (Society for Ecological Restoration) standards and recommendations were also discussed. In everyday practice, these terms are still often considered as synonyms for each other, thus making precisely defined searches more difficult.
New advances in technology are not easy to assess and compare amongst one another, since, due to rapid information exchange, it often happens that a piece of equipment or a method that was experimentally used at some point becomes a standard or even a requisite in a very short period of time, especially if it proves to be a more feasible solution. Thus, it can be very demanding to decide what one might consider a “new” or “modern” solution, and what has already shown good results and is being widely used in practice, although it might still be considered new.
Another potential problem worth addressing is the delay of certain publications in their appearing in scientific databases on the internet, which can sometimes take months [165]. This was noticed during our research as well, where, as days passed, the number of search results with the same input parameters became greater, mostly due to a number of publications from 2019 appearing as late as the end of March 2020, when we stopped further revisions of the results. Thus, it can be stated that the number of publications, especially in later years such as 2019, is not yet certain, and will probably increase as time passes, providing us with yet more information. Some authors mentioned that one “should be cautious when using engines like WoS and Scopus as a measuring device for changes in research performance from an international perspective” [166]. Since the time data for this review were obtained, a change in the WoS database search algorithm occurred, and prohibited us from updating it with more recent information in early 2023. The input query words used before now give a much broader list of publications, most of which are completely off-topic, compared to the very narrow-focused results we obtained in 2020. When modified slightly and still using similar keywords (coal, soil, recla*), some of the most recent publications from 2023 visible in the WoS database related to the matter mainly originate from China [167,168,169,170,171,172,173], India [174,175,176], and Poland [177,178,179,180], with research coming from China definitely being the most abundant.
However, having in mind the presented trends from the processed period, the number of papers processed, and the most recently published publications visible in the WoS database, the expectations are not in favour of very significant trend changes, although the number and the research area might still vary slightly.

5. Conclusions

Although research on coal reclaimed sites can be very complex and comprehensive, thus inducing complications in the assessment process, and each research branch can have its own issues that can be addressed, the results have shown that much research has been performed in the five-year period between 2015 and 2019 on these localities, which provides us with much needed information on the direction in which certain reclamation/restoration strategies are heading and the results being or not being achieved. The vast majority of publications come from China, the USA, and India, which is understandable due to the fact that these countries have shown the greatest energy demands lately, and have vast coal reserves. It is presumed that, as time passes, China and India will, slowly or rapidly, take the lead in these research activities. New technological achievements are being incorporated into these activities, making them less expensive and more efficient. Research activities which dealt with the analysis of soil carbon, nitrogen, and organic matter have shown a significant increase in recent years, as well as those related to vegetation and micro- and macro-fauna. Research on reclaimed mine soil’s chemical properties has shown a somewhat lesser but steady increase. Review papers and publications that deal with the processing of metadata were not as abundant in numbers visible on the Web of Science search engine, so their trends are not easily assessed. Research on reclaimed mine soil’s physical properties has shown a decline in publishing. However, this paper’s goal was only to assess the general trends in reclamation site research, and the overall direction it is going in. A greater time span would probably provide us with more comprehensive information for most of the categories processed here, but the trend of a rapid increase in research that deals with carbon and its pooling, nutrients, vegetation, and microbiology is visible even in a period as short as five years.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S., O.D. and L.B.; methodology, M.S., O.D. and L.B.; investigation, M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, V.T., O.D. and L.B.; visualization, M.S.; supervision, O.D. and L.B.; project administration, L.B.; funding acquisition, L.B. and V.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by “Centre for the investigation of synthesis and transformation of nutritional substances in the food chain in interaction with potentially harmful substances of anthropogenic origin: comprehensive assessment of soil contamination risks for the quality of agricultural products” of the European Structural and Investment Funds Operational Programme Research, Development and Education of the European Union and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, reg. No. CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000845 and Czech University of Life Sciences Prague Internal project No. SV23-2-21130.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Kateřina Vejvodová, for her valuable advice, comments and English corrections (native English speaker). All individuals included in this section have consented to the acknowledgements.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hendrychová, M.; Kabrna, M. An analysis of 200-year-long changes in a landscape affected by large-scale surface coal mining: History, present and future. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 151–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hilson, G. An overview of land use conflicts in mining communities. Land Use Policy 2002, 19, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kuter, N. Reclamation of Degraded Landscapes due to Opencast Mining. In Advances in Landscape Architecture; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Svobodova, K.; Yellishetty, M.; Vojar, J. Coal mining in Australia: Understanding stakeholder knowledge of mining and mine rehabilitation. Energy Policy 2019, 126, 421–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lima, A.T.; Mitchell, K.; O’connell, D.W.; Verhoeven, J.; Van Cappellen, P. The legacy of surface mining: Remediation, restoration, reclamation and rehabilitation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 66, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bell, L. Establishment of native ecosystems after mining—Australian experience across diverse biogeographic zones. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 17, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bradshaw, A.; Hüttl, R. Future minesite restoration involves a broader approach. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 17, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tropek, R.; Kadlec, T.; Hejda, M.; Kocarek, P.; Skuhrovec, J.; Malenovsky, I.; Vodka, S.; Spitzer, L.; Banar, P.; Konvicka, M. Technical reclamations are wasting the conservation potential of post-mining sites. A case study of black coal spoil dumps. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Spasić, M.; Borůvka, L.; Vacek, O.; Drábek, O.; Tejnecký, V. Pedogenesis problems on reclaimed coal mining sites. Soil Water Res. 2021, 16, 137–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rehounkova, K.; Rehounek, J.; Prach, K. Near-Natural Restoration vs. Technical Reclamation of Mining Sites in the Czech Republic; University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice: České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  11. Karan, S.K.; Samadder, S.R.; Maiti, S.K. Assessment of the capability of remote sensing and GIS techniques for monitoring reclamation success in coal mine degraded lands. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 182, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Johansen, K.; Erskine, P.D.; McCabe, M.F. Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to assess the rehabilitation performance of open cut coal mines. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 209, 819–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K.; Reddy, M.S. Development of carbon, nitrogen and phosphate stocks of reclaimed coal mine soil within 8 years after forestation with Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) Dc. Catena 2017, 156, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K. Assessment of soil carbon pool, carbon sequestration and soil CO2 flux in unreclaimed and reclaimed coal mine spoils. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Detheridge, A.; Hosking, L.; Thomas, H.; Sarhosis, V.; Gwynn-Jones, D.; Scullion, J. Deep seam and minesoil carbon sequestration potential of the South Wales Coalfield, UK. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 248, 109325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Li, J.; Li, H.; Zhang, Q.; Shao, H.; Gao, C.; Zhang, X. Effects of fertilization and straw return methods on the soil carbon pool and CO2 emission in a reclaimed mine spoil in Shanxi Province, China. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 195, 104361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, W.; Li, X.; Niu, B. Prediction of soil organic carbon in a coal mining area by Vis-NIR spectroscopy. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Yang, B.; Bai, Z.; Cao, Y.; Xie, F.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y. Dynamic changes in carbon sequestration from opencast mining activities and land reclamation in China’s loess Plateau. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Bai, Z. Characteristics of labile organic carbon fractions in reclaimed mine soils: Evidence from three reclaimed forests in the Pingshuo opencast coal mine, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 613–614, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, M.; Zhang, Y. Quality evaluation of the carbon pool of reclaimed soil based on principal component analysis. FRESENIUS Environ. Bull. 2019, 28, 1485–1493. Available online: https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&qid=1&SID=C4qMBRTGgYOtL8HDkpd&page=1&doc=38&cacheurlFromRightClick=no (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  21. Guan, Y.; Zhou, W.; Bai, Z.; Cao, Y.; Huang, Y.; Huang, H. Soil nutrient variations among different land use types after reclamation in the Pingshuo opencast coal mine on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena 2020, 188, 104427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Feng, Y.; Wang, J.; Bai, Z.; Reading, L.; Jing, Z. Three-dimensional quantification of macropore networks of different compacted soils from opencast coal mine area using X-ray computed tomography. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 198, 104567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ezeokoli, O.T.; Mashigo, S.K.; Maboeta, M.S.; Bezuidenhout, C.C.; Khasa, D.P.; Adeleke, R.A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community differentiation along a post-coal mining reclamation chronosequence in South Africa: A potential indicator of ecosystem recovery. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yan, M.; Cui, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Ren, H.; Li, Z. Vegetation type and plant diversity affected soil carbon accumulation in a postmining area in Shanxi Province, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2019, 31, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. López-Marcos, D.; Turrión, M.B.; Martínez-Ruiz, C. Linking soil variability with plant community composition along a mine-slope topographic gradient: Implications for restoration. Ambio 2020, 49, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Block, P.R.; Gasch, C.K.; Limb, R.F. Biological integrity of mixed-grass prairie topsoils subjected to long-term stockpiling. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 145, 103347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jambhulkar, H.P.; Kumar, M.S. Eco-restoration approach for mine spoil overburden dump through biotechnological route. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mylliemngap, W.; Barik, S.K. Plant diversity, net primary productivity and soil nutrient contents of a humid subtropical grassland remained low even after 50 years of post-disturbance recovery from coal mining. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chen, Y.; Zhang, J. Slow Recovery of Major Soil Nutrient Pools during Reclamation in a Sub-Alpine Copper Mine Area, Southeastern Edge of the Tibetan Plateau, Sichuan Province, SW China. Forests 2019, 10, 1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Bao, N.; Liu, S.; Zhou, Y. Predicting particle-size distribution using thermal infrared spectroscopy from reclaimed mine land in the semi-arid grassland of North China. Catena 2019, 183, 104190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yang, X.; Li, X.; Shi, M.; Jin, L.; Sun, H. The effects of replaced topsoil of different depths on the vegetation and soil properties of reclaimed coal mine spoils in an alpine mining area. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 65, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, M.; Wang, J.; Li, S. Tempo-spatial changes and main anthropogenic influence factors of vegetation fractional coverage in a large-scale opencast coal mine area from 1992 to 2015. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 232, 940–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pihlap, E.; Vuko, M.; Lucas, M.; Steffens, M.; Schloter, M.; Vetterlein, D.; Endenich, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I. Initial soil formation in an agriculturally reclaimed open-cast mining area—The role of management and loess parent material. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 191, 224–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hall, S.L.; Barton, C.D.; Sena, K.L.; Angel, P. Reforesting Appalachian Surface Mines from Seed: A Five-Year Black Walnut Pilot Study. Forests 2019, 10, 573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Kumari, S.; Maiti, S.K. Reclamation of coalmine spoils with topsoil, grass, and legume: A case study from India. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brooks, J.P.; Adeli, A.; Smith, R.K.; McGrew, R.; Lang, D.J.; Read, J.J. Bacterial Community Structure Recovery in Reclaimed Coal Mined Soil under Two Vegetative Regimes. J. Environ. Qual. 2019, 48, 1029–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Feng, Y. Linking the reclaimed soils and rehabilitated vegetation in an opencast coal mining area: A complex network approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 19365–19378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Agus, C.; Primananda, E.; Faridah, E.; Wulandari, D.; Lestari, T. Role of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Pongamia pinnata for revegetation of tropical open-pit coal mining soils. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 3365–3374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cheng, L.; Sun, H. Reclamation suitability evaluation of damaged mined land based on the integrated index method and the difference-product method. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 13691–13701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Franke, M.E.; Zipper, C.; Barney, J.N. Invasive autumn olive performance varies in different reclamation conditions: Implications for restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2019, 27, 600–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lei, N.; Han, J.; Mu, X.; Sun, Z.; Wang, H. Effects of improved materials on reclamation of soil properties and crop yield in hollow villages in China. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 2374–2380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Feng, Y.; Wang, J.; Bai, Z.; Reading, L. Effects of surface coal mining and land reclamation on soil properties: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2019, 191, 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Desai, M.; Haigh, M.; Walkington, H. Phytoremediation: Metal decontamination of soils after the sequential forestation of former opencast coal land. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 670–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Qiu, L.; Bi, Y.; Jiang, B.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhakypbek, Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi ameliorate the chemical properties and enzyme activities of rhizosphere soil in reclaimed mining subsidence in northwestern China. J. Arid Land 2019, 11, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Li, B. Determining the influence factors of soil organic carbon stock in opencast coal-mine dumps based on complex network theory. Catena 2019, 173, 433–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Adeli, A.; Brooks, J.P.; Read, J.J.; McGrew, R.; Jenkins, J.N. Post-reclamation Age Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Microbial Activity Under Forest and Pasture Ecosystems. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 20–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Atanassova, I.; Benkova, M.; Simeonova, T.; Nenova, L.; Banov, M.; Rousseva, S.; Doerr, S. Influence of soil water repellency on heavy metal mobility in coal ash reclaimed technosols. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2019, 20, 1667–1679. Available online: https://docs.google.com/a/jepe-journal.info/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=amVwZS1qb3VybmFsLmluZm98amVwZS1qb3VybmFsfGd4OjU1MDY2ZWIzYzFmZWJmMzA (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  48. Miller, J.R.; Gannon, J.P.; Corcoran, K. Concentrations, mobility, and potential ecological risks of selected metals within compost amended, reclaimed coal mine soils, tropical South Sumatra, Indonesia. AIMS Environ. Sci. 2019, 6, 298–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Petrov, P. Chemical and Physicochemical Parameters of Recultivated Embankments of Maritsa–Iztok Mine in Relation to Development of Soil Formation Process. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 2019, 20, 912–923. Available online: https://docs.google.com/a/jepe-journal.info/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=amVwZS1qb3VybmFsLmluZm98amVwZS1qb3VybmFsfGd4OjM2YTlmZTA4ZDYxZGQwYmI (accessed on 30 March 2020).
