Next Article in Journal
Aging Characteristics of Asphalt Binder under Strong Ultraviolet Irradiation in Northwest China
Previous Article in Journal
Distribution, Source and Potential Risk Assessment of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Sediments from the Liaohe River Protected Area, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 19
10.3390/su131910751
sustainability-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:
Article

New Approach for Mining Site Reclamation Using Alternative Substrate Based on Phosphate Industry By-Product and Sludge Mixture

by
Yao Kohou Donatien Guéablé
1,
Youssef Bezrhoud
2,
Haitam Moulay
1,
Lhoussaine Moughli
3,
Mohamed Hafidi
4,5,*,
Mohamed El Gharouss
1 and
Khalil El Mejahed
1,*
1
Agricultural Innovation and Technology Transfer Center (AITTC), Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P), Ben Guerir 43150, Morocco
2
Digital for Research (D4R), Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P), Ben Guerir 43150, Morocco
3
Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat 16000, Morocco
4
Laboratory of Microbial Biotechnologies, Agrosciences and Environment (BioMAgE), Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh 40000, Morocco
5
Agrobioscience Program, Mohammed VI Polytechnic University (UM6P), Ben Guerir 43150, Morocco
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 10751; https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910751
Submission received: 16 July 2021 / Revised: 26 August 2021 / Accepted: 13 September 2021 / Published: 28 September 2021
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Mining soils are generally characterized by soils having a coarse texture and low fertility, which makes revegetation a very difficult and delicate operation, especially in arid and semi-arid zones. The main objective of this work is to evaluate different substrates that can both contribute to the successful reclamation of phosphate mining soils and the valorization of phosphate by-product and sewage sludge. The study was carried out in pots under a greenhouse on Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). The experimental design is a randomized complete block with ten treatments, four repetitions from five substrates: phosphogypsum (PG), phosphate sludge (PS), sewage sludge (SS), topsoil from mining (TS) and phosphate waste rocks (PWR); this corresponds to soil after rock phosphate extraction. Nitrogen fertilization was applied to treatments after soil depletion in treatments not receiving sludge. An aerial biomass measurement and nutrient analysis were carried out for the three cuts. The results showed that a proportion of 65% of PG enriched the substrate in phosphorus by improving the crop yield. The addition of 5% of SS contributed to a significant improvement of ryegrass aerial biomass. In the absence of SS application, the addition of nitrogen is required to maintain crop growth. For large-scale application, TS can be mixed with PS, SS and PG for mine site reclamation.

1. Introduction

Taking advantage of a favorable geological context, Morocco is a country of a very long mining tradition which constitutes an important vector of economic and social development. Mining in Morocco is characterized by the dominance of phosphates of which Morocco is the leading producer [1,2]. According to [3], Morocco geographically concentrates 77% of the global phosphate rock reserves, with two thirds of the world reserves that are located in four sedimentary Moroccan basins. Thus, phosphate ore is the first ranking mineral resource in this country [4,5]. However, the exploitation of phosphate mines generates large quantities of by-products such as: phosphogypsum (PG), phosphate sludge (PS) and phosphate waste rocks (PWR) that remain accumulated and not recovered [6,7]. Furthermore, wastewater treatment generates large amounts of sewage sludge (SS), the amount of which is rapidly increasing with urbanization and industrial development. To utilize or to dispose of phosphate by-products and sewage sludge, various methods have been adopted such as landfill, individual combustion, sea dumping and farmland utilization. However, all these disposal methods have some limitations, such as occupying landfill sites or having some unfavorable environmental impacts [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Thus, it is of interest to search for innovative approaches for the beneficial use of these by-products. Several studies have been performed to reclaim mining sites [12,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], but no study has focused on the reclamation of mining site by using by-products from the phosphate industry and sewage sludge.
The reclamation phase is very important when the extraction is complete, since it makes it possible to remedy the consequences for rebuilding the new ecosystem and, thus, restoring the site to a natural look [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Indeed, for the success of the reclamation of the site, it is necessary to either look for species which adapt to the conditions of the soil and climate environment, or try to improve the environment by creating favorable soil conditions for the development of plants [38]. The challenge of reclamation is to provide a plant cover on mining soils characterized by a coarse texture, very low fertility and water holding capacity, making it difficult to revegetate [9,29,39,40,41,42,43] especially under an arid climate with low rainfall with an erratic distribution and high evapotranspiration. It is in this management perspective that our study looks for potential substrates that can be used for plantation to improve the reclamation and reduce the failures of plantations and the dependence on the irrigation. The recycling and valorization of these by-products is one of the most effective ways of reducing their volume and mitigating their negative environmental impact, while taking advantages of their nutrients (N, P, S, …) and their contribution to the improvement of growing conditions.
The main objective of this work was to evaluate different substrates that can contribute to the success of the reclamation of phosphate mining soils and the valorization of phosphate by-products and sewage sludge.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Substrates

  • Phosphogypsum (PG) used in this study was from the Jorf Lasfar Phosphate industry complex of OCP, located close to El Jadida, on the Moroccan Atlantic coast. The sample was sieved through 2 mm mesh sieve before physico-chemical analysis.
  • Phosphate waste rocks (PWR) were sampled in the dumps situated near the phosphate mine of the “Mining Operations of Gantour, OCP group”. Samples were obtained from a mixture of three random samples taken from the upper 20 to 30 cm on the site after rock phosphate extraction, then sieved through a 2 mm mesh sieve before physicochemical analysis.
  • Sewage sludge (SS) (completely dry) comes from the Youssoufia wastewater treatment plant.
  • Phosphate Tailing or Sludge (PS) was brought from the Youssoufia phosphate beneficiation complex. Sample was sieved through 2 mm mesh sieve before physicochemical analysis.
  • Topsoil (TS) used corresponds to topsoil gathered and put aside prior to mining. It was dried for 48 h before being stored in a cool place for reuse during the reclamation phase.

2.2. Plant Material

The plant material used in this study was Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), an annual herbaceous plant of the family Poaceae, commonly grown as a forage plant. It was chosen for this study due to its fast and quick regrowth after successive cuts.

2.3. Sampling

Samples of the different substrate components and plant were analyzed at the soil, plant, and water laboratory of the Agriculture Innovation Transfer Technology Center—Ben Guérir (AITTC) of the University Mohammed 6 polytechnic at Ben Guérir, Morocco.

