nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

Vegetation Communities of a Coal Reclamation Site in Southeastern Ohio
Nicole Cavender, Shana Byrd, Catherine L. Bechtoldt, and Jenise M. Bauman

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 21, Issue 1 (2014): 31–46

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)

 

Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.



Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
NENA 30(3)

Check out NENA's latest Monograph:

Monograph 22
NENA monograph 22

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 31 2014 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 21(1):31–46 Vegetation Communities of a Coal Reclamation Site in Southeastern Ohio Nicole Cavender1,2,*, Shana Byrd1, Catherine L. Bechtoldt2, and Jenise M. Bauman1,3 Abstract - Laws regulating mine reclamation following coal extraction mandate the establishment of vegetative cover, which often includes the introduction of non-native plant species. We evaluated the vegetative community composition of a recovering, reclaimed surface mine at The Wilds, a conservation center in southeastern Ohio. In 2007 and 2009, we identified a total of 109 species within a 1885-ha grassland area. After >30 years postreclamation, invasive species were the predominant plants at the site, with no evidence of succession towards a mixed mesophytic forest typical of the region. Our study illustrates how non-native plantings followed by passive management can result in the development and stability of non-native communities even decades after reclamation. Strategic and longterm management efforts, such as careful preparation of the rooting zone for trees, or the establishment of deep-rooted native plants, along with frequent monitoring, are needed to recover native vegetation and associated wildlife. Introduction The historical land cover of the coal-mining region of the Appalachian Plateau is a diverse matrix of trees, shrubs, and hundreds of species of perennial and annual herbaceous plants (Braun 1950). The eastern deciduous forests of the Appalachian region are part of one of the most diverse non-tropical ecosystems in the world (Ricketts et al. 1999), and they provide ecological benefits including carbon sequestration, enhanced water quality, and habitats for wildlife and essential pollinators (Zipper et al. 2011). However, surface mining for coal has caused substantial disturbance and habitat fragmentation in this region (Wickham et al. 2007). Over 600,000 ha of Appalachian coalfields have been mined (USOSM 2010), altering physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of affected areas (Jacobs 2005). Prior to the 1970s, mine reclamation was largely unregulated. Topsoil and overlying rock strata (referred to as overburden) were removed to expose coal seams and this overburden was often left exposed. In situations where the overburden was loosely piled, seedling recruitment resulted in some recovery of the original forest (Rodrigue et al. 2002). In other areas, soils were left severely polluted with exposed coal spoils, exhibited an extremely low or high pH, became compacted, and ultimately were unfavorable for tree-seedling establishment (Skousen et al. 1994, Torbert and Burger 2000). Despite the success of some vegetation recovery, certain 1The Wilds, 14000 International Road, Cumberland, OH 43732. *2The Morton Arboretum, 4100 Illinois Route 53, Lisle, IL 60532. 3Miami University, Department of Botany, Oxford, OH, 45056. Corresponding author - ncavender@mortonarb.org. Manuscript Editor: John Litvaitis Northeastern Naturalist 32 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 safety issues remained including highwalls, acid drainage, and sedimentation of waterways (Burger 2011). In 1972, Ohio passed a comprehensive coal-mining law that required the mine operator to grade mine spoils to approximate the pre-mining contour of the land, replace topsoil, and establish a viable vegetation cover prior to the state’s release of the reclamation bond (ODNR 2011). The federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) of 1977 (SMCRA 2006), which brought this requirement to the federal level, followed the 1972 Ohio law (SMCRA 2006). These mandates achieved some environmental quality goals including erosion control, improved water quality, buffering of extreme pH, and enhanced land stability (Casselman et al. 2006). Despite these improvements, other issues became apparent. Grading equipment significantly increased compaction, resulting in lowered soil porosity, permeability, and moisture-holding capacity (Bussler et al. 1984, Torbert and Burger 2000). Seed mixes used as cover crops were comprised of non-native plants that often flourished on former mine sites. The result was thousands of hectares of cool-season grasslands, a substantial change from the original mixed-hardwood forest. To determine the nature of the vegetation community of a former surface coal mine subjected to mandated reclamation efforts followed by