  50. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Maiti, S.K. Heavy metals distribution in Eucalyptus tree in 30 years old reclaimed overburden dumps. In AIP Conference Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Badenhorst, J.; Dabrowski, J.; Scholtz, C.H.; Truter, W.F. Dung beetle activity improves herbaceous plant growth and soil properties on confinements simulating reclaimed mined land in South Africa. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 132, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Wang, J.; Qin, Q.; Bai, Z. Characterizing the effects of opencast coal-mining and land reclamation on soil macropore distribution characteristics using 3D CT scanning. Catena 2018, 171, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Priyono, S.; Limantara, L.M. Utilization of River Sludge-Sediment as the Planting Media in Reclaiming Critical Mined Land: Study of Growth and Litter Production of Jabon (Anthocephalus cadamba Miq.). Int. J. GEOMATE 2018, 15, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bandyopadhyay, S.; Rana, V.; Maiti, S.K. Chronological Variation of Metals in Reclaimed Coal Mine Soil and Tissues of Eucalyptus Hybrid Tree After 25 Years of Reclamation, Jharia Coal Field (India). Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 101, 604–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Duo, L.; Hu, Z. Soil Quality Change after Reclaiming Subsidence Land with Yellow River Sediments. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Hu, Z.; Duo, L.; Shao, F. Optimal Thickness of Soil Cover for Reclaiming Subsided Land with Yellow River Sediments. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Haigh, M.J.; Reed, H.; D’Aucourt, M.; Flege, A.; Cullis, M.; Davis, S.; Farrugia, F.; Gentcheva-Kostadinova, S.; Zheleva, E.; Hatton, E.; et al. Effects of initial fertilizer treatment on the 10-year growth of mixed woodland on compacted surface-coal-mine spoils, S. Wales. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 3456–3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ahirwal, J.; Kumar, A.; Pietrzykowski, M.; Maiti, S.K. Reclamation of coal mine spoil and its effect on Technosol quality and carbon sequestration: A case study from India. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 27992–28003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Valenzuela, P.; Arellano, E.C.; Burger, J.; Oliet, J.A.; Perez, M.F. Soil conditions and sheltering techniques improve active restoration of degraded Nothofagus pumilio forest in Southern Patagonia. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 424, 28–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rawlik, M.; Kasprowicz, M.; Jagodziński, A.M.; Kaźmierowski, C.; Łukowiak, R.; Grzebisz, W. Canopy tree species determine herb layer biomass and species composition on a reclaimed mine spoil heap. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 635, 1205–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Guo, A.; Zhao, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, X.; Xu, R. Quantitative correlations between soil and plants in reclaimed mining dumps using a coupling coordination degree model. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 180484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Skousen, J.G.; Dallaire, K.; Scagline-Mellor, S.; Monteleone, A.; Wilson-Kokes, L.; Joyce, J.; Thomas, C.; Keene, T.; DeLong, C.; Cook, T.; et al. Plantation performance of chestnut hybrids and progenitors on reclaimed Appalachian surface mines. New For. 2018, 49, 599–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Franke, M.E.; Zipper, C.; Barney, J.N. Native Hardwood Tree Seedling Establishment Following Invasive Autumn-Olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) Removal on a Reclaimed Coal Mine. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 2018, 11, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hou, H.; Wang, C.; Ding, Z.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Y.; Ma, J.; Chen, F.; Li, J. Variation in the Soil Microbial Community of Reclaimed Land over Different Reclamation Periods. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K. Development of Technosol properties and recovery of carbon stock after 16 years of revegetation on coal mine degraded lands, India. Catena 2018, 166, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Niu, S.; Li, X.; Wang, Y.; Bai, Z. Reclamation promotes the succession of the soil and vegetation in opencast coal mine: A case study from Robinia pseudoacacia reclaimed forests, Pingshuo mine, China. Catena 2018, 165, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kumar, S.; Singh, A.K.; Ghosh, P. Distribution of soil organic carbon and glomalin related soil protein in reclaimed coal mine-land chronosequence under tropical condition. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 1341–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Sena, K.L.; Yeager, K.M.; Dreaden, T.J.; Barton, C.D. Phytophthora cinnamomi Colonized Reclaimed Surface Mined Sites in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for the Restoration of Susceptible Species. Forests 2018, 9, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Rana, V.; Maiti, S.K. Differential distribution of metals in tree tissues growing on reclaimed coal mine overburden dumps, Jharia coal field (India). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9745–9758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, S.; Liber, K. Influence of different revegetation choices on plant community and soil development nine years after initial planting on a reclaimed coal gob pile in the Shanxi mining area, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 1314–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jing, Z.; Wang, J.; Zhu, Y.; Feng, Y. Effects of land subsidence resulted from coal mining on soil nutrient distributions in a loess area of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 177, 350–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Angst, G.; Mueller, C.W.; Angst, Š.; Pivokonský, M.; Franklin, J.; Stahl, P.D.; Frouz, J. Fast accrual of C and N in soil organic matter fractions following post-mining reclamation across the USA. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 209, 216–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tang, Q.; Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Zheng, L.; Miao, C. Characterization of heavy metals in coal gangue-reclaimed soils from a coal mining area. J. Geochem. Explor. 2018, 186, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rawlik, M.; Kasprowicz, M.; Jagodziński, A.M. Differentiation of herb layer vascular flora in reclaimed areas depends on the species composition of forest stands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 409, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Li, T.; Gao, J.; Hong, J.; Xie, Y.; Gao, Z.; Meng, H.; Li, L.; Meng, L. Variation of nutrients and selected soil properties in reclaimed soil of different ages at a coal-mining subsidence area on the Loess Plateau, China. Ekoloji 2018, 27, 547–554. [Google Scholar]
  76. Huang, Y.; Kuang, X.; Cao, Y.; Bai, Z. The soil chemical properties of reclaimed land in an arid grassland dump in an opencast mining area in China. RSC Adv. 2018, 8, 41499–41508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Qu, J.F.; Tan, M.; Le Hou, Y.; Ge, M.Y.; Ni Wang, A.; Wang, K.; Shan, J.X.; Chen, F. Effects of the Stability of Reclaimed Soil Aggregates on Organic Carbon in Coal Mining Subsidence Areas. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2018, 34, 843–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nedyalkova, K.; Petkova, G.; Atanassova, I.; Banov, M.; Ivanov, P. Microbiological Properties of Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Technosols from the Region of Maritsa-Iztok Coal Mines. Comptes Rendus l’Académie Bulg. Sci. 2018, 71, 577–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Merrill, S.D.; Liebig, M.A.; Hendrickson, J.D.; Wick, A.F. Soil Quality and Water Redistribution Influences on Plant Production over Low Hillslopes on Reclaimed Mined Land. Int. J. Agron. 2018, 2018, 1431054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Liu, X.; Cao, Y.; Bai, Z.; Wang, J.; Zhou, W. Evaluating relationships between soil chemical properties and vegetation cover at different slope aspects in a reclaimed dump. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Williams, J.M.; Brown, D.J.; Wood, P.B. Responses of Terrestrial Herpetofauna to Persistent, Novel Ecosystems Resulting from Mountaintop Removal Mining. J. Fish Wildl. Manag. 2017, 8, 387–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Padmanaban, R.; Bhowmik, A.K.; Cabral, P. A Remote Sensing Approach to Environmental Monitoring in a Reclaimed Mine Area. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 2017, 6, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Karan, S.K.; Kumar, A.; Samadder, S.R. Evaluation of geotechnical properties of overburden dump for better reclamation success in mining areas. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Swab, R.; Lorenz, N.; Byrd, S.; Dick, R. Native vegetation in reclamation: Improving habitat and ecosystem function through using prairie species in mine land reclamation. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 108, 525–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bell, G.; Sena, K.L.; Barton, C.D.; French, M. Establishing Pine Monocultures and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Stands on Reclaimed Surface Mined Land in Eastern Kentucky: Implications for Forest Resilience in a Changing Climate. Forests 2017, 8, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Pan, J.; Bai, Z.; Cao, Y.; Zhou, W.; Wang, J. Influence of soil physical properties and vegetation coverage at different slope aspects in a reclaimed dump. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 23953–23965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K. Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of revegetated coal mine overburden dumps: A chronosequence study from dry tropical climate. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 201, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Majee, U.; Chattopadhyay, G.N.; Chaudhury, S. Optimization of the quality of reverse osmosis-treated coal bed water in relation to its effect on soil health. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Gang, L.; Jun, L.; Ye, X.L.; Ting, W.; Ya, Z.L.; Xin, Y.F. Preferential flow characteristics of reclaimed mine soils in a surface coal mine dump. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Plamping, K.; Haigh, M.; Reed, H.; Woodruffe, P.; Fitzpatrick, S.; Farrugia, F.; D’aucourt, M.; Flege, A.; Sawyer, S.; Panhuis, W.; et al. Effects of initial planting method on the performance of mixed plantings of alder and oak on compacted opencast coal-spoils, Wales: 10-year results. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2016, 31, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, P.; Chen, L.; Hu, T.; Niu, S.; Bai, Z. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools in reclaimed mine soils under forest and cropland ecosystems in the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 102, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Qu, J.-F.; Hou, Y.-L.; Ge, M.-Y.; Wang, K.; Liu, S.; Zhang, S.-L.; Li, G.; Chen, F. Carbon Dynamics of Reclaimed Coal Mine Soil under Agricultural Use: A Chronosequence Study in the Dongtan Mining Area, Shandong Province, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K.; Singh, A.K. Changes in ecosystem carbon pool and soil CO2 flux following post-mine reclamation in dry tropical environment, India. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 583, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Chen, Y.; Yuan, L.; Xu, C. Accumulation behavior of toxic elements in the soil and plant from Xinzhuangzi reclaimed mining areas, China. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Bao, N.; Wu, L.; Ye, B.; Yang, K.; Zhou, W. Assessing soil organic matter of reclaimed soil from a large surface coal mine using a field spectroradiometer in laboratory. Geoderma 2016, 288, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Frouz, J. Effects of Soil Development Time and Litter Quality on Soil Carbon Sequestration: Assessing Soil Carbon Saturation with a Field Transplant Experiment along a Post-mining Chronosequence. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 28, 664–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Zhang, Q.; Branam, T.; Olyphant, G. Development and testing of a model for simulating weathering and trace elements release from fixated scrubber sludge utilized in abandoned coal mine reclamation site. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2017, 169, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Maiti, S.K.; Rana, V. Assessment of Heavy Metals Contamination in Reclaimed Mine Soil and their Accumulation and Distribution in Eucalyptus Hybrid. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2017, 98, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bauman, J.M.; Adamson, J.; Brisbin, R.; Cline, E.T.; Keiffer, C.H. Soil Metals and Ectomycorrhizal Fungi Associated with American Chestnut Hybrids as Reclamation Trees on Formerly Coal Mined Land. Int. J. Agron. 2017, 2017, 9731212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Wang, J.; Wei, Z.; Wang, Q. Evaluating the eco-environment benefit of land reclamation in the dump of an opencast coal mine. Chem. Ecol. 2017, 33, 607–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Shi, X.-K.; Ma, J.-J.; Liu, L.-J. Effects of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria application on soil phosphorus availability in coal mining subsidence area in Shanxi. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Wang, J.; Yang, R.; Feng, Y. Spatial variability of reconstructed soil properties and the optimization of sampling number for reclaimed land monitoring in an opencast coal mine. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Liu, X.; Bai, Z.; Zhou, W.; Cao, Y.; Zhang, G. Changes in soil properties in the soil profile after mining and reclamation in an opencast coal mine on the Loess Plateau, China. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 98, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Darmody, R.G.; McSweeney, K.; Li, Y.; Zhou, W.; Tong, J.; Hu, Z. Reclamation of prime agricultural farmlands: A retrospective 40 years after reclamation. In Land Reclamation in Ecological Fragile Areas; Taylor & Francis Group London: London, UK, 2017; pp. 307–314. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hou, H.; Wang, C.; Li, J.; Ding, Z.; Zhang, S.; Huang, L.; Dong, J.; Ma, J.; Yang, Y.; Li, L.; et al. Bacterial community structure in reclaimed soil filled with coal wastes in different reclamation years. In Land Reclamation in Ecological Fragile Areas; Taylor & Francis Group London: London, UK, 2017; pp. 381–385. [Google Scholar]
  106. Maiti, S.K.; Ahirwal, J. Ecological restoration of coal mine degraded lands using a grass-legume mixture a case study from India. In Land Reclamation in Ecological Fragile Areas—Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration, LRER 2017, Beijing, China, 20–23 October 2017; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Masto, R. Carbon storage in coal mine spoil by Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. Geoderma 2016, 284, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Yuan, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Bai, Z.; Wang, H.; Wang, Y.; Niu, S. Reclamation patterns vary carbon sequestration by trees and soils in an opencast coal mine, China. Catena 2016, 147, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Koſodziej, B.; Bryk, M.; Sſowiſska-Jurkiewicz, A.; Otremba, K.; Gilewska, M. Soil physical properties of agriculturally reclaimed area after lignite mine: A case study from central Poland. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Nash, W.L.; Daniels, W.L.; Haering, K.C.; Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E. Long-term Effects of Rock Type on Appalachian Coal Mine Soil Properties. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 1597–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Russell, L.; Farrish, K.; Damoff, G.; Coble, D.; Young, L. Establishment of earthworms on reclaimed lignite mine soils in east Texas. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 104, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Stumpf, L.; Pauletto, E.A.; Pinto, L.F.S. Soil aggregation and root growth of perennial grasses in a constructed clay minesoil. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 161, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, J.; Guo, L.; Bai, Z.; Yang, L. Using computed tomography (CT) images and multi-fractal theory to quantify the pore distribution of reconstructed soils during ecological restoration in opencast coal-mine. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 92, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Maiti, S.K.; Kumar, A.; Ahirwal, J. Bioaccumulation of metals in timber and edible fruit trees growing on reclaimed coal mine overburden dumps. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2016, 30, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wick, A.F.; Daniels, W.L.; Nash, W.L.; Burger, J.A. Aggregate Recovery in Reclaimed Coal Mine Soils of SW Virginia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014, 27, 965–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Das, R.; Maiti, S.K. Importance of carbon fractionation for the estimation of carbon sequestration in reclaimed coalmine soils—A case study from Jharia coalfields, Jharkhand, India. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Ahirwal, J.; Maiti, S.K. Assessment of soil properties of different land uses generated due to surface coal mining activities in tropical Sal (Shorea robusta) forest, India. Catena 2016, 140, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Clark, E.V.; Zipper, C.E. Vegetation influences near-surface hydrological characteristics on a surface coal mine in eastern USA. Catena 2016, 139, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Gypser, S.; Veste, M.; Fischer, T.; Lange, P. Infiltration and water retention of biological soil crusts on reclaimed soils of former open-cast lignite mining sites in Brandenburg, north-east Germany. J. Hydrol. Hydromech. 2016, 64, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  120. Brown, C.; Griggs, T.; Holaskova, I.; Skousen, J. Switchgrass Biofuel Production on Reclaimed Surface Mines: II. Feedstock Quality and Theoretical Ethanol Production. BioEnergy Res. 2016, 9, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Dutta, T.; Dell, C.J.; Stehouwer, R.C. Nitrous Oxide Emissions from a Coal Mine Land Reclaimed with Stabilized Manure. Land Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Masto, R.; Yadav, A.; George, J.; Ram, L.; Shukla, S. Soil quality index for evaluation of reclaimed coal mine spoil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 542, 540–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. de Freitas, F.J.M.; Rosado, J.L.O.; Elias, S.G.; Harter-Marques, B. Litter Decomposition of Two Pioneer Tree Species and Associated Soil Fauna in Areas Reclaimed after Surface Coal Mining in Southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2016, 40, e0150444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Cudlín, O.; Řehák, Z.; Cudlín, P. Development of Soil Characteristics and Plant Communities on Reclaimed and Unreclaimed Spoil Heaps after Coal Mining. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2016, 44, 052030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Hu, Z.; Xiao, W.; Fu, Y. Innovations of Concurrent Mining and Reclamation for Underground Coal Mines in China; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  126. Zhang, X.R.; Cao, Y.G.; Bai, Z.K.; Wang, J.M.; Zhou, W.; Ding, X. Relationships Between Vegetation Coverage and Soil Properties on the Reclaimed Dump of Opencast Coal Mine in Loess Plateau, China. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2016, 25, 4767–4776. [Google Scholar]
  127. Nadłonek, W.; Cabala, J. Potentially toxic elements in soils and plants on a reclaimed coalwaste dump in Southern Poland (preliminary study). Acta Geodyn. Geomater. 2016, 13, 271–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Klojzy-Karczmarczyk, B.; Mazurek, J.; Mucha, J. Sulfur as a parameter in the suitability assessment of gangue from coal mining for reclamation of opencast excavation, taking into the requirements regarding protection of the soil. E3S Web Conf. 2016, 10, 00036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Li, J.; Liu, F.; Chen, J. The Effects of Various Land Reclamation Scenarios on the Succession of Soil Bacteria, Archaea, and Fungi Over the Short and Long Term. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 4, 32. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2016.00032 (accessed on 30 March 2020). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Frouz, J.; Vobořilová, V.; Janoušová, I.; Kadochová, Š.; Matějíček, L. Spontaneous establishment of late successional tree species english oak (Quercus robur) and european beech (fagus sylvatica) at reclaimed alder plantation and unreclaimed post mining sites. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 77, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kumar, S.; Maiti, S.K.; Chaudhuri, S. Soil development in 2–21 years old coalmine reclaimed spoil with trees: A case study from Sonepur-Bazari opencast project, Raniganj Coalfield, India. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 84, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Lanham, J.; Sencindiver, J.; Skousen, J. Characterization of Soil Developing in Reclaimed Upper Freeport Coal Surface Mines. Southeast. Nat. 2015, 14, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Evans, D.M.; Zipper, C.E.; Hester, E.T.; Schoenholtz, S.H. Hydrologic Effects of Surface Coal Mining in Appalachia (U.S.). JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2015, 51, 1436–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Bauman, J.M.; Cochran, C.; Chapman, J.; Gilland, K. Plant community development following restoration treatments on a legacy reclaimed mine site. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 83, 521–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Weber, J.; Strączyńska, S.; Kocowicz, A.; Gilewska, M.; Bogacz, A.; Gwiżdż, M.; Debicka, M. Properties of soil materials derived from fly ash 11 years after revegetation of post-mining excavation. Catena 2015, 133, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhen, Q.; Ma, W.; Li, M.; He, H.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y. Effects of vegetation and physicochemical properties on solute transport in reclaimed soil at an opencast coal mine site on the Loess Plateau, China. Catena. 2015, 133, 403–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Macdonald, S.E.; Snively, A.E.K.; Fair, J.M.; Landhäusser, S.M. Early trajectories of forest understory development on reclamation sites: Influence of forest floor placement and a cover crop. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 698–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Wang, J.; Yang, R.; Bai, Z. Spatial variability and sampling optimization of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen for Minesoils of the Loess Plateau using geostatistics. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 82, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Saminathan, T.; Malkaram, S.A.; Patel, D.; Taylor, K.; Hass, A.; Nimmakayala, P.; Huber, D.H.; Reddy, U.K. Transcriptome Analysis of Invasive Plants in Response to Mineral Toxicity of Reclaimed Coal-Mine Soil in the Appalachian Region. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2015, 49, 10320–10329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Dutta, T.; Stehouwer, R.C.; Dell, C.J. Linking Organic Carbon, Water Content, and Nitrous Oxide Emission in a Reclaimed Coal Mine Soil. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 620–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Bartuška, M.; Pawlett, M.; Frouz, J. Particulate organic carbon at reclaimed and unreclaimed post-mining soils and its microbial community composition. Catena 2015, 131, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Mathiba, M.; Awuah-Offei, K. Spatial autocorrelation of soil CO2 fluxes on reclaimed mine land. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 8287–8297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Niu, S.; Gao, L.; Zhao, J. Distribution and Risk Assessment of Heavy Metals in the Xinzhuangzi Reclamation Soil from the Huainan Coal Mining Area, China. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. An Int. J. 2015, 21, 900–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Zhang, L.; Wang, J.; Bai, Z.; Lv, C. Effects of vegetation on runoff and soil erosion on reclaimed land in an opencast coal-mine dump in a loess area. Catena 2015, 128, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Shouqin, Z.; Chaofu, W.; Bo, L.; Weihua, Z.; Jing, D.; Shichao, Z. Restoration technologies of damaged paddy in hilly post-mining and subsidence-stable area of Southwest China. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2015, 8, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Haigh, M.; Reed, H.; Flege, A.; D’Aucourt, M.; Plamping, K.; Cullis, M.; Woodruffe, P.; Sawyer, S.; Panhuis, W.; Wilding, G.; et al. Effect of Planting Method on the Growth of Alnus glutinosa and Quercus petraea in Compacted Opencast Coal-Mine Spoils, South Wales. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wang, J.; Zhang, M.; Bai, Z.; Guo, L. Multi-fractal characteristics of the particle distribution of reconstructed soils and the relationship between soil properties and multi-fractal parameters in an opencast coal-mine dump in a loess area. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 4749–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pallavicini, Y.; Alday, J.G.; Martínez-Ruiz, C. Factors Affecting Herbaceous Richness and Biomass Accumulation Patterns of Reclaimed Coal Mines. Land Degrad. Dev. 2015, 26, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Li, Y.; Chen, L.; Wen, H. Changes in the composition and diversity of bacterial communities 13 years after soil reclamation of abandoned mine land in eastern China. Ecol. Res. 2015, 30, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Sena, K.; Barton, C.; Hall, S.; Angel, P.; Agouridis, C.; Warner, R. Influence of spoil type on afforestation success and natural vegetative recolonization on a surface coal mine in Appalachia, United States. Restor. Ecol. 2015, 23, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Hoomehr, S.; Schwartz, J.S.; Yoder, D.; Drumm, E.C.; Wright, W. Erodibility of low-compaction steep-sloped reclaimed surface mine lands in the southern Appalachian region, USA. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 321–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Li, Y.; Chen, L.Q.; Zhang, T.; Zhou, T.J. Effect of reclamation on diversity of soil bacterial community in mining subsidence area. In Legislation, Technology and Practice of Mine Land Reclamation—Proceedings of the Beijing International Symposium Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration, LRER 2014, Beijing, China, 16–19 October 2014; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Huang, C.; Xu, L.J.; Meuser, H.; Anlauf, R. Study on the spatial distribution regularities of coal gangue accumulation in the coal mining area of northern Germany—Taking coal gangue accumulation area of Ibbenbueren for instance. In Legislation, Technology and Practice of Mine Land Reclamation—Proceedings of the Beijing International Symposium Land Reclamation and Ecological Restoration, LRER 2014, Beijing, China, 16–19 October 2014; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Gruchot, A.; Zając, E.; Zarzycki, J. Analysis of possibilities for management of hard coal mine water sediments. Rocz. Ochr. Sr. 2015, 17, 998–1016. [Google Scholar]
  155. Hlava, J.; Hlavová, A.; Hakl, J.; Fér, M. Earthworm responses to different reclamation processes in post opencast mining lands during succession. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 4108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. FAO. Carbon Sequestration Options under the Clean Development Mechanism to Address Land Degradation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  157. Shrestha, R.K.; Lal, R. Ecosystem carbon budgeting and soil carbon sequestration in reclaimed mine soil. Environ. Int. 2006, 32, 781–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. United States Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology. Best Practices for Terrestrial Sequestration of Carbon; United States Department of Energy and the National Energy Technology: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  159. Bodlák, L.; Křováková, K.; Kobesová, M.; Brom, J.; Šťastný, J.; Pecharová, E. SOC content-An appropriate tool for evaluating the soil quality in a reclaimed post-mining landscape. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Stabilization of organic carbon in chemically separated pools in reclaimed coal mine soils in Ohio. Geoderma 2007, 141, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Vindušková, O.; Frouz, J. Soil carbon accumulation after open-cast coal and oil shale mining in Northern Hemisphere: A quantitative review. Environ. Earth Sci. 2013, 69, 1685–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. British Petroleum, B.P. Statistical Review of World Energy 2019. Br. Pet 2019, 66, 1. [Google Scholar]
  163. Chuman, T. Restoration Practices Used on Post Mining Sites and Industrial Deposits in the Czech Republic with an Example of Natural Restoration of Granodiorite Quarries and Spoil Heaps. J. Landsc. Ecol. Repub. 2015, 8, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Gerwing, T.G.; Hawkes, V.C.; Gann, G.D.; Murphy, S.D. Restoration, reclamation, and rehabilitation: On the need for, and positing a definition of, ecological reclamation. Restor. Ecol. 2022, 30, e13461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Pautasso, M. Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2013, 9, e1003149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Moed, H.F.; Markusova, V.; Akoev, M. Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 1153–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Li, Y. Suitability evaluation of land reclamation as arable land in coal mining area based on catastrophe theory. SN Appl. Sci. 2023, 5, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Song, W.; Xu, R.; Li, X.; Min, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Hu, X.; Li, J. Soil reconstruction and heavy metal pollution risk in reclaimed cultivated land with coal gangue filling in mining areas. Catena 2023, 228, 107147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Qi, L.; Sun, S.; Gao, K.; Ren, W.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Yuan, X. Effect of reclamation years on soil physical, chemical, bacterial, and fungal community compositions in an open-pit coal mine dump in grassland area of Inner Mongolia, China. Land Degrad. Dev. 2023, 34, 3568–3580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Zhao, G.; Chen, J.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Lyu, Y.; Si, G. Ecological restoration of coal mine waste dumps: A case study in Ximing Mine, China. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2023, 37, 375–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Cheng, Q.; Zhang, S.; Chen, X.; Cui, H.; Xu, Y.; Xia, S.; Xia, K.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, X. Inversion of reclaimed soil water content based on a combination of multi-attributes of ground penetrating radar signals. J. Appl. Geophys. 2023, 213, 105019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Li, Q.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, F.; Song, D.; Liang, Y.; Yu, Y. Multispectral Remote Sensing Monitoring of Soil Particle-Size Distribution in Arid and Semi-Arid Mining Areas in the Middle and Upper Reaches of the Yellow River Basin: A Case Study of Wuhai City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Lin, Z.; Lu, P.; Wang, R.; Liu, X.; Yuan, T. Sulfur: A neglected driver of the increased abundance of antibiotic resistance genes in agricultural reclaimed subsidence land located in coal mines with high phreatic water levels. Heliyon 2023, 9, e14364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Kumar, A.; Das, S.K.; Nainegali, L.; Reddy, K.R. Investigation of root traits of Dendrocalamus strictus cultivated on organically amended coalmine overburden and its potential use for slope stabilization. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Kumari, M.; Bhattacharya, T. A review on bioaccessibility and the associated health risks due to heavy metal pollution in coal mines: Content and trend analysis. Environ. Dev. 2023, 46, 100859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kumar, A.; Das, S.K.; Nainegali, L.; Reddy, K.R. Phytostabilization of coalmine overburden waste rock dump slopes: Current status, challenges, and perspectives. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2023, 82, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Bierza, W.; Czarnecka, J.; Błońska, A.; Kompała-Bąba, A.; Hutniczak, A.; Jendrzejek, B.; Bakr, J.; Jagodziński, A.M.; Prostański, D.; Woźniak, G. Plant Diversity and Species Composition in Relation to Soil Enzymatic Activity in the Novel Ecosystems of Urban–Industrial Landscapes. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Kozłowski, M.; Otremba, K.; Pająk, M.; Pietrzykowski, M. Changes in Physical and Water Retention Properties of Technosols by Agricultural Reclamation with Wheat–Rapeseed Rotation in a Post-Mining Area of Central Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Szadek, P.; Pająk, M.; Michalec, K.; Wąsik, R.; Otremba, K.; Kozłowski, M.; Pietrzykowski, M. The Impact of the Method of Reclamation of the Coal Ash Dump from the ‘Adamów’ Power Plant on the Survival, Viability, and Wood Quality of the Introduced Tree Species. Forests 2023, 14, 848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Woś, B.; Józefowska, A.; Chodak, M.; Pietrzykowski, M. Recovering of soil organic matter and associated C and N pools on regenerated forest ecosystems at different tree species influence on post-fire and reclaimed mine sites. Geoderma Reg. 2023, 33, e00632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 13 08412 g001 550
Figure 1. Trends of categories’ number of points in publications from 2015 to 2019.
