Cited by 49Mine drainage and remediation techniquesWater Quality and Resources StudiesWater Quality and Pollution Assessment

Water quality characteristics of discharge from reforested loose-dumped mine spoil in Eastern Kentucky

Agouridis, Carmen T., Angel, Patrick N., Taylor, Timothy J., Barton, Christopher D., Warner, Richard C., Yu, Xia, Wood, Constance·2012·Journal of Environmental Quality

Abstract

Surface mining is a common method for extracting coal in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky. Using the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA), which emphasizes the use of minimally compacted or loose-dumped spoil as a growth medium for trees, reclamation practitioners are successfully reestablishing forests. Yet, questions remain regarding the effects FRA has on the quality of waters discharged to receiving streams. To examine the effect of FRA on water quality, this study compared waters that were discharged from three types of spoils: predominantly brown, weathered sandstone (BROWN); predominantly gray, unweathered sandstone (GRAY); and an equal mixture of both aforementioned sandstones and shale (MIXED). The water quality parameters pH, EC, Ca, K, Mg, Na, NO-N, NH-N, SO, Cl, TC, suspended sediment concentration (SSC), settleable solids (SS), and turbidity were monitored over a 2-yr period on six 0.4-ha plots (two replications per spoil type). Generally, levels of Cl, SO, Ca, NO-N, NH-N, SS, SSC, and turbidity decreased over time. The pH for all spoils increased from about 7.5 to 8.5. The EC remained relatively level in the BROWN spoil, whereas the GRAY and MIXED spoils had downward trajectories that were approaching 500 μS cm. The value of 500 μS cm has been reported as the apparent threshold at which certain taxa such as Ephemeroptera (e.g., Mayfly) recolonize disturbed headwater streams of eastern Kentucky and adjacent coal-producing Appalachian states.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2134/jeq2011.0158

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agouridis, C. T., Angel, P. N., Taylor, T. J., Barton, C. D., Warner, R. C., Yu, X., & Wood, C.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • United States Department of the Interior (US)
  • Stantec (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Agouridis, Carmen T.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Quality
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
454-468
ISSN
  • 0047-2425 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2537
OpenAlex
W2083300985
Cited by
49
References
49
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Environmental Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Energy (DE‐FC26‐02NT41624)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Mine drainage and remediation techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Resources Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Water Quality and Pollution Assessment
Keywords
surface coal mining, mine reclamation, stream water quality, shale, electrical conductivity, suspended sediment, turbidity, nitrogen, chloride, pH, eastern Kentucky coalfields, headwater streams
MeSH terms
Electric Conductivity, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Industrial Waste, Kentucky, Mining, Trees, Water, Water Quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review