passive management, we evaluated the vegetation community of a reclaimed surface mine that has been recovering for more than 30 years. We determined overall species richness and community composition to determine if the plant community resembled that of the seed mix used in the reclamation process or if significant succession or invasions had occurred and changed the plant community. We expected succession and invasion to have changed the plant community composition from the species in the original reclamation mix. We sampled the plant community in 2007 and 2009 to characterize short-term changes in the reclaimed plant community and expected species richness and community composition to remain the same over the short term. Soil characteristics were measured to determine if soil microhabitat was an important factor in determining plant community composition. We hope our study can provide additional insight on reaching restoration goals and inform future management on reclaimed mine sites. Materials and Methods Study site Our study was conducted at The Wilds, a 3700-ha center for conservation, research, and education located in southeastern Ohio (Fig. 1). The Wilds is located on reclaimed mined land in Muskingum County, OH (39°49’48”N, -81°43’53”W), which was mined over a period of approximately 40 years (Poncelet et al. 2014). Over 90% of the land at The Wilds has been surface mined and is in various stages of recovery . Prior to coal mining, The Wilds consisted of farmlands interspersed with second-growth mixed mesophytic forest, characterized by trees such as Quercus spp. (oaks), Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American Beech), and Fraxinus spp. (ash) (Braun 1950). The land was donated to The Wilds by the mining company in 1984. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 33 In the 1940s and 1950s, reclamation activities on the site consisted of tree plantings, primarily Pinus spp. (pine). Other forest tree species that were either planted or naturally succeeded included native oaks, Acer spp. (maples), Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marshall (Green Ash), Carya spp. (hickories), and Platanus occidentalis L. (Sycamore) (A. Campbell, Miami University Oxford, OH, unpubl. data). These forested areas are currently being invaded by non-native Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) (Peugh et al., in press). After 1968, lands were reclaimed under the Ohio reclamation law and SMCRA (1977–1984). Stockpiled topsoil was re-graded to a depth of approximately 15 cm. Reclamation records indicate plantings of Elaeagnus umbellata (Autumn Olive) combined with seeding mixes of: Lotus corniculatus (Bird’s-foot Trefoil), Festuca arundinacea (Tall Fescue), Dactylis glomerata (Orchard Grass), Medicago sativa L. (Alfalfa), Trifolium pratense (Red Clover), Lolium perenne L. (Rye Grass), Phleum pratense (Timothy), Poa pratensis (Kentucky Blue Grass), and Lespedeza cuneata (Chinese Lespedeza) (ODNR 1983). Vegetation sampling In 2007, we randomly established twelve 200-m x 200-m study plots within 1885 ha of reclaimed grasslands (Fig. 1). In June–July of 2007 and 2009, we Figure 1. The Wilds, located in the Appalachian Plateau region of Southeastern Ohio. Black dots represent the 12 vegetation plots we sampled on a coal reclamation site between 2007 and 2009. The site was mined at various periods beginning in the 1940s. Most of the land was mined during the 1970s and 1980s and reclaimed primarily under the provisions of the SMCRA. Northeastern Naturalist 34 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 conducted vegetation surveys following the North Carolina Vegetation Survey (NCVS) protocol (Peet et al. 1998). Within each plot, we randomly placed two 50-m × 20-m subplots. We further subdivided each subplot into ten 100-m2 modules in a 2 × 5 assembly. Within each 100-m2 (10-m × 10-m) module, we established a series of nested subquadrats (0.01, 0.1, 1.0, and 10 m2) in a shared corner to determine presence and vegetative cover at multiple scales. In accordance with the NCVS protocol, we intensively sampled four of the 100-m2 modules for all herbaceous and woody vegetation. Beginning with the smallest observation unit, we identified species (using Gleason and Cronquist 1991), and assigned presence as a depth according to the subquadrat in which we first encountered the plant. For example, we recorded a species present within the initial subquadrat of 0.01 m2 as a depth of 5. In instances where vegetation provided overhanging cover within the plot, but was not rooted within the observation unit, we recorded the species as present with a depth of zero. We used the mean cover estimates among the four 100-m2 intensive modules to estimate overall cover for these species (Carr et al. 2010). Finally, we surveyed the remaining 600-m2 subplot area for any plant species not encountered within the intensive units and assigned species a cumulative cover estimate for the entire 1000-m2 plot. We determined cover values for