Cited by 28Soil Management and Crop YieldSoil and Unsaturated FlowSoil erosion and sediment transport

Bulk Density of Rocky Mine Soils in Forestry Reclamation

Open access
DeLong, C., Skousen, J., Pena-Yewtukhiw, E.·2012·Soil Science Society of America Journal

Abstract

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) for reclaiming surface mined lands in Appalachia recommends minimal grading of mine soil materials to avoid surface compaction, which maintains an open and loose material for tree root expansion. To determine the level of compaction of mine soils, bulk density is measured. The traditional method of soil cores for measuring bulk density is difficult and prone to errors in rocky materials used for mine reclamation. We selected four methods (foam, frame, sand cone, and radiation) to determine bulk density at a depth of 15 cm in four mine soils and one forest soil, all having rock fragment contents > 30%. Bulk density values by sand cone were significantly lower (average of 1.35 Mg m−3) than bulk densities determined by the other three methods (averages of 1.64–1.76 Mg m−3). The sand cone was lower because the metal plate was sometimes not flush with the soil surface because of rock protrusions. For soils, the native forest soil showed an average bulk density across methods of 1.05 Mg m−3, while the mine soils ranged from 1.70 to 1.84 Mg m−3. Standard deviations for each method across soils (n = 25) ranged from 6% for radiation to 19% for the sand cone. In-field time efficiency was shortest for the radiation method at 6 min per sample, compared with 10 min for foam, 14 min for sand cone, and 27 min for the frame. The radiation method had the lowest standard deviation (better reproducibility) and better time efficiency than the other methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2136/sssaj2011.0380n

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Mine soils are commonly coarse-textured with high rock fragment content and high bulk density (1.7-1.8 Mg m-3) due to compaction to prevent erosion.

    “Mine soils are commonly coarse-textured with high rock fragment content and high (1.71.8 Mg m -3 ) bulk density due to compaction to prevent erosion (DeLong et al., 2012).”

    From SURFACE MINE TO BIOMASS FARM: GROWING SHRUB WILLOW (SALIX SPP.) IN NORTHEASTERN WEST VIRGINIA - FIRST YEAR RESULTS (2017) · cites this paper as DeLong et al., 2012

    The Abstract (page unavailable) describes mine-soil substitutes as coarse-textured and rich in rock fragments, and says reclaimed surfaces have been compacted for erosion control. Results and Discussion (page unavailable) reports mine-soil bulk densities of 1.70–1.84 Mg m⁻³. However, it found no significant bulk-density difference between compacted and uncompacted treatments after five years, so the measured densities cannot be attributed specifically to compaction on this evidence. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. Th e nature and properties of soil. Th irteenth ed. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeLong, C., Skousen, J., & Pena-Yewtukhiw, E.
Affiliations
  • Division of Mining and Reclamation West Virginia Dep. of Environmental Protection; 1101 George Kostas Dr. Logan WV 25601
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Division of Plant and Soil Sciences; West Virginia Univ.; P.O. Box 6108 Morgantown WV 26506-6108
Corresponding author
Skousen, J.
Venue
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-09
Volume
76
Issue
5
Pages
1810-1815
ISSN
0361-5995 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074112485
Cited by
28
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Soil Science Society of America Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Arch Coal, Inc.
  • Catenary Coal Company
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Soil and Unsaturated Flow
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
bulk density, mine soils, rocky soils, surface mining reclamation, soil compaction, frame method, rock fragment content, method comparison, Appalachia

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