Figure 1. Trends of categories’ number of points in publications from 2015 to 2019.
Applsci 13 08412 g001
Table
Table 1. Distribution of points across categories.
Table 1. Distribution of points across categories.
No.Author and Reference NumberYearCategoryLocation
C, N and SOMPhysicalBiologicalChemicalTechnologyReview & Metadata
1Guan et al. [21]20200.800.000.100.100.000.00China
2Feng et al. [22]20200.000.500.000.000.500.00China
3Ezeokoli et al. [23]20200.000.170.670.170.000.00South Africa
4Yan et al. [24]20200.670.000.330.000.000.00China
5López-Marcos et al. [25]20200.170.170.500.000.170.00Spain
6Block et al. [26]20200.000.001.000.000.000.00USA
7Jambhulkar & Kumar [27]20190.250.250.250.250.000.00India
8Mylliemngap & Barik [28]20190.250.250.250.250.000.00India
9Yang Chen & Zhang [29]20190.670.000.170.170.000.00China
10Jianhua Li et al. [16]20191.000.000.000.000.000.00China
11Bao et al. [30]20190.000.330.000.000.670.00China
12X. Yang et al. [31]20190.330.000.330.330.000.00China
13Detheridge et al. [15]20191.000.000.000.000.000.00UK
14Min Zhang et al. [32]20190.000.001.000.000.000.00China
15Pihlap et al. [33]20190.250.250.250.250.000.00Germany
16Hall et al. [34]20190.000.001.000.000.000.00USA
17Kumari & Maiti [35]20190.500.000.500.000.000.00India
18Brooks et al. [36]20190.000.250.500.250.000.00USA
19Z. Zhang, Wang, & Feng [37]20190.250.250.250.250.000.00China
20Agus et al. [38]20190.170.170.500.170.000.00Indonesia
21Cheng & Sun [39]20190.000.000.000.001.000.00China
22Franke et al. [40]20190.000.170.670.170.000.00USA
23Lei et al. [41]20190.330.330.000.330.000.00China
24Feng et al. [42]20190.000.000.000.000.001.00China
25Desai et al. [43]20190.000.000.330.670.000.00UK
26Yang et al. [18]20190.670.000.170.000.170.00China
27Qiu et al. [44]20190.250.000.500.250.000.00China
28Z. Zhang, Wang, & Li [45]20190.330.110.110.110.330.00China
29Adeli et al. [46]20190.200.400.400.000.000.00USA
30Atanassova et al. [47]20190.000.250.000.750.000.00Bulgaria
31Miller et al. [48]20190.200.000.000.800.000.00Indonesia
32Petrov [49]20190.000.000.000.000.001.00Bulgaria
33Bandyopadhyay & Maiti [50]20190.000.000.330.670.000.00India
34M. Zhang & Zhang [20]20190.800.000.100.000.100.00China
35Badenhorst et al. [51]20180.000.250.500.250.000.00South Africa
36Jinman Wang et al. [52]20180.000.670.000.000.330.00China
37Priyono et al. [53]20180.000.500.250.250.000.00Indonesia
38Bandyopadhyay et al. [54]20180.000.000.330.670.000.00India
39Duo & Hu [55]20180.330.330.000.330.000.00China
40Hu et al. [56]20180.250.250.250.250.000.00China
41Haigh et al. [57]20180.250.000.500.250.000.00UK
42Ahirwal et al. [58]20180.250.250.250.250.000.00India
43Valenzuela et al. [59]20180.330.330.330.000.000.00Chile
44Rawlik, Kasprowicz, Jagodziński, et al. [60]20180.000.000.670.330.000.00Poland
45Guo et al. [61]20180.130.130.130.130.500.00China
46Skousen et al. [62]20180.000.000.670.330.000.00USA
47Franke et al. [63]20180.000.000.800.200.000.00USA
48Hou et al. [64]20180.000.100.700.200.000.00China
49Ahirwal & Maiti [65]20180.400.200.200.200.000.00India
50Ye Yuan, Zhao, Niu, et al. [66]20180.250.250.250.250.000.00China
51Kumar et al. [67]20180.500.000.500.000.000.00India
52Sun et al. [17]20180.500.000.000.000.500.00China
53Sena et al. [68]20180.250.250.250.250.000.00USA
54Rana & Maiti [69]20180.000.000.500.500.000.00India
55S. Li & Liber [70]20180.000.100.500.300.100.00China
56Jing et al. [71]20180.800.000.000.000.200.00China
57Angst et al. [72]20180.700.100.100.100.000.00USA
58Tang et al. [73]20180.000.000.001.000.000.00China
59Rawlik, Kasprowicz, & Jagodziński [74]20180.000.001.000.000.000.00Poland
60Ye Yuan, Zhao, Li, et al. [19]20180.700.000.100.100.100.00China
61T. Li et al. [75]20180.500.000.000.500.000.00China
62Y. Huang et al. [76]20180.500.000.000.500.000.00China
63J. F. Qu et al. [77]20180.500.500.000.000.000.00China
64Nedyalkova et al. [78]20180.000.330.670.000.000.00Bulgaria
65Merrill et al. [79]20180.000.500.250.250.000.00USA
66Ahirwal & Maiti [14]20181.000.000.000.000.000.00India
67Liu, Cao, et al. [80]20170.500.000.500.000.000.00China
68Williams et al. [81]20170.000.001.000.000.000.00USA
69Padmanaban et al. [82]20170.000.000.000.001.000.00Germany
70Karan et al. [83]20170.001.000.000.000.000.00India
71Swab et al. [84]20170.100.100.700.100.000.00USA
72G. Bell et al. [85]20170.100.100.400.400.000.00USA
73Pan et al. [86]20170.000.670.330.000.000.00China
74Ahirwal & Maiti [87]20170.500.170.170.170.000.00India
75Ahirwal, Maiti, & Satyanarayana Reddy [13]20171.000.000.000.000.000.00India
76Majee et al. [88]20170.000.000.000.500.500.00India
77Gang et al. [89]20170.000.670.170.170.000.00China
78Plamping et al. [90]20170.000.170.500.170.170.00UK
79Ye Yuan et al. [91]20170.900.100.000.000.000.00China
80J. F. Qu et al. [92]20170.500.170.170.170.000.00China
81Ahirwal, Maiti, & Singh [93]20170.500.000.300.200.000.00India
82Yongchun Chen et al. [94]20170.100.000.000.900.000.00China
83Bao et al. [95]20170.330.000.000.000.670.00China
84Frouz [96]20170.670.000.330.000.000.00Czech Republic
85Q. Zhang et al. [97]20170.000.000.000.001.000.00USA
86Maiti & Rana [98]20170.100.000.100.800.000.00India
87Bauman et al. [99]20170.000.000.500.500.000.00USA
88Atanassova et al.20170.250.000.000.750.000.00Bulgaria
89Jing Wang et al. [100]20170.000.000.000.000.670.33China
90Shi et al. [101]20170.130.000.130.750.000.00China