each species based on a 10-m2 scale using the following estimations: 1 = trace, 2 = 0–1%, 3 =1–2%, 4 = 2–5%, 5 = 5–10%, 6 = 10–25%, 7 = 25–50%, 8 = 50–75%, 9 = 75–95%, and 10 = >95% and improved our accuracy by further differentiating the cover range into thirds (Fig. 2). Values are reported as occurrence weighted cover (OWC) and represent the percent of occupancy per 1000-m2 subplot. We placed plants in one of three categories: native, naturalized, or invasive (USDA NRCS 2011). We defined native plants as those with a pre-industrial Figure 2. Organizational diagram outlining the breakdown of cover class 7, as an example, (25– 50% cover) into the occurrence weighted cover (OWC) scale. The geometric mean of the first third (25–33.3%) of the original cover range was 28.7%, and was assigned to species with a mean spatial score of 1 or 2. The geometric mean of the second third (33.3– 41.7%) was 37.3%, and was assigned to species with a mean spatial score of 3 or 4, and the geometric mean of the final third of the original cover range was 45.6% (41.7–50%), assigned to species with a mean spatial score of 5. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 35 historical record of occurrence within the Appalachian Plateau (Schwartz 1997). We defined naturalized plants as species that were not considered to be native but which have adapted to the Ohio region, do not require human intervention to persist, and do not pose a threat of being invasive (USDA NRCS 2011). We defined invasive plants as those that were considered to be non-native to the region and to have the propensity to invade native ecosystems and displace native plant communities (Cooperrider et al. 2001). We evaluated soil characteristics to determine their influence on plant-community composition. We collected soil samples in 2007 using a soil probe at a 10-cm depth, and took two samples per 1000-m2 subplot. We dried samples at room temperature, mixed them, and sent them to Penn State Agricultural Analytical Services Laboratory for analysis. Soil measurements included: pH; cation exchange capacity (CEC); concentration (ppm) of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), sulfur (S), zinc (Zn), and copper (Cu); bulk density (g/cm³); and soil texture (percent sand, silt, and clay). Statistical analysis We estimated overall species richness on our study site and used two common, incidence- based richness estimators, Chao II and Jackknife II, to evaluate the efficacy of our sampling protocol. We calculated both estimators using the vegan package of the R statistical program (Oksanen et al. 2005, R Development Core Team 2009). We used relative OWC values to calculate species abundance using the rank abundance function (R biodiversity package; Kindt and Coe 2005). We analyzed differences between relative percent OWC of the most abundant species between 2007 and 2009 using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test, and determined differences in abundance by plant status (i.e., invasive, native, and naturalized) by using a one-way ANOVA followed by a Tukey’s post hoc test on percent OWC. Data were transformed using a log+1 transformation to control for unequal variances. We considered differences as significant when P ≤ 0.05; we performed all ANOVAs using R (R Development Core Team 2009). We used a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination and a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix to describe species composition between sampling years, and to look for associations between the overall plant community and soil characteristics. We ran the analysis for 100 random starts until the best solution (lowest stress) was reached. To improve the NMDS ordinations, we removed rare species that scored less than 0.05% OWC, and the data were square-root transformed and standardized using Wisconsin double standardization. We used a permutational multivariate analysis of variance to test for significant differences between sampling years. We examined how soil characteristics, including cations (P, K, Mg, Ca, Zn, Cu, S), pH, overall cation exchange capacity (CEC), bulk density (g/cm³), and soil texture (percentage sand, silt, and clay), influenced plant-community composition across both years. We standardized soil variables and fit them onto the NMDS using the envfit function in R. We analyzed the correlation of soil data with NMDS axes using Mantel tests, and completed both the Northeastern Naturalist 36 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 dissimilarity matrices and Mantel tests using the vegan package in R (Oksanen et al. 2005, R Development Core Team 2009). Results Community composition We encountered a total of 109 species on our study plots (Append ix 1), with 71 species detected in 2007 and 82 in 2009. The Chao II and Jackknife II estimators both indicated that a slightly greater number of species was likely to exist in the study location than was detected by our sampling methods (Chao II = 139 ± 13 SE, Jackknife II = 154 [no SE