2.4. Pot Preparation and Experimental Layout

A greenhouse pot experiment was conducted at AITTC. The study was carried out for 4 months on Italian ryegrass. The average temperatures in the greenhouse were 12, 18 and 25 °C for morning, afternoon and evening, respectively. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with ten treatments and four repetitions. The treatments consisted of a combination and mixtures of different by-products leading to substrates with defined proportions (Table 1). Before filling the pots with 10 kg of substrates, their bottoms were perforated to allow aeration and then covered with a stone to prevent the substrate from escaping and ensure drainage. The sowing of pot was performed with 4 g of ryegrass having a germination rate of 80%. Water from the well of the experimental farm of AITTC was used for irrigation and the seedlings were watered daily. Aerial biomass measurement and nutrient analysis were obtained from three cuts (1st cut after 36 days, 2nd cut after 38 days and 3rd cut after 60 days).

2.5. Fertilization

Before planting, two types of fertilizer were used for the fertilization of the substrate of treatment 7, because it contained small quantities of these elements; phosphorus in DAP form at a rate of 1.08 g/pot (50 ppm), and potassium in the form of potassium sulphate at a rate of 8.3 g/pot (400 ppm).
After the first cut, nitrogen fertilization as ammonium nitrate 33.5% at 25 mg N/kg was applied to treatments not receiving sludge after their depletion in N and lack of regrowth.

2.6. Data Collection

The plant material of each cut was oven dried at 70 °C for 24 h, weighed to determine the dry biomass and then ground. It was then analyzed at AITTC lab using different methods as follows: total nitrogen content was determined using the Kjeldahl method (NF ISO 13878); total phosphorus (NF ISO 11263) and total potassium content were measured by flame atomic absorption spectrometry [44].
The substrates properties were analyzed by methods according to ISO standards: granulometry (NF ISO 11377), bulk density (NF ISO 11272), soil water holding capacity (NF ISO 11461) [45]. In addition, pH measurements were performed according to ISO 10390 [46]. The electrical conductivity (EC) was determined from saturated extract (soil: water) by a conductivity meter [47]. Total and active lime was determined according to NF ISO 10693. The cation exchange capacity and exchangeable K were determined with the cobaltihexamine method (NF X 31-130) [48]. The Walkley and Black method and Kjeldahl method were used to determine organic carbon and total nitrogen (N), respectively (NF ISO 10694 and NF ISO 13878); available phosphorus was determined by Olsen method (Olsen P, NF ISO 11263) [49]. Metals (Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr, As, Zn) were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) (ISO 11466) [50].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Results were analyzed with the SPSS statistical software 20.0. Significant differences between different treatments during the three cuts were expressed with their standard error using ANOVA and mean comparison. Statistical tests were considered significant at 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical and Chemical Characterization of the Studied Substrates

Some physical and chemical characteristics of substrates are presented below (Table 2). The results obtained for the soil pH measurements revealed that, in general, all substrates presented an acidic, neutral to alkaline pH range. The EC measurements, revealed that, PG and SS had the highest values compared to PWR, PS and TS. The total lime and active lime values were higher in PS and PWR than in other substrates. Total N was higher in SS and PS than PG, PWR and TS. Furthermore, SS presented high contents in organic matter, available P and exchangeable potassium compared to PG, PWR, PS and TS. However, CEC was more than three times higher in PG than in SS, PWR and TS.
The different textures varied from sandy silt clay for PG and PS to sandy for PWR and clay for TS.
The heavy metal (Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr, As, Zn) contents of the phosphate by-products and sewage sludge in the five substrates were lower than the contents obtained by [4] in their study on the valorization of phosphate waste rocks and sludge from Ben Guerir and Youssoufia. Indeed, they obtained values of 13 ppm, 34 ppm, 137 ppm, 33 ppm and 195 ppm, respectively, for Pb, Ni, Cd, Cr and Zn. In addition, this study showed that there was no significant contaminant generation from the phosphate limestone wastes.

3.2. Physical and Chemical Characterization of the Different Treatments

3.2.1. Granulometry

The physical properties of different substrates consisted, first, in determining the textural class and, second, the determining of the bulk density of each treatment. The different treatments were principally sandy silt (T1, T3, T4, and T5) clay (T2) and sandy silt clay (T6, T8, T9, and T10) (Table 3). A sandy silt texture was obtained by [51] during the study on mine tailings from northern Tunisia. In addition, a clay texture was obtained by [2] in their study on the valorization of by-products from the Khouribga phosphate mine.

3.2.2. Bulk Density

The bulk density of different treatments varied between 1.01 and 1.38 g/cm3 (Table 3). According to [52,53], a bulk density between 1.1 and 1.4 g/cm3 was considered as a density of uncompacted substrates. Therefore, there was no physical limitation for root penetration and development as well as for drainage and air circulation [54].

3.2.3. Soil Water Holding Capacity

The results of the water holding capacity values of different treatments showed that the T2, T1 and T10 treatments had the highest values with 26.53%, 26.31% and 25.31%, respectively, while the T3 and T5 treatments had the lowest values with 17.55% and 15.83%, respectively (Table 3). These results indicated that the addition of PG was responsible for the high values of water holding capacity observed.

3.2.4. Water Irrigation

Water-used irrigation from the experimental farm of AITTC had a moderately basic pH of 7.35 and an EC of 2.58 dS/m indicating a moderately saline water (Table 4). Similar results were reported by [55] during their study on the valorization of PG in agriculture as an amendment or reclamation in arid zone soil.

3.2.5. Organic Matter

The organic matter contents of the different treatments before and after ryegrass cultivation showed an increase for almost all treatments (Table 5). At the initial state, the values varied between a minimum of 0% (T6 and T7) and a maximum of 3.24% (T10). At the final state, the values varied between a minimum of 0.31% (T6) and a maximum of 3.83% (T10).
The highest organic matter contents were recorded in T4, T8 and T10. Those could be explained by the addition of SS (5%) to these treatments. According to [56], the SS is particularly interesting for its ability to quickly supply nutrients to plants. Thus, organic matter was the main source of nutrients (N, K, P, etc.).
The lowest organic matter contents were recorded in T1, T5, T6, T7 and T9 because their substrate compositions had low organic matter contents (PG, PWR, PS) (Table 2).

3.2.6. pH

The pH of the different treatments before and after ryegrass cultivation showed different variations (Table 5). On the one hand, the pH of T1, T8 and T9 treatments showed a slight decrease. On the other hand, an increase in pH was observed for T3, T4, T5, T6, T7 and T10 treatments. However, the pH of treatment T2 remained constant with a value of 7.77. The increases observed for T3, T4, T5, T6, T7 and T10 treatments would be due to the mixtures of the by-products (PG, SS and PS or PG and PWR or SS and PS or PG and TS). A similar increase in pH was observed by [57,58].