91Jinman Wang et al. [102]20170.000.330.000.330.330.00China
92Liu, Bai, et al. [103] 20170.330.330.000.330.000.00China
93Y. Yuan et al. [91]20171.000.000.000.000.000.00China
94Darmody & McSweeney [104]20170.000.000.000.000.001.00USA
95Hou et al. [105]20170.000.001.000.000.000.00China
96Maiti & Ahirwal [106]20170.500.000.130.250.000.13India
97Mukhopadhyay & Masto [107]20160.670.170.000.170.000.00India
98Ye Yuan et al. [108]20161.000.000.000.000.000.00China
99Kołodziej et al. [109]20160.110.670.110.110.000.00Poland
100Nash et al. [110]20160.170.330.170.330.000.00USA
101Russell et al. [111]20160.000.170.670.170.000.00USA
102Stumpf et al. [112]20160.100.500.300.100.000.00Brazil
103Jinman Wang et al. [113]20160.000.330.000.000.670.00China
104Maiti et al. [114]20160.000.000.250.750.000.00India
105Wick et al. [115]20160.400.500.000.100.000.00USA
106Das & Maiti [116]20161.000.000.000.000.000.00India
107Ahirwal & Maiti [117]20160.330.330.000.330.000.00India
108Clark & Zipper [118]20160.000.750.250.000.000.00USA
109Gypser et al. [119]20160.250.500.250.000.000.00Germany
110Brown et al. [120]20160.000.000.500.500.000.00USA
111Dutta et al. [121]20160.750.130.130.000.000.00USA
112Mukhopadhyay et al. [122]20160.250.250.250.250.000.00India
113Frasson et al. [123]20160.000.000.750.250.000.00Brazil
114Cudlín et al. [124]20160.330.000.330.330.000.00Czech Republic
115Hu et al. [125]20160.000.000.000.000.500.50China
116X. R. Zhang et al. [126]20160.250.500.250.000.000.00China
117Nadłonek & Cabala [127]20160.250.000.000.750.000.00Poland
118Klojzy-Karczmarczyk et al. [128]20160.000.330.000.670.000.00Poland
119Junjian Li et al. [129]20160.100.100.100.700.000.00China
120Frouz et al. [130]20150.170.000.000.670.170.00Czech Republic
121Kumar et al. [131]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00India
122Lanham et al. [132]20150.330.330.000.330.000.00USA
123Evans et al. [133]20150.000.670.000.000.000.33USA
124Bauman et al. [134]20150.000.000.670.000.170.17USA
125Weber et al. [135]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00Poland
126Zhen et al. [136]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00China
127Macdonald et al. [137]20150.000.250.250.250.250.00Canada
128Jinman Wang, Yang, et al. [138]20150.750.000.000.000.250.00China
129Saminathan et al. [139]20150.000.000.750.250.000.00USA
130Dutta et al. [140]20150.330.330.000.330.000.00USA
131Bartuška et al. [141]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00Czech Republic
132Mathiba & Awuah-Offei [142]20150.750.000.000.000.250.00USA
133Niu et al. [143]20150.000.000.001.000.000.00China
134L. Zhang et al. [144]20150.000.670.000.330.000.00China
135Shouqin et al. [145]20150.000.500.250.250.000.00China
136Haigh et al. [146]20150.000.500.250.000.250.00UK
137Jinman Wang, Zhang, et al. [147]20150.130.500.000.130.250.00China
138Pallavicini et al. [148]20150.110.110.670.110.000.00Spain
139Y. Li, Chen, & Wen [149]20150.170.000.670.170.000.00China
140Sena et al. [150]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00USA
141Hoomehr et al. [151]20150.001.000.000.000.000.00USA
142Y. Li, Chen, Zhang, et al. [152]20150.330.000.670.000.000.00China
143C. Huang et al. [153]20150.330.330.000.330.000.00Germany
144Gruchot et al. [154]20150.250.250.250.250.000.00Poland
145Hlava et al. [155]20150.130.250.500.130.000.00Czech Republic
Table
Table 2. Number of points over the categories per year.
Table 2. Number of points over the categories per year.
YearsCategoriesNumber of Papers/Total Points
C, N and SOMPhysicalBiologicalChemicalTechnologyReview & Metadata
20154.986.896.125.731.580.7026
20165.965.564.305.511.170.5023
20177.513.806.426.484.331.4630
20188.145.049.697.391.730.0032
20197.453.017.615.662.272.0028
20201.630.832.600.270.670.006
2015–201934.0424.3134.1430.7811.084.66139
2015–202035.6725.1436.7431.0411.754.66145
Table
Table 3. Distribution of publications over the selected years, relative to the country of origin.
Table 3. Distribution of publications over the selected years, relative to the country of origin.
CountryNo. of Papers201520162017201820192020
China56851314133
USA30866541
India23157640
Poland7230200
Czech Republic5311000
UK5101120
Germany4111010
Bulgaria4001120
Indonesia3000120
South Africa2000101
Spain2100001
Brazil2020000
Chile1000100
Canada1100000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Spasić, M.; Drábek, O.; Borůvka, L.; Tejnecký, V. Trends of Global Scientific Research on Reclaimed Coal Mine Sites between 2015 and 2020. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148412

AMA Style

Spasić M, Drábek O, Borůvka L, Tejnecký V. Trends of Global Scientific Research on Reclaimed Coal Mine Sites between 2015 and 2020. Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(14):8412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148412

Chicago/Turabian Style

Spasić, Marko, Ondřej Drábek, Luboš Borůvka, and Václav Tejnecký. 2023. "Trends of Global Scientific Research on Reclaimed Coal Mine Sites between 2015 and 2020" Applied Sciences 13, no. 14: 8412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148412

APA Style

Spasić, M., Drábek, O., Borůvka, L., & Tejnecký, V. (2023). Trends of Global Scientific Research on Reclaimed Coal Mine Sites between 2015 and 2020. Applied Sciences, 13(14), 8412. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148412

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop