Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Squares’ Selection and Description
2.3. Water Habitat Detection and Description
2.4. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Comparison of Water Habitat Quantity among Landscape Types
3.2. Comparison of Environmental Characteristics of Water Habitats among Landscape Types
4. Discussion
4.1. Comparison of Water Habitat Quantity among Landscape Types
4.2. Comparison of Environmental Characteristics of Water Habitats among Landscape Types
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Craig, L.S.; Olden, J.D.; Arthington, A.H.; Entrekin, S.; Hawkins, C.P.; Kelly, J.J.; Kennedy, T.A.; Maitland, B.M.; Rosi, E.J.; Roy, A.H.; et al. Meeting the Challenge of Interacting Threats in Freshwater Ecosystems: A Call to Scientists and Managers. Elementa 2017, 5, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidson, N.C. How Much Wetland Has the World Lost? Long-Term and Recent Trends in Global Wetland Area. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2014, 65, 934–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudgeon, D. Multiple Threats Imperil Freshwater Biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Curr. Biol. 2019, 29, R960–R967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudgeon, D.; Arthington, A.H.; Gessner, M.O.; Kawabata, Z.I.; Knowler, D.J.; Lévêque, C.; Naiman, R.J.; Prieur-Richard, A.H.; Soto, D.; Stiassny, M.L.J.; et al. Freshwater Biodiversity: Importance, Threats, Status and Conservation Challenges. Biol. Rev. Biol. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2006, 81, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reid, A.J.; Carlson, A.K.; Creed, I.F.; Eliason, E.J.; Gell, P.A.; Johnson, P.T.J.; Kidd, K.A.; MacCormack, T.J.; Olden, J.D.; Ormerod, S.J.; et al. Emerging Threats and Persistent Conservation Challenges for Freshwater Biodiversity. Biol. Rev. 2019, 94, 849–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sala, O.E.; Chapin, F.S.; Armesto, J.J.; Berlow, E.; Bloomfield, J.; Dirzo, R.; Huber-Sanwald, E.; Huenneke, L.F.; Jackson, R.B.; Kinzig, A.; et al. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science 2000, 287, 1770–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kelly, M.; Allison, W.; Garman, A.; Symon, C. Mining and the Freshwater Environment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Marcus, J.J. Mining Environment Handbook: Effects of Mining on the Environment and American Environmental Control on Mining; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 1997; ISBN 1860940293. [Google Scholar]
- Vráblíková, J.; Blažková, M.; Farský, M.; Jeřábek, M.; Seják, J.; Šoch, M.; Dejmal, I.; Jirásek, P.; Neruda, M.; Zahálka, J. Revitalizace Antropogenně Postižené Krajiny v Podkrušnohoří. Vol. 1: Přírodní a Sociálně Ekonomické Charakteristiky Disparit Průmyslové Krajiny v Podkrušnohoří; Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyně v Ústí nad Labem, Fakulta Životního Prostředí: Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic, 2008. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Moradi, J.; Potocký, P.; Kočárek, P.; Bartuška, M.; Tajovský, K.; Tichánek, F.; Frouz, J.; Tropek, R. Influence of Surface Flattening on Biodiversity of Terrestrial Arthropods during Early Stages of Brown Coal Spoil Heap Restoration. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 220, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prach, K. Spontaneous Succession in Central-European Man-Made Habitats: What Information Can Be Used in Restoration Practice? Appl. Veg. Sci. 2003, 6, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Řehounek, J.; Řehounková, K.; Prach, K. Ekologická Obnova Území Narušených Těžbou Nerostných Surovin a Průmyslovými Deponiemi; Calla: České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 2010. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Mojses, M.; Petrovič, F.; Bugár, G. Evaluation of Land-Use Changes as a Result of Underground Coal Mining—A Case Study on the Upper Nitra Basin, West Slovakia. Water 2022, 14, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bejček, V. Sukcese Společenstev Drobných Savců v Raných Vývojových Stádiích Výsypek v Mostecké Kotlině. Sborník Oblastního Muzea v Mostě Řada Přírodovědná 1982, 4, 61–86. [Google Scholar]