3.3. Macronutrient Contents of the Different Treatments

3.3.1. Total Nitrogen (N) Content

Total nitrogen (N) contents of the different treatments during the cultivation of ryegrass had the highest value (2500 mg N/kg) for T2 (agricultural soil) when compared to the other treatments (Table 6). Total nitrogen contents of 1600, 1400, 1600 and 900 mg N/kg were obtained, respectively, for the T3, T4, T8 and T10 treatments because of their composition in sludge. This was in agreement with [59] findings on the richness of the sludges in N. Moreover, the lowest values were obtained for the T1, T5, T6, T7 and T9 treatments, which showed that these substrates were very poor in total nitrogen. Indeed, nitrogen is a major limiting nutrient on mine soils. Hence, the regular addition of fertilizer nitrogen may be required in order to maintain the healthy growth and persistence of vegetation [60,61].

3.3.2. Available Phosphorus (P)

The maximum available P contents were obtained, respectively, for the T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7 treatments (Table 6). These treatments were considered very rich in available P according to the standard described by [62] (P2O5 > 100 mg P/kg). These high values were due to the composition of different treatments containing PG rich in P. Thus, According to [63], PG is a source of P. However, during the experiment, the values of available P decreased for almost all treatments. These decreases would be due to P leaching. Indeed, Ref. [64] indicated that amounts of phosphorus were released from the by-products (as PG, PWR and PS) in neutral, basic and, especially, acidic environments.
T1 with 2.11 mg P/kg showed the lowest phosphorus value, which was normal since it represented the mining waste (mining soil after P extraction), was very poor in nutrients. According to [12,65,66,67], this poverty was due to a shortage of organic matter at mine sites.

3.3.3. Exchangeable Potassium (K)

The exchangeable K contents of the different treatments were less than 100 mg K/kg (Table 6), except for treatment T2 with 520 mg K/kg. According to the exchangeable potassium interpretation standards of [62], T1, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9 and T10 treatments had low potassium contents, while treatment T2 was very rich. The high exchangeable K content of the treatment T2 could be explained by the high exchangeable K content in TS (Table 2).

3.4. Effect of Treatments and Nitrogen on Aerial Biomass and Crop Nutrients Uptake

3.4.1. Effect of Treatments and Nitrogen on Aerial Biomass

During this study, aerial biomass was measured on three successive cuts. An analysis of the variance of the biomass data for the three cuts trials showed that the difference between treatments was highly significant (p = 0.005) at the 5% probability level (Table 7).
At the first cut, without any nitrogen supply, the best biomass yields were obtained for the T3, T4, T8 and T10 treatments. The addition of 5% SS contributed significantly to this increase. Indeed, the high organic matter, phosphorus and potassium contents of the sludges ensured a better supply and, consequently, a better assimilation of nutrients; thus, promoting plant growth [8,68,69]. Similar results were found by [10] for ryegrass; [70,71] for maize and [72] for millet and maize.
At the second cut, the treatments containing sludges (SS and/or PS), T3, T4, T8 and T10, maintained a high biomass, except for T10 which decreased from 37.68 to 28.72 g/pot, due to the rapid nutrient depletion of this soil. A total of 25 mg N/kg of nitrogen was applied for the treatments without sludges (T1, T2, T5, T6, T7 and T9). This nitrogen application allowed for the increase in the biomass of these last ones compared to the first cut, except for the case of T1 which decreased from 8.98 to 8.41 g/pot because of its coarse texture and lack of organic matter, which caused the leaching of nitrogen. At the third cut, a decrease in biomass was observed for all treatments due to the decrease in nutrient availability.

3.4.2. Effect of Treatments and Nitrogen on Nutrients Exported by Crop

  • Total phosphorus uptake
Total phosphorus (P) contents uptaken by the plants during the three cuts showed a high phosphorus content for the T3, T4, T8 and T10 treatments compared to the T1, T2, T5, T6, T7 and T9 treatments (Table 8). These contents were due to the high available P of these substrates originating from PG, which was very rich in P (Table 2). According to [73,74,75,76], the use of PG improves crop yield through its available P which contributes to the development of the plant. In addition, the P contents of treatments without sludge (SS and/or PS) (T1, T2, T5, T6, T7 and T9), showed a similar evolution to T3, T4, T8 and T10 treatments with a decrease during the second and third cut. However, the lowest P content value was observed in treatment T1, due to the composition of the treatment having PWR which was low phosphorus (2.11 mg P/kg) content (Table 2).
  • Total potassium uptake
Total potassium (K) contents uptaken by the plants during the three cuts showed an increase to the second cut for the T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8 and T9 treatments (Table 9). However, the T1 and T10 treatments showed a progressive decrease during the second and third cut. These different variations of P were related to the richness of each treatment in this element [58,62].
  • Total nitrogen uptake
The variation in total nitrogen (N) uptaken by the plant during the three cuts indicated that during the first cut, the highest nitrogen uptaken were obtained for the T3, T4, T8 and T10 treatments (Table 10). These high values were explained by the presence of N-rich components in the substrates.
According to [59], sludge could be used as a nitrogen fertilizer because of its content of mineral N. However, during the second and third cut, a decrease was observed in these treatments. This decrease was due to substrate depletion through the export of available nitrogen from the crops during the trial.
The total N uptake by treatments without sludge addition (T1, T2, T5, T6, T7 and T9) showed an increase in N in the second cut and a decrease in the third cut. These increases and decreases in total N contents could be explained by the addition of N (nitrogen fertilization at 25 mg N/kg) after the first cut and the depletion of available N after the second cut.
  • Most uptaken nutrients
The total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus (P) and total potassium (K) uptaken during the three cuts (Table 11) revealed that N contents were high in treatments containing sewage sludge (T3, T4, T8 and T10). The highest content was observed in treatment T8 (95% PWR and 5% SS). These results were in agreement with those reported by [59], where the nitrogen (N) content increased due to the sewage sludge application. However, a richness in K was observed in treatments without sewage sludge with T8 and T10 treatments that showed the highest contents. Whatever treatment, P was the least uptaken element by the crop during the experimental cycle. The lowest P value was observed for treatment T1 (˂1 g) due to its low nutrient content.
Moreover, this low uptake of P would be related to the presence of metals (Pb, Cd, and Cu) which play an important role in the complexation with P. Thus, these metals can remain immobilized in the different treatments [23,67,77,78,79].

