SSSAJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 28 June 2005
Published in Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1288-1297 (2005)
DOI: 10.2136/sssaj2004.0221
© 2005 Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shukla, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Ebinger, M. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Shukla, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Ebinger, M. H.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Shukla, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Ebinger, M. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow Soil Physics
Right arrow Other Soil Types
Right arrow Other Waste Management
Right arrow Capillary Barriers
Right arrow Hydraulic Conductivity

Physical and Chemical Properties of a Minespoil Eight Years after Reclamation in Northeastern Ohio

M. K. Shuklaa,*, R. Lala and M. H. Ebingerb

a School of Natural Resources, FAES, The Ohio State Univ., Columbus, OH 43210-1085
b Los Alamos National Lab., Los Alamos, NM



View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Schematic of treatment plots and sampling locations. BTS, borrowed topsoil; FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil.

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Variation of soil bulk density among reclaimed and control plots. The SE was 0.07 among three reclamation treatments and 0.19 among all plots in the 0- to 10-cm depth. The bar indicates mean separation using Bonferroni multiple comparison. BTS, borrowed topsoil; FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil.

 


View larger version (22K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Variation of soil inorganic C among reclaimed and control plots. The SE was 0.12 among three reclamation treatments and 0.19 among all plots in the 0- to 10-cm depth, whereas it was 0.12 among three reclamation treatments and 0.10 among all plots in the 10- to 20-cm depth. The bar indicates mean separation using Bonferroni multiple comparison. BTS, borrowed topsoil; FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil.

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Variation of soil organic C among reclaimed and control plots. The SE was 1.3 among three reclamation treatments and 5.1 among all plots in the 0- to 10-cm depth, whereas it was 1.6 among three reclamation treatments and 5.1 among all plots in the 10- to 20-cm depth. The bar indicates mean separation using Bonferroni multiple comparison. BTS, borrowed topsoil; FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Variation of water-stable aggregation among reclaimed and control plots. The SE was 49 among three reclamation treatments and 103 among all plots in the 0- to 10-cm depth, whereas it was 47 among three reclamation treatments and 109 among all plots in the 10- to 20-cm depth. The bar indicates mean separation using Bonferroni multiple comparison. BTS, borrowed topsoil; FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil.

 


View larger version (24K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. Mean and standard deviations (bars) of soil water characteristic curves for different treatments (FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; BTS, borrowed topsoil + lime; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil) for the 0- to 10-cm depth. SWC = soil water characteristic curve.

 


View larger version (27K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 7. Mean and standard deviations (bars) water infiltration rate curves for different treatments (FGD, flue gas desulfurization by-products; FGDC, flue gas desulfurization by-products + yard waste compost; BTS, borrowed topsoil + lime; SP, unreclaimed spoil; UMS, unmined soil).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Journal of
Environmental Quality
Copyright © 2005 by the Soil Science Society of America.