- Zelený, V. Rostliny Bílinska; Grada: Prague, Czech Republic, 1999; ISBN 80-7169-120-8. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Pełka-Gościniak, J. Restoring Nature in Mining Areas of the Silesian Upland (Poland). Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2006, 31, 1685–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doležalová, J.; Vojar, J.; Smolová, D.; Solský, M.; Kopecký, O. Technical Reclamation and Spontaneous Succession Produce Different Water Habitats: A Case Study from Czech Post-Mining Sites. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 43, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harabiš, F. High Diversity of Odonates in Post-Mining Areas: Meta-Analysis Uncovers Potential Pitfalls Associated with the Formation and Management of Valuable Habitats. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 438–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrychová, M.; Svobodova, K.; Kabrna, M. Mine Reclamation Planning and Management: Integrating Natural Habitats into Post-Mining Land Use. Resour. Policy 2020, 69, 101882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolář, V.; Tichánek, F.; Tropek, R. Evidence-Based Restoration of Freshwater Biodiversity after Mining: Experience from Central European Spoil Heaps. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 1921–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poláková, M.; Straka, M.; Polášek, M.; Němejcová, D. Unexplored Freshwater Communities in Post-mining Ponds: Effect of Different Restoration Approaches. Restor. Ecol. 2022, e13679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prach, K.; Hobbs, R.J. Spontaneous Succession versus Technical Reclamation in the Restoration of Disturbed Sites. Restor. Ecol. 2008, 16, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tropek, R.; Kadlec, T.; Hejda, M.; Kočárek, P.; Skuhrovec, J.; Malenovský, I.; Vodka, S.; Spitzer, L.; Baňař, P.; Konvička, 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]
- Vojar, J.; Doležalová, J.; Solský, M.; Smolová, D.; Kopecký, O.; Kadlec, T.; Knapp, M. Spontaneous Succession on Spoil Banks Supports Amphibian Diversity and Abundance. Ecol. Eng. 2016, 90, 278–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kołodziej, B.; Bryk, M.; Słowińska-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]
- Cushman, S.A. Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Amphibians: A Review and Prospectus. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartel, T.; Öllerer, K. Local Turnover and Factors Influencing the Persistence of Amphibians in Permanent Ponds from the Saxon Landscapes of Transylvania. North-West. J. Zool. 2009, 5, 40–52. [Google Scholar]
- Sjögren, P.E.R. Extinction and Isolation Gradients in Metapopulations: The Case of the Pool Frog (Rana Lessonae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1991, 42, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vojar, J. Colonization of Post-Mining Landscapes by Amphibians: A Review. Sci. Agric. Bohem. 2006, 37, 35–40. [Google Scholar]
- Vráblík, P.; Vráblíková, J.; Wildová, E. Hydrological mine reclamations in the anthropogenically affected landscape of North Bohemia. In Springer Water; Zelenakova, M., Fialová, J., Negm, A., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 203–223. ISBN 978-3-030-18362-2. [Google Scholar]
- Tropek, R.; Kadlec, T.; Karešová, P.; Spitzer, L.; Kočárek, P.; Malenovský, I.; Baňař, P.; Tuf, I.H.; Hejda, M.; Konvička, M. Spontaneous Succession in Limestone Quarries as an Effective Restoration Tool for Endangered Arthropods and Plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hendrychová, M.; Šálek, M.; Červenková, A. Invertebrate Communities in Man-Made and Spontaneously Developed Forests on Spoil Heaps after Coal Mining. J. Landsc. Stud. 2008, 1, 169–187. [Google Scholar]
- Hendrychová, M.; Šálek, M.; Tajovský, K.; Řehoř, M. Soil Properties and Species Richness of Invertebrates on Afforested Sites after Brown Coal Mining. Restor. Ecol. 2012, 20, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tischew, S.; Baasch, A.; Grunert, H.; Kirmer, A. How to Develop Native Plant Communities in Heavily Altered Ecosystems: Examples from Large-Scale Surface Mining in Germany. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2014, 17, 288–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mudrák, O.; Frouz, J.; Velichová, V. Understory Vegetation in Reclaimed and Unreclaimed Post-Mining Forest Stands. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 36, 783–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hodačová, D.; Prach, K. Spoil Heaps from Brown Coal Mining: Technical Reclamation versus Spontaneous Revegetation. Restor. Ecol. 2003, 11, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simpson, E.H. Measurement of Diversity. Nature 1949, 163, 688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stein, A.; Gerstner, K.; Kreft, H. Environmental Heterogeneity as a Universal Driver of Species Richness across Taxa, Biomes and Spatial Scales. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 866–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tews, J.; Brose, U.; Grimm, V.; Tielbörger, K.; Wichmann, M.C.; Schwager, M.; Jeltsch, F. Animal Species Diversity Driven by Habitat Heterogeneity/Diversity: The Importance of Keystone Structures. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kleeberg, A. The Quantification of Sulfate Reduction in Sulfate-Rich Freshwater Lakes-A Means for Predicting the Eutrophication Process of Acidic Mining Lakes? Water Air Soil Pollut. 1998, 108, 365–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mays, P.A.; Edwards, G.S. Comparison of Heavy Metal Accumulation in a Natural Wetland and Constructed Wetlands Receiving Acid Mine Drainage. Ecol. Eng. 2001, 16, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nixdorf, B.; Hemm, M.; Schlundt, A.; Kapfer, M.; Krumbeck, H. Tagebauseen in Deutschland-Ein Überblick. 2001. Available online: https://www.baufachinformation.de/mobil/literatur/tagebauseen-in-deutschland-ein-ueberblick/2010069037823 (accessed on 4 May 2022).
- Nixdorf, B.; Krumbeck, H.; Jander, J.; Beulker, C. Comparison of Bacterial and Phytoplankton Productivity in Extremely Acidic Mining Lakes and Eutrophic Hard Water Lakes. Acta Oecol. 2003, 24, S281–S288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sistani, K.R.; Mays, D.A.; Taylor, R.W. Biogeochemical Characteristics of Wetlands Developed after Strip Mining for Coal. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan. 1995, 26, 3221–3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, J.; Middleton, B.A. Comparison of Litter Decomposition in a Natural versus Coal-Slurry Pond Reclaimed as a Wetland. Land Degrad. Dev. 2004, 15, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batty, L.C.; Atkin, L.; Manning, D.A.C. Assessment of the Ecological Potential of Mine-Water Treatment Wetlands Using a Baseline Survey of Macroinvertebrate Communities. Environ. Pollut. 2005, 138, 413–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrozzino, A.L. Evaluating Wildlife Response to Vegetation Restoration on Reclaimed Mine Lands in Southwestern Virginia. Master’s Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 22 April 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Carrozzino, A.L.; Stauffer, D.F.; Haas, C.A.; Zipper, C.E. Reclamation guidelines for surface mined land. In Powell River Project Research and Education Reports; Powell River Project; Virginia Tech.: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2011; pp. 51–61. [Google Scholar]
- Lacki, M.J.; Hummer, J.W.; Webster, H.J. Diversity patterns of invertebrate fauna in cattail wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. In Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition, Charleston, WV, USA, 23–26 April 1990; Volume 2, pp. 365–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Polášková, V.; Schenková, J.; Bartošová, M.; Rádková, V.; Horsák, M. Post-Mining Calcareous Seepages as Surrogate Habitats for Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Biota of Vanishing Calcareous Spring Fens. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 109, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Proctor, H.; Grigg, A. Aquatic Invertebrates in Final Void Water Bodies at an Open-Cut Coal Mine in Central Queensland. Aust. J. Entomol. 2006, 45, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESRI ArcGIS 10.4; Environmental Systems Research Institute: Redlands, CA, USA, 2018.
- Denoël, M.; Lehmann, A. Multi-Scale Effect of Landscape Processes and Habitat Quality on Newt Abundance: Implications for Conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 130, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pope, S.E.; Fahrig, L.; Merriam, H.G. Landscape Complementation and Metapopulation Effects on Leopard Frog Populations. Ecology 2000, 81, 2498–2508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oldham, R.S.; Keeble, J.; Swan, M.; Jeffcote, M. Evaluating the Suitability of Habitat for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus Cristatus). Herpetol. J. 2000, 10, 143–156. [Google Scholar]
- R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Venables, W.N.; Ripley, B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S; Statistics and Computing; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 978-1-4419-3008-8. [Google Scholar]
- Fox, J.; Weisberg, S.; Price, B.; Adler, D.; Bates, D.; Baud-Bovy, G.; Bolker, B. Car: Companion to Applied Regression; R package Version 3.0–3; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2019; Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=car (accessed on 1 May 2022).
- Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.M.; Walker, S.C. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznetsova, A.; Brockhoff, P.B.; Christensen, R.H.B. LmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. J. Stat. Softw. 2017, 82, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hothorn, T.; Bretz, F.; Westfall, P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biom. J. 2008, 50, 346–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gelman, A.; Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Gelman, A.; Su, Y.-S. Arm: Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models; R Package Version 1.12–2; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Harabiš, F.; Dolný, A. Human Altered Ecosystems: Suitable Habitats as Well as Ecological Traps for Dragonflies (Odonata): The Matter of Scale. J. Insect Conserv. 2012, 16, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tropek, R.; Hejda, M.; Kadlec, T.; Spitzer, L. Local and Landscape Factors Affecting Communities of Plants and Diurnal Lepidoptera in Black Coal Spoil Heaps: Implications for Restoration Management. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 57, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marsh, D.M.; Fegraus, E.H.; Harrison, S. Effects of Breeding Pond Isolation on the Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Pond Use by the Tungara Frog, Physalaemus pustulosus. J. Anim. Ecol. 1999, 68, 804–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vos, C.; Stumpel, A.H.P. Comparison of Habitat-Isolation Parameters in Relation to Fragmented Distribution Patterns in the Tree Frog (Hyla Arborea). Landsc. Ecol. 1996, 11, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanini, F. Amphibian Conservation in Human Shaped Environments: Landscape Dynamics, Habitat Modeling and Metapopulation Analyses. Ph.D. Thesis, École Plytechnique Fédérale De Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland, 29 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
- McCullough, C.D.; van Etten, E.J.B. Ecological Restoration of Novel Lake Districts: New Approaches for New Landscapes. Mine Water Environ. 2011, 30, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tlapáková, L. Agricultural Drainage Systems in the Czech Landscape-Identification and Functionality Assessment by Means of Remote Sensing. Europ. Countrys. 2017, 9, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skaloš, J.; Weber, M.; Lipský, Z.; Trpáková, I.; Šantrůčková, M.; Uhlířová, L.; Kukla, P. Using Old Military Survey Maps and Orthophotograph Maps to Analyse Long-Term Land Cover Changes-Case Study (Czech Republic). Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kändler, M.; Blechinger, K.; Seidler, C.; Pavlů, V.; Šanda, M.; Dostál, T.; Krása, J.; Vitvar, T.; Štich, M. Impact of Land Use on Water Quality in the Upper Nisa Catchment in the Czech Republic and in Germany. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 586, 1316–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baker, J.; Beebee, T.J.C.; Buckly, J.; Gent, T.; Orchard, D. Amphibian Habitat Management Handbook; Amphibian and Reptile Conservation: Bournemouth, UK, 2011; ISBN 9780956671714. [Google Scholar]
- Marsh, D.; Trenham, P. Metapopulation Dynamics and Amphibian Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, K.D. The Ecology and Behavior of Amphibians; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Groom, M.; Meffe, G.; Carroll, C. Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd ed.; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hanski, I. Metapopulation Ecology; Oxford Series in Ecology and Evolution; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Pullin, A. Conservation Biology; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Rodríguez, C.; Díaz-Paniagua, C.; Serrano, L.; Florencio, M.; Portheault, A. Mediterranean Temporary Ponds as Amphibian Breeding Habitats: The Importance of Preserving Pond Networks. Aquat. Ecol. 2009, 43, 1179–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Griffiths, R.A. Temporary Ponds as Amphibian Habitats. Aquat. Conserv. 1997, 7, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopecký, O.; Vojar, J.; Denoël, M. Movements of Alpine Newts (Mesotriton Alpestris) between Small Aquatic Habitats (Ruts) during the Breeding Season. Amphib. Reptil. 2010, 31, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ruhí, A.; Sebastian, O.S.; Feo, C.; Franch, M.; Gascón, S.; Richter-Boix, À.; Boix, D.; Llorente, G. Man-Made Mediterranean Temporary Ponds as a Tool for Amphibian Conservation. Ann. Limnol. Int. J. Lim. 2012, 48, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quitt, E. Klimatické Oblasti Československa; Academia: Prague, Czech Republic, 1971. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Lampert, W.; Sommer, U. Limnoecology: The Ecology of Lakes and Streams; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-0199213931. [Google Scholar]
- Ficetola, G.F.; de Bernardi, F. Amphibians in a Human-Dominated Landscape: The Community Structure Is Related to Habitat Features and Isolation. Biol. Conserv. 2004, 119, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartel, T.; Öllerer, K.; Nemes, S. Critical Elements for Biologically Based Management Plans for Amphibians in the Middle Section of the Târnava Mare Basin. Biol.-Acta Sci. 2007, 15, 109–132. [Google Scholar]
- Van Buskirk, J. Local and Landscape Influence on Amphibian Occurrence and Abundance. Ecology 2005, 86, 1936–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hlaváč, V.; Jermlová, B. Tůně a Umělé Drobné Vodní Plochy v Regionu Vysočina. Ochr. Přírody 2005, 60, 276–278. [Google Scholar]
- Semlitsch, R.; Scott, D.; Pechmann, J.H.K.; Gibbons, J.W. Structure and dynamics of an amphibian community: Evidence from a 16-year study of a natural pond. In Long-Term Studies of Vertebrate Communities; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 217–248. ISBN 9780121780753. [Google Scholar]
- Ehrenfeld, J. Evaluating Wetlands within an Urban Context. Ecol. Eng. 2000, 15, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alford, R.A.; Richards, S. Global Amphibian Declines: A Problem in Applied Ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1999, 30, 133–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baruš, V.; Oliva, O. Obojživelníci–Amphibia: Fauna ČSFR; Academia: Prague, Czech Republic, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Pieczynska, E. Littoral habitats and communities. In Proceedings of the Guidelines of Lake Management; Lake Shore Management; Jorgensen, S., Hoffer, H., Eds.; International Lake Environment Committee Foundation, UNEP: Otsu, Japan, 1990; Volume 3, pp. 39–72. [Google Scholar]
- Egan, R.; Paton, P. Within-Pond Parameters Affecting Oviposition by Wood Frogs and Spotted Salamanders. Wetlands 2004, 24, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harabiš, F.; Tichánek, F.; Tropek, R. Dragonflies of Freshwater Pools in Lignite Spoil Heaps: Restoration Management, Habitat Structure and Conservation Value. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 55, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teurlincx, S.; Verhofstad, M.J.J.M.; Bakker, E.S.; Declerck, S.A.J. Managing Successional Stage Heterogeneity to Maximize Landscape-Wide Biodiversity of Aquatic Vegetation in Ditch Networks. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skelly, D.K.; Freidenburg, L.; Kiesecker, J.M. Forest Canopy and he Performance of Larval Amphibians. Ecology 2002, 83, 983–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, S.T.; Hobbs, R.J. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 2009, 325, 567–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- 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]
Landscape Type | Description | Altitude [m a.s.l.] | Precipitation [mm/year] |
---|---|---|---|
AG | Agricultural landscape—an open, flat, intensively farmed landscape consisting mainly of fields. | 160–350 | 400–525 |
FR | Forest landscape—a landscape covered mainly by coniferous or mixed forests, usually on steep terrain. | 340–700 | 525–625 |
MN | Mountain landscape—area on the ridge of the Ore Mountains. It is partly formed by forests and partly by grasslands. Most of the area is located on steep slopes. | 600–910 | 825–950 |
MP | Meadows and pastures—mostly an open landscape with isolated hills of volcanic origin with pastures and grasslands on steep slopes. | 190–330 | 400–525 |
TR | Technically reclaimed spoil banks—an area heavily affected by brown coal surface mining. The terrain of spoil banks was leveled during technical reclamation. As the next step, forestry, agricultural, or hydrological reclamation has been carried out. | 240–410 | 400–600 |
TU | Technically unreclaimed spoil banks—an area heavily affected by brown coal surface mining but without terrain leveling after the spoil bank heaping. Due to heterogeneous terrain, a mosaic of various habitats has been established there. | 230–310 | 400–650 |
Landscape Type | Nsqr | TAsqr [km2] | TAWH [km2] | PWH [%] | MAWH [m2] | TNWH | NWH |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non-mining landscapes | |||||||
AG | 10 | 10.00 | 0.4 | 4.03 | 11,190 | 36 | 3.60 |
FR | 10 | 10.00 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 75 | 61 | 6.10 |
MN | 10 | 10.00 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 343 | 115 | 11.50 |
MP | 10 | 10.00 | 0.14 | 1.35 | 7124 | 19 | 1.90 |
MEANNML | 10 | 10.00 | 0.15 | 1.46 | 4683 | 57.75 | 5.78 |
Spoil banks | |||||||
TR | 10 | 9.74 | 0.07 | 0.69 | 2031 | 33 | 3.39 |
TU | 10 | 7.31 | 0.28 | 3.80 | 707 | 393 | 53.76 |
MEANSB | 10 | 8.53 | 0.17 | 2.25 | 1369 | 213 | 28.58 |
Environmental Characteristics | Levels | Number (and Proportion [%]) of Water Bodies Within Landscape Types | df | p | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AG | FR | MN | MP | TR | TU | ||||
Pond area [m2] | <20 m | 9 (32%) | 44 (72%) | 38 (33%) | 6 (32%) | 0 (0%) | 51 (13%) | 18 | 0.001 |
21–300 | 7 (25%) | 11 (18%) | 62 (54%) | 5 (26%) | 10 (30%) | 205 (52%) | |||
301–3000 | 10 (36%) | 6 (10%) | 11 (10%) | 5 (26%) | 14 (42%) | 114 (29%) | |||
>3000 | 2 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (3%) | 3 (16%) | 9 (27%) | 23 (6%) | |||
Maximum depth [m] | <0.5 | 21 (78%) | 55 (93%) | 105 (91%) | 11 (58%) | 9 (31%) | 144 (38%) | 12 | 0.001 |
0.5–1.5 | 2 (7%) | 3 (5%) | 7 (6%) | 2 (10%) | 8 (28%) | 95 (25%) | |||
>1.5 | 4 (15%) | 1 (2%) | 3 (3%) | 6 (32%) | 12 (41%) | 139 (37%) | |||
Slope of embankments [°] | <30 | 10 (36%) | 45 (76%) | 65 (58%) | 7 (37%) | 24 (80%) | 262 (70%) | 12 | 0.001 |
30–55 | 9 (32%) | 10 (17%) | 16 (14%) | 3 (16%) | 4 (13%) | 85 (23%) | |||
>55 | 9 (32%) | 4 (7%) | 32 (28%) | 9 (47%) | 2 (7%) | 27 (7%) | |||
Insolation of water surface [%] | <5 | 7 (25%) | 32 (53%) | 37 (32%) | 3 (17%) | 0 (0%) | 88 (23%) | 12 | 0.001 |
5–75 | 10 (36%) | 18 (30%) | 38 (33%) | 6 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 216 (56%) | |||
>75 | 11 (39%) | 10 (17%) | 39 (34%) | 9 (50%) | 30 (100%) | 83 (21%) | |||
Vegetation cover [%] | <5 | 6 (21%) | 28 (47%) | 18 (16%) | 8 (42%) | 2 (7%) | 41 (11%) | 12 | 0.001 |
5–75 | 12 (43%) | 24 (41%) | 41 (36%) | 8 (42%) | 22 (73%) | 285 (74%) | |||
>75 | 10 (36%) | 7 (12%) | 56 (49%) | 3 (16%) | 6 (20%) | 59 (15%) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Budská, D.; Chajma, P.; Harabiš, F.; Solský, M.; Doležalová, J.; Vojar, J. Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks. Water 2022, 14, 2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132085
Budská D, Chajma P, Harabiš F, Solský M, Doležalová J, Vojar J. Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks. Water. 2022; 14(13):2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132085
Chicago/Turabian StyleBudská, Daniela, Petr Chajma, Filip Harabiš, Milič Solský, Jana Doležalová, and Jiří Vojar. 2022. "Exceptional Quantity of Water Habitats on Unreclaimed Spoil Banks" Water 14, no. 13: 2085. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132085