4. Conclusions

Overall, this study revealed that:
  • The addition of 5% of SS to substrates can contribute to a significant improvement in biomass productions.
  • A proportion of 65% PG enriched the different treatments in phosphorus.
  • The reclamation of the mine site using TS can be more effective by adding nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium inputs.
  • TS can be mixed with PS and SS and used as an alternative for the reclamation of the mine site.
Preliminary results of heavy metals showed that the different substrates did not present a major hazard. Thus, the application of these substrates could provide efficient and cost-effective methods in the management of by-products from phosphate mines and sewage sludge.
The results of this study will allow the application of this new approach on a large scale.
Although the application of SS rich in organic matter can significantly improve substrate quality, other studies are worth pursuing in the future to deepen the knowledge about the influence of these by-products as amendments on mineral soils, the availability and bioavailability of the metals generated, and explore the potential for a more efficient and cost-effective use.
For example, it is necessary to quantify the proportion of exogenous microorganisms provided by the organic matter from the sewage sludge and the part from the substrate. It would also be useful to study the effect of these sludges as well as that of PG on the environment, and to evaluate the transfer of certain elements towards the plant.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Gantour OCP phosphate production site of Ben Guerir, Morocco under the “specific agreement OCP-UM6P no. RE02”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be provided upon request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to greatly acknowledge the OCP Gantour production site of Ben Guerir for the financial support under the Specific Agreement RE02. The AITTC Soil, Water and Plant Analysis Laboratory and the AITTC experimental farm for providing the facilities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rami, A.O. The supply behaviour of state mining enterprises: A case study of the Jordanian phosphate industry. Resour. Policy 2008, 33, 196–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boutaleb, F.; Boutaleb, N.; Bahlaouan, B.; Deblij, S.; El Antri, S. Effect of Phosphate Mine Tailings from Morocco on the Mechanical Properties of Ceramic Tiles. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2020, 9, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cooper, J.; Lombardi, R.; Boardman, D.; Carliell-Marquet, C. The future distribution and production of global phosphate rock reserves. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2011, 57, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hakkou, R.; Benzaazoua, M.; Bussière, B. Valorization of Phosphate Waste Rocks and Sludge from the Moroccan Phosphate Mines. Chall. Perspect. Procedia Eng. 2016, 138, 110–118. [Google Scholar]
  5. Mabroum, S.; Moukannaa, S.; El Machi, A.; Taha, Y.; Benzaazoua, M.; Hakkou, R. Mine wastes based geopolymers: A critical review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2020, 1, 10–14. [Google Scholar]
  6. Amrani, M.; Taha, Y.; Kchikach, A.; Benzaazoua, M.; Hakkou, R. Phosphogypsum recycling: New horizons for a more sustainable road material application. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gabardi, S.E.L.; Chliyeh, M.; Ouazzani Touhami, A.; Modafar, C.E.L.; Filalimaltouf, A.; Abed, S.E.L.; Ibnsouda, K.S.; Soumia, A.; Moukhli, A.; Benkirane, R.; et al. Diversity of mycorrhizal fungi arbuscular at phosphates sludge, khouribga region (Morocco). Plant Arch. 2019, 19, 2233–2241. [Google Scholar]
  8. An-nori, A.; El Fels, L.; Ezzariai, A.; El Hayani, B.; El Mejahed, K.; El Gharous, M.; Hafidi, M. Effectiveness of helminth egg reduction by solar drying and liming of sewage sludge. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 28, 14080–14091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sheoran, V.; Sheoran, A. Reclamation of abandoned mine land. J. Min. Metall. A Min. 2009, 45, 13–32. [Google Scholar]
  10. Joseph, C.; Khiari, L.; Gallichand, J.; Ebert, M.H. Influence of Sludge Incineration Ash on Ryegrass Growth and Soil. Pedosphere 2019, 29, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Carbonell, A.A.; DeLaune, R.D.; Patrick, W.H. Effect of Phosphogypsum and Barite Amendments on Heavy Metals and Trace Elements Chemistry in Mississippi River Alluvial Sediment. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 1998, 33, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Albert, M.; Abad, S.; Castillejo, J.M.; San Cristobal, A.G.; Castello, R. Ecological Restoration of Gypsum Quarries in Southeast Spain. In Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Ecological Restoration, Ghent, Belgium, 8–12 September 2008; pp. 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fayiga, A.O.; Nwoke, O.C. Phosphate rock: Origin, importance, environmental impacts, and future roles. Environ. Rev. 2016, 24, 403–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gorazda, K.; Kowalski, Z.; Wzorek, K. From sewage sludge ash to calcium phosphate fertilizers. Polish J. Chem. Technol. 2012, 14, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Bhawan, P.; Nagar, E.A. Guidelines for Management and Handling of Phosphogypsum Generated from Phosphoric Acid Plants; Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment & Forests: New Delhi, India, 2013; p. 41.
  16. Tayibi, H.; Choura, M.; López, F.A.; Alguacil, F.J.; López-Delgado, A. Environmental impact and management of phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2377–2382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nzihou, A.; Sharrock, P. Role of phosphate in the remediation and reuse of heavy metal polluted wastes and sites. Waste Biomass Valorization 2010, 1, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Rao, A.V.; Tarafdar, J.C. Selection of plant species for rehabilitation of gypsum mine spoil in arid zone. J. Arid Environ. 1998, 39, 559–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sharma, K.D.; Kumar, S.; Gough, L.P. Rehabilitation of gypsum-mined lands in the Indian desert. Arid Soil Res. Rehabil. 2001, 15, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cooke, J.A.; Johnson, M.S. Ecological restoration of land with particular reference to the mining of metals and industrial minerals: A review of theory and practice. Environ. Rev. 2002, 10, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Banning, N.C.; Grant, C.D.; Jones, D.L.; Murphy, D.V. Recovery of soil organic matter, organic matter turnover and nitrogen cycling in a post-mining forest rehabilitation chronosequence. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 2021–2031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. European Commission (EC). Management of Tailings and Waste-Rock in Mining Activities; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miretzky, P.; Fernandez-Cirelli, A. Phosphates for Pb immobilization in soils: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2008, 6, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tandy, S.; Healey, J.R.; Nason, M.A.; Williamson, J.C.; Jones, D.L. Remediation of metal polluted mine soil with compost: Co-composting versus incorporation. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 690–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ciarkowska, K.; Sołek-Podwika, K.; Wieczorek, J. Enzyme activity as an indicator of soil-rehabilitation processes at a zinc and lead ore mining and processing area. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 132, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wildman, H. Improving Mine Rehabilitation Success Through Microbial Management. J. Environ. Solut. Oil Gas Min. 2015, 1, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wijesekara, H.; Bolan, N.S.; Vithanage, M.; Xu, Y.; Mandal, S.; Brown, S.L.; Hettiarachchi, G.M.; Pierzynski, G.M.; Huang, L.; Ok, Y.S.; et al. Utilization of Biowaste for Mine Spoil Rehabilitation. Adv. Agron. 2016, 138, 97–173. [Google Scholar]
  28. Thavamani, P.; Samkumar, R.A.; Satheesh, V.; Subashchandrabose, S.R.; Ramadass, K.; Naidu, R.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Megharaj, M. Microbes from mined sites: Harnessing their potential for reclamation of derelict mine sites. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 230, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Alghamdi, A.; Kirkham, M.B.; Presley, D.R.; Hettiarachchi, G.; Murray, L. Rehabilitation of an abandoned mine site with biosolids. In Spoil to Soil: Mine Site Rehabilitation and Revegetation; Bolan, N., Kirkham, M.B., Ok, Y.S., Eds.; CRC Press; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Chapter 14; pp. 241–258. [Google Scholar]
  30. Alvarenga, P.; Clemente, R.; Garbisu, C.; Becerril, J.M. Indicators for Monitoring Mine Site Rehabilitation. In Bio-Geotechnologies Mine Site Rehabilitation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 49–66. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kumar, A.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Maiti, S.K.; Favas, P.J.S. Mycoremediation for mine site rehabilitation. In Bio-Geotechnologies for Mine Site Rehabilitation; Prasad, M.N.V., Favas, P.J.C., Maiti, S.K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 233–253. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bruneel, O.; Mghazli, N.; Sbabou, L.; Héry, C.; Casiot, M.; Filali-Maltouf, A. Role of microorganisms in rehabilitation of mining sites, focus on Sub Saharan African countries. J. Geochem. Explor. 2019, 205, 106–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Erickson, T.; Munoz-Rojas, M.; Guzzomi, A.; Masarei, M.; Ling, E.; Bateman, A.; Kildisheva, O.; Ritchie, A.; Turner, S.; Parsons, B.; et al. A case study of seed-use technology development for Pilbara mine site rehabilitation. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Perth, Australia, 3–5 September 2019; Volume i, pp. 679–692. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rostami, S.; Azhdarpoor, A. The application of plant growth regulators to improve phytoremediation of contaminated soils: A review. Chemosphere 2019, 220, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Barliza, J.C.; Rodríguez, O.B.; León Peláez, J.D.; Chávez, L.F. Planted forests for open coal mine spoils rehabilitation in Colombian drylands: Contributions of fine litterfall through an age chronosequence. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 138, 180–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kragt, M.; Lison, C.; Manero, A.; Hawkis, J. Mine site rehabilitation conditions in Western Australia. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, Australia, 3–5 September 2018; pp. 95–110. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dhar, A.; Comeau, P.G.; Karst, J.; Pinno, B.D.; Chang, S.X. Plant community development following reclamation of oil sands mine sites in the boreal forest: A review. Environ. Rev. 2018, 26, 286–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sarkar, B.; Wijesekara, H.; Mandal, S.; Singh, M.; Bolan, N.S. Characterization and Improvement in Physical, Chemical, and Biological Properties of Mine Wastes. In Spoil to Soil: Mine Site Rehabilitation and Revegetation; Bolan, N., Kirkham, M.B., Ok, Y.S., Eds.; CRC Press; Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Chapter 1; pp. 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bradshaw, A.D. Ecological principles and land reclamation practice. Landsc. Plan. 1984, 11, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pulford, I.D.; Watson, C. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated land by trees—A review. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Larney, F.J.; Angers, D.A. The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2012, 92, 19–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hamza, Z.; Ait, R.; Berkaoui, M.E.; Adnani, M.E.; Hakkou, R.; Smouni, A.; Fahr, M.; Bouab, N.; Faiz, A.E.; Ouhammou, A. Screening for native plant species potential revegetation of phosphatic clay applied as a cover to abandoned Kettara mine tailings Marrakech Morocco. Smetox J. 2018, 1, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  43. Buta, M.; Blaga, G.; Paulette, L.; Păcurar, I.; Roşca, S.; Borsai, O.; Grecu, F.; Sînziana, P.E.; Negruşier, C. Soil reclamation of abandoned mine lands by revegetation in Northwestern part of Transylvania: A 40-Year retrospective study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Prudent, M.; Dequiedt, S.; Sorin, C.; Girodet, S.; Nowak, V.; Duc, G.; Salon, C.; Maron, P.A. The diversity of soil microbial communities matters when legumes face drought. Plant Cell Environ. 2020, 43, 1023–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Jungić, D.; Gunjača, J.; Herak-Ćustić, M.; Šimunić, I.; Ban, D.; Sraka, M. Content of mineral N in soil and tomato yields considering fertigation and mulch. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2017, 82, 361–365. [Google Scholar]
  46. Uysal, E.; Liv, L.; Akçadağ, F. Proficiency testing for determination of pH and electrolytic conductivity in water and soil samples. J. Chem. Metrol. 2019, 13, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ben Bahri, B.; Laribi, S.; Soufi, S.; Rezgui, S.; Bettaieb, T. Growth performance, photosynthetic status and bioaccumulation of heavy metals by Paulownia tomentosa. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res. 2015, 6, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  48. Morel, C.; Plénet, D.; Mollier, A. Calibration of maize phosphorus status by plant-available soil P assessed by common and process-based approaches. Is it soil-specific or not? Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 122, 126174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saad, R.F.; Kobaissi, A.; Machinet, G.; Villemin, G.; Echevarria, G.; Benizri, E. Crop rotation associating a legume and the nickel hyperaccumulator Alyssum murale improves the structure and biofunctioning of an ultramafic soil. Ecol. Res. 2018, 33, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Benidire, L.; Pereira, S.I.A.; Castro, P.M.L.; Boularbah, A. Assessment of plant growth promoting bacterial populations in the rhizosphere of metallophytes from the Kettara mine, Marrakech. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 21751–21765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Boussen, S.; Soubrand, M.; Bril, H.; Ouerfelli, K.; Abdeljaouad, S. Transfer of lead, zinc and cadmium from mine tailings to wheat (Triticum aestivum) in carbonated Mediterranean (Northern Tunisia) soils. Geoderma 2013, 192, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Legros, J.P. Les Grands Sols du Monde; Science de la Terre, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007; p. 574. [Google Scholar]
  53. Taylor, H.M.; Robertson, G.M.; Parker, J.J., Jr. Soil strength-Root penetration relations for medium to coarse-textured soil materials. Soil Sci. 1966, 102, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Baize, D.; Girard, M.C.; Boulaine, J.; Cheverry, C.; Ruelain, A. Référentiel Pédologique. 2008. Available online: https://books.google.co.ma/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=TWHmK5pYlCQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=+Référentiel+Pédologique.+&ots=yd0VD03yM1&sig=cxpkQQaOZv87XIGeyC_F7QIpZHM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=RéférentielPédologique.&f=false (accessed on 11 February 2021).
  55. Ardhaoui, K.; Karbout, N.; Thabti, N.; Moussa, M. Study of Phosphogypsum Amendment in Arid Zone Soil El Fja Region (Mednine, Tunisia). J. New Sci. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 26, 2790–2794. [Google Scholar]
  56. Laroche, O. Révégétalisation de Sites Miniers et Valorisation de Boues de Stations D’épuration: Cas de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Mémoire de Maîtrise en Environnement; Centre Universitaire de Formation en Environnement, Université de Sherbrooke: Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  57. Rodríguez-Vila, A.; Forján, R.; Guedes, R.S.; Covelo, E.F. Changes on the Phytoavailability of Nutrients in a Mine Soil Reclaimed with Compost and Biochar. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2016, 227, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lee, Y.B.; Ha, H.S.; Park, B.K.; Cho, J.S.; Kim, P.J. Effect of a fly ash and gypsum mixture on rice cultivation. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2002, 48, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Ahmed, H.K.; Fawy, H.A.; Abdel-Hady, E.S. Study of sewage sludge use in agriculture and its effect on plant and soil. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2010, 1, 1044–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ranjan, V.; Sen, P.; Kumar, D. Dump slope stabilisation through revegetation in iron ore mines in Bonai Iron ore range: A review. Int. J. Min. Miner. Eng. 2017, 8, 334–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sheoran, V.; Sheoran, A.; Poonia, P. Soil Reclamation of Abandoned Mine Land by Revegetation: A Review. Int. J. Soil Sediment Water. 2010, 3, 13. [Google Scholar]
  62. Delaunois, A.; Ferrie, Y.; Bouche, M.; Colin, C.; Adour-garonne, E.; Dar, C.A.S. Guide pour la description et l’évaluation de la fertilité des sols. Chamb. d’Agric. Tarn 2013, 81, 1–37. [Google Scholar]
  63. Al-Oudat, M.; Arslan, A.; Kanakri, S. Physical and chemical properties, plant growth, and radionuclide accumulation effects from mixing phosphogypsum with some soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1998, 29, 2515–2528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jiang, L.; Xue, Q.; Liu, L. Evaluation of the potential release of phosphorus from phosphate waste rock piles in different environmental scenarios. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 4, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. L’huillier, L.; Jaffré, T.; Wulff, A. Nouvelle-Calédonie Mines et Environnement en Nouvelle-Calédonie: Les Milieux sur Substrats Ultramafiques et Leur Restauration; IAC: Nouméa, Nouvelle Calédonie, 2010; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sandell Festin, E.; Salk, C.; Tigabu, M.; Syampungani, S.; Odén, P.C. Biological traits of tropical trees suitable for restoration of copper-polluted lands. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 138, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wijesekara, H.; Bolan, N.S.; Kumarathilaka, P.; Geekiyanage, N.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; Seshadri, B.; Saint, C.; Surapaneni, A.; Vithanage, M. Biosolids Enhance Mine Site Rehabilitation and Revegetation. Environ. Mater. Waste 2016, 138, 45–71. [Google Scholar]
  68. Duplessis, J. Le Compostage Facilité: Guide sur le Compostage Domestique; NOVA Envirocom: Sherbrooke, QC, Canada, 2002; Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&scioq=La+richesse+de+ces+boues+en+matière+organique%2C+phosphore+et+potassium+assurent+une+meilleure+dissolution%2C+et+par+conséquent%2C+une+meilleure+assimilation+des+nutriments+favorisant+ainsi+la+cr (accessed on 17 March 2021).
  69. Meddich, A.; Elouaqoudi, F.; Khadra, A. Valorisation des déchets d’origine végétale et industrielle par compostage. Rev. Compos. Matériaux Av. 2016, 26, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Toundou, O.; Tozo, K.; Feuillade, G.; Pallier, V.; Tchegueni, S. Effets de composts de déchets sur les propriétés chimiques du sol et la solubilité d’éléments minéraux sous deux régimes hydriques en conditions contrôlées au Togo. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2014, 8, 1917–1926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Yin, X.; Hayes, R.M.; McClure, M.A.; Savoy, H.J. Assessment of plant biomass and nitrogen nutrition with plant height in early-to mid-season corn. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2611–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Diallo, M.D.; Chotte, J.L.; Guisse, A.; Sall, S.N. Influence de la litière foliaire de cinq espèces végétales tropicales sur la croissance du mil (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) et du maïs (Zea mays L.). Sécheresse 2008, 19, 207–210. [Google Scholar]
  73. Delgado, A.; Uceda, I.; Andreu, L.; Kassem, S.; Del Campillo, M.C. Fertilizer phosphorus recovery from gypsum-amended, reclaimed calcareous marsh soils. Arid Land Res. Manag. 2002, 16, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mullins, G.L.; Mitchell, C.C.J. Use of Phosphogypsum to Increase Yield and Quality of Annual Forages; Florida Institute of Phosphate Research: Bartow, FL, USA, 1990; p. 71. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mays, D.A.; Mortvedt, J.J. Crop Response to Soil Applications of Phosphogypsum. J. Environ. Qual. 1986, 15, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kammoun, M.; Ghorbel, I.; Charfeddine, S.; Kamoun, L.; Gargouri-Bouzid, R.; Nouri-Ellouz, O. The positive effect of phosphogypsum-supplemented composts on potato plant growth in the field and tuber yield. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 200, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cao, X.; Ma, L.Q.; Rhue, D.R.; Appel, C.S. Mechanisms of lead, copper, and zinc retention by phosphate rock. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 131, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Violante, A.; Cozzolino, V.; Perelomov, L.; Caporale, A.G.; Pigna, M. Mobility and bioavailability of heavy metals and metalloids in soil environments. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2010, 10, 268–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Mignardi, S.; Corami, A.; Ferrini, V. Evaluation of the effectiveness of phosphate treatment for the remediation of mine waste soils contaminated with Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn. Chemosphere 2012, 86, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Treatments and substrate composition and additions.
Table 1. Treatments and substrate composition and additions.
TreatmentsPGPWRTSSSPS
T1-100%---
T2- 100%--
T365%30%-5%
T465% -5%30%
T565% 35%--
T665%35%---
T765% *35% *---
T8-95%-5%-
T9-65%35%--
T10---5%95%
* Add of phosphorus in DAP form at a rate of 1.08 g/pot (50 ppm), and potassium in the form of potassium sulphate at a rate of 8.3 g/pot (400 ppm). PG: phosphogypsum; PWR: phosphate waste rock; TS: Topsoil; SS: Sewage sludge; PS: phosphate sludge.
Table
Table 2. Characterization of physical and chemical properties and heavy metals contents of studied substrates.
Table 2. Characterization of physical and chemical properties and heavy metals contents of studied substrates.
PropertiesPGSSPWRPSTS
pH3.007.008.68.47.80
EC (dS/m)4.245.530.310.710.19
Total lime (%)0.008.2029.3030.002.40
Active lime (%)0.000.005.305.900.00
Total N (%)0.782.051.202.281.67
Organic matter (%)0.0037.000.010.001.70
Available
P (mg P/kg)		375.181252.652.117.49116.34
Exchangeable potassium (mg K/kg)19.551231.9539.182.11520.00
CEC (cmol/100 g)228.8849.2230.9028.7447.70
Textural classSandy silt clay-Sandy siltSandy silt clayClay
Total Pb (ppm)0.490.030.720.520.69
Total Ni (ppm)2.200.212.894.062.85
Total Cd (ppm)1.160.040.270.220.42
Total Cr (ppm)2.070.090.751.162.48
Total Zn (ppm)36.6140.0058.7544.6122.63
Table
Table 3. Physical characterization of the different treatments.
Table 3. Physical characterization of the different treatments.
TreatmentsClay (%)Silt (%)Sand (%)Textural ClassesBulk Density (g/cm3)Soil Water Holding Capacity (mm)
T113.5 ± 1.6324 ± 2.9462.5 ± 5.89Sandy silt1.2 ± 0.0820.56 ± 2.16
T260.75 ± 2.1620.25 ± 0.8219 ± 2.94Clay1.38 ± 0.827.88 ± 2.94
T311.5 ± 0.8220 ± 1.4168.5 ± 1.63Sandy silt1.02 ± 0.2219.39 ± 2.16
T410.5 ± 1.4127.5 ± 0.8262.33 ± 1.531.02 ± 0.0622.16 ± 0.82
T510.75 ± 1.7431.25 ± 1.4158 ± 2.161.05 ± 0.0821.24 ± 1.63
T611 ± 0.8238.75 ± 1.4150.25 ± 2.13Sandy silt clay1.01 ± 0.0824.52 ± 4.32
T717 ± 1.4130 ± 1.4153 ± 2.45Sandy silt1.02 ± 0.8220.50 ± 1.63
T817.25 ± 1.4122.25 ± 0.5460.5 ± 1.08Sandy silt clay1.22 ± 0.8223.29 ± 2.83
T927.75 ± 0.224 ± 1.4148.25 ± 0.741.26 ± 0.2824.67 ± 1.89
T1028.25 ± 0.9320 ± 2.4851.75 ± 1.411.22 ± 0.0425.75 ± 3.56
Table
Table 4. Irrigation water analysis.
Table 4. Irrigation water analysis.
ParametersValues
EC (dS/m)2.58
pH7.35
NH4+ (ppm)0
NO3− (ppm)1.11
K+ (ppm)0.19
Na+ (Mg/L)13.05
Ca2+ (Mg/L)6.16
Mg2+ (Mg/L)6.78
Table
Table 5. Chemical characterization of the different treatments.
Table 5. Chemical characterization of the different treatments.
TreatmentsOrganic Matter (%)pH
InitialFinalInitialFinal
T10.007 ± 0.0010.452 ± 0.378.59 ± 0.058.2 ± 0.16
T21.704 ± 0.221.664 ± 0.227.77 ± 0.087.77 ± 0.08
T31.452 ± 0.291.319 ± 0.166.1 ± 0.227.46 ± 0.06
T41.086 ± 0.821.7 ± 1.416.12 ± 0.027.46 ± 0.02
T50.293 ± 0.140.648 ± 0.084.03 ± 0.027.06 ± 0.02
T600.316 ± 0.226.27 ± 0.117.37 ± 0.02
T700.38 ± 0.146.17 ± 0.027.47 ± 0.12
T81.002 ± 0.711.736 ± 0.168.27 ± 0.027.88 ± 0.02
T90.378 ± 0.240.932 ± 0.088.31 ± 0.167.94 ± 0.03
T103.24 ± 1.413.834 ± 1.637.47 ± 0.027.96 ± 0.02
Table
Table 6. Macronutrient content of the different treatments.
Table 6. Macronutrient content of the different treatments.
TreatmentsTotal Nitrogen (mg N/kg)Available Phosphorus (mg P/kg)Exchangeable Potassium (mg K/kg)
InitialFinalInitialFinal
T1200 ± 0.0082.11 ± 0.902.01 ± 0.8239.10 ± 0.0235.83 ± 0.04
T22500 ± 0.07116.34 ± 2.9480.86 ± 2.16520 ± 0.47297.06 ± 0.14
T31600 ± 0.04405.57 ± 1.63157.07 ± 0.8270.40 ± 0.0611.88 ± 0.02
T41400 ± 0.04424,88 ± 2.16160.18 ± 1.6363.03 ± 0.0812.24 ± 0.03
T5400 ± 0.03370.46 ± 3.56146.12 ± 2.1681.03 ± 0.0238 ± 0.03
T6100 ± 0.007407.28 ± 2.16171.91 ± 1.4126.87 ± 0.028.45 ± 0.03
T7100 ± 0.007383,48 ± 1.41157.35 ± 0.8227.62 ± 0.0611.86 ± 0.01
T81600 ± 0.0666.85 ± 0.559.91 ± 0.0270.98 ± 0.0631.46 ± 0.05
T90.06 ± 0.039.05 ± 0.049.12 ± 0.3384.92 ± 0.4139.04 ± 0.04
T100.09 ± 0.0222.12 ± 0.8732.08 ± 1.7075.25 ± 0.2231.45 ± 0.01
Table
Table 7. Aerial dry biomass of ryegrass of different treatments without nitrogen supply (1); aerial dry biomass of ryegrass of different treatments with nitrogen supply after the first cut (2).
Table 7. Aerial dry biomass of ryegrass of different treatments without nitrogen supply (1); aerial dry biomass of ryegrass of different treatments with nitrogen supply after the first cut (2).
TreatmentsCut 1 (g)Cut 2 (g)Cut 3 (g)
(2) T18.98 ± 0.808.41 ± 0.582.2 ± 0.28
(2) T27.15 ± 0.849.3 ± 0.858.4 ± 0.57
(1) T324.33 ± 2.1634.7 ± 0.9814.99 ± 1.64
(1) T428.25 ± 0.7435.86 ± 2.1713.36 ± 1.41
(2) T510.4 ± 0.5717.2 ± 0.4311.5 ± 1.63
(2) T65.72 ± 0.3413.42 ± 1.1611.15 ± 0.76
(2) T79.82 ± 0.8214.17 ± 0.899.91 ± 0.38
(1) T832.18 ± 0.1538.96 ± 0.8215.85 ± 0.82
(2) T96.52 ± 0.228.14 ± 0.133.2 ± 0.28
(1) T1037.68 ± 0.9728.72 ± 1.4110.54 ± 2.16
Table
Table 8. P content uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); P content uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
Table 8. P content uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); P content uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
TreatmentsCut 1 (g)Cut 2 (g)Cut 3 (g)
(2) T10.25 ± 0.010.55 ± 0.010.19 ± 0.01
(2) T27.36 ± 0.011.37 ± 0.011.09 ± 0.02
(1) T343.31 ± 0.039.72 ± 0.023.26 ± 0.03
(1) T447.18 ± 0.069.95 ± 0.023.92 ± 0.02
(2) T514.14 ± 0.014.42 ± 0.012.39 ± 0.02
(2) T65.09 ± 0.012.45 ± 0.012.01 ± 0.07
(2) T77.66 ± 0.052.66 ± 0.011.19 ± 0.01
(1) T849.23 ± 0.0410.81 ± 0.012.69 ± 0.02
(2) T93.52 ± 0.060.67 ± 0.010.18 ± 0.01
(1) T1051.99 ± 0.167.61 ± 0.021.92 ± 0.07
Table
Table 9. Potassium content uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); potassium content uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
Table 9. Potassium content uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); potassium content uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
TreatmentsCut 1 (g)Cut 2 (g)Cut 3 (g)
(2) T118.90 ± 0.2514.82 ± 0.102.56 ± 01.1
(2) T221.79 ± 0.1523.27 ± 0.1117.87 ± 0.12
(1) T327.86 ± 0.0839.82 ± 0.1416.68 ± 0.09
(1) T434.32 ± 0.0949.22 ± 0.0816.22 ± 0.18
(2) T530.42 ± 0.1638.53 ± 0.0817.74 ± 0.10
(2) T610.98 ± 0.0526.10 ± 0.0814.27 ± 0.39
(2) T724.21 ± 0.1933.19 ± 0.0714.27 ± 0.16
(1) T850.68 ± 0.1658.73 ± 0.1214.07 ± 0.07
(2) T916.15 ± 0.1516.42 ± 0.033.86 ± 0.14
(1) T1075.64 ± 0.1344.73 ± 0.0711.57 ± 0.02
Table
Table 10. Total nitrogen uptaken without nitrogen supply (1); total nitrogen uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
Table 10. Total nitrogen uptaken without nitrogen supply (1); total nitrogen uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
TreatmentsN (g)P (g)K (g)
(2) T139.36 ± 0.150.33 ± 0.0112.09 ± 0.15
(2) T242.55 ± 0.113..28 ± 0.0120.98 ± 0.14
(1) T3252.56 ± 0.0818.76 ± 0.0328.12 ± 0.10
(1) T4241.45 ± 0.3520.35 ± 0.0333.25 ± 0.12
(2) T566.35 ± 0.196.99 ± 0.0128.90 ± 0.11
(2) T649.92 ± 0.113.18 ± 0.0317.12 ± 0.17
(2) T759.03 ± 0.193.83 ± 0.0223.89 ± 0.14
(1) T8414.64 ± 0.1920.91 ± 0.0241.16 ± 0.12
(2) T941.57 ± 0.131.46 ± 0.0312.14 ± 0.10
(1) T10307.96 ± 0.1720.51 ± 0.0843.98 ± 0.08
Table
Table 11. Total nutrients uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); total nutrients uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
Table 11. Total nutrients uptaken without nitrogen supply during the three cuts (1); total nutrients uptaken with nitrogen supply after first cut (2).
TreatmentsCut 1 (g)Cut 2 (g)Cut 3 (g)
(2) T140.05 ± 0.0155.51 ± 0.0622.53 ± 0.37
(2) T232.53 ± 0.0347.24 ± 0.0147.88 ± 0.28
(1) T3361.54 ± 0.01243.25 ± 0.17152.90 ± 0.06
(1) T4394.93 ± 0.02235.24 ± 0.4394.18 ± 0.60
(2) T556.68 ± 0.0479.46 ± 0.1062.90 ± 0.42
(2) T627.69 ± 0.0165.22 ± 0.1456.86 ± 0.19
(2) T750.08 ± 0.0378.64 ± 0.4148.36 ± 0.15
(1) T8558.97 ± 0.03543.10 ± 0.34141.86 ± 0.16
(2) T931.88 ± 0.0259.18 ± 0.1233.66 ± 0.25
(1) T10627.37 ± 0.11196.16 ± 0.14100.34 ± 0.25
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Guéablé, Y.K.D.; Bezrhoud, Y.; Moulay, H.; Moughli, L.; Hafidi, M.; El Gharouss, M.; El Mejahed, K. New Approach for Mining Site Reclamation Using Alternative Substrate Based on Phosphate Industry By-Product and Sludge Mixture. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910751

AMA Style

Guéablé YKD, Bezrhoud Y, Moulay H, Moughli L, Hafidi M, El Gharouss M, El Mejahed K. New Approach for Mining Site Reclamation Using Alternative Substrate Based on Phosphate Industry By-Product and Sludge Mixture. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910751

Chicago/Turabian Style

Guéablé, Yao Kohou Donatien, Youssef Bezrhoud, Haitam Moulay, Lhoussaine Moughli, Mohamed Hafidi, Mohamed El Gharouss, and Khalil El Mejahed. 2021. "New Approach for Mining Site Reclamation Using Alternative Substrate Based on Phosphate Industry By-Product and Sludge Mixture" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10751. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910751

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