available]). Species richness averaged 26 ± 2.09 per plot, with a Shannon diversity index (H') of 1.49 ± 0.07. Overall, naturalized and invasive species dominated the plant community in our study plots. Percent cover of naturalized, invasive, and native species varied between 2007 and 2009 (ANOVA: F = 17.86, df = 5, P < 0.0001). In 2007, naturalized species dominated (55%), followed by invasive species (41%), and then native species (4%) (ANOVA: F = 5.77, df = 2, P = 0.004). In 2009, invasive plants had increased to 75%, followed by naturalized (20%) and native plant species (5%) (ANOVA: F = 10.88, df = 2, P < 0.0001). During the 2007 season, Kentucky Blue Grass (32%), Tall Fescue (22%), Bromus inermis (Smooth Brome; 20%), and Chinese Lespedeza (7.8%) were the most abundant species, accounting for 75% of the OWC of our study plots (Appendix 1). Eight additional species were marginally abundant: Bird’s-foot Trefoil (4.2%), Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle; 2.8%), Autumn-olive (2.5%), Solidago canadensis (Canada Goldenrod; 1.4%), Asclepias syriaca (Common Milkweed; 1.1%), Dipsacus fullonum (Common Teasel; 1%), Melilotus albus (White Sweet Clover; 1%), and Melilotus officinalis (Yellow Sweet Clover; 1%; Appendix 1). We detected changes in the four most abundant species between 2007 and 2009 (ANOVA: F = 4.79, df = 7, P < 0.0001; Fig. 3). Specifically, we found increases in the abundance of Smooth Brome (20.7 to 40.2%) and Chinese Lespedeza from (7.8 to 16.5%) and decreases in abundance of Kentucky Blue Grass (32 to 13.9%) and Tall Fescue (21.7 to 4.7%) between the two sampling periods (Fig. 3). Some of the moderately abundant species increased in OWC between 2007 and 2009: Bird’s-foot Trefoil (5%), Canada Thistle (3.8%), Canada Goldenrod (2.5%), Yellow Sweet Clover (2.5%), and Rubus allegheniensis (Common Blackberry, 1.9%) (Appendix 1). NMDS ordination: Plant community composition and soil associations NMDS ordination and permutational multivariate analysis of variance revealed that plant community composition varied between years (F = 2.28, df = 1, P = 0.004; Fig. 4). Kentucky Blue Grass, Canada Goldenrod, and Canada Thistle were the most common species detected in 2007, whereas Chinese Lespedeza was the most abundant species when the same plots were sampled in 2009. Soil characteristics (Table 1) influenced overall plant community composition (2007 and 2009 data combined). The first dimension of the ordination was marginally significant with regard to sandy soils (r2 = 0.22, P = 0.08) and marginally negatively associated Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 37 with silty soils (r2 = 0.25, P = 0.06). The second axis of the ordination was significantly associated with greater soil Ca concentration (r2 = 0.35, P = 0.01) and greater soil Cu concentration (r2 = 0.25, P = 0.05; Fig. 4, Table 1). The ordination showed that Chinese Lespedeza was found most frequently in plots with higher levels of both Ca and Cu, and silty rather than sandy soil. Canada Goldenrod and Canada Thistle were found most frequently in plots with sandy soils, where Ca and Cu concentrations were lower. Figure 3. The mean relative OWC (%) of the 4 most abundant herbaceous plants (Bromus inermis, Lespedeza cuneata, Poa pratensis, and Festuca arundinacea) detected in 2007 (dark grey bars) and 2009 (light grey bars). Bars with different letters represent significant differences at α = 0.05 determined by Tukey’s HSD. Table 1. Range and mean of soil pH, concentration of micro and macronutrients (ppm), and texture for 12 vegetation plots located on a coal reclamation site in southeastern Ohio, sampled 30 years after mining activities ceased. Variable Range Mean pH 7.3–8.35 8.01 P 2.0–11.0 5 K 78.5–150 105.59 Mg 243.0–589.0 449.73 Ca 4373.5–10,033.0 7544.14 CEC 17.3–22.15 19.2 Zn 0.95–2.15 1.44 Cu 1.9–2.7 2.44 S 9.5–36.5 16.39 Bulk density 1.18–1.30 1.25 Sand 43–72% 57% Silt 17–47% 32% Clay 7–23% 11% Northeastern Naturalist 38 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Discussion After three decades following coal extraction and reclamation, our study showed that pioneer seedlings were virtually absent and little native recruitment had taken place. Native plant species from the southeastern Appalachian Plateau region represented less than 2% of the OWC, so that 98% of the plant cover on the reclaimed mine area consisted of introduced and naturalized plant species. The most abundant plants were those used in the original reclamation seed mix (Kentucky Blue Grass, Tall Fescue, Chinese Lespedeza, Autumn Olive, Yellow Sweet-clover, and Bird’sfoot Trefoil), species selected for their ability to establish on nutrient-deficient and compacted soils (Bussler et al. 1984, Torbert and Burger 2000). While our richness Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination of vegetation cover (based on OWC). Larger circles (○) symbolize plots sampled in 2007, and triangles (Δ) symbolize the same plots sampled in 2009. The pattern reveals that plant communities differed between the 2 years (permutational multivariate analysis of variance: P = 0.004). Small circles ( ͦ ) represent OWC values for plant species detected during the entire study period, with the most abundant species’ names appearing on the ordination. Plot vectors indicate strength and direction of the strongest correlations between soil variables and plant species detected. Soil texture (silt versus sand) as well as soil calcium (Ca) and soil copper (Cu) concentrations significantly influenced plant community comp osition. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 39 estimators showed that species richness is likely slightly higher than our estimates, we are confident our vegetation surveys reflected the characteristics of the plant community on our study plots. Dominant herbaceous cover is likely inhibiting the recruitment of native species, resulting in grasslands in arrested succession (Pritekel et al. 2006, Vaness and Wilson 2007). These invasive and naturalized species further create barriers for native recruitment by altering nutrient cycles, water tables, and soil microbial communities from their natural condition (Vitousek 1990, Wedin and Tilman 1996). Although previous studies have reported arrested succession in reclaimed mine areas (Holl 2002), it is remarkable how little the plant community composition has changed since introduction of the species included in the reclamation seed mix, given the time that has passed. Reasons for lack of succession to a native mixed-mesophytic forest community include: (1) the lack of a native seed bank on the study area due to mining activities, (2) limited tree recruitment because of the distance to the nearest remnant forest edge, (3) soil compaction inhibiting seedling establishment, and (4) dense herbaceous canopies that hinder seedling and plant survival. Another factor may be that the soil characteristics we documented at our study site match those of a weathering, younger soil, which may not yet be conducive to tree and shrub establishment (Skousen et al. 2009). Others have also reported a lack of re-invasion by native tree species at similar SMCRA sites characterized by soil compaction and invasive ground cover (reviewed in Burger 2011). Even when sites are purposefully replanted with native trees, establishment and recolonization by native species can remain low (Simmons et al. 2008, Zipper et a l. 2011). We expected the vegetation community to change over the long term, yet anticipated it would remain relatively constant over the short term (between sampling in 2007 and 2009). However, our data showed a shift in community composition and species dominance in the short term. The relative abundances of the four dominant species increased or decreased significantly (Fig. 3), and community composition showed different patterns between sampling years (Fig. 4). These results show that despite the long-term trend of seed-mix species persisting, the plant community experienced short-term changes in community composition at least to some extent. These changes may have been due to shifts in the weather that allowed one species to outcompete another in the short term. Further study could show what influence this kind of short-term change has on the overall trajectory of the community. Soil microhabitat variation influenced plant community composition. Distributions of some dominant species (native, naturalized, and invasive) on our study plots were influenced by soil characteristics, specifically calcium and copper concentration, and levels of silt and sand. In reclaimed mine areas, soil is generally nutrient- poor and heterogeneous, due to mining and reclamation activities (Boruvka and Kozak 2001, Jacinthe and Lal 2006). Reclaimed mine soils can exhibit zones of pH extremes and nutrient, metal, and organic matter concentrations can be patchy (Boruvka and Kozak, 2001, Mummey et al. 2002). Despite the community being overwhelmingly influenced by the reclamation species used, it is interesting to note that soil properties play a significant role in determining local species’ distributions. Northeastern Naturalist 40 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Further study to examine how local soil conditions affect reclamation plant communities may provide insight on how local soil characteristics can be exploited to reach restoration goals. Our study area was dominated by invasive and naturalized species even after a relatively long period of recovery, illustrating how replanting based on reclamation regulations followed by passive management may not result in the re-establishment of the native plant community. Other approaches to reclamation have had better results. For example, the Forestry Reclamation Approach incorporates proper substrate selection, and soil preparation to a depth of >1 m to create a suitable rooting zone at the time of reclamation. In addition, this approach includes selection of valuable tree species and appropriate herbaceous vegetation (Zipper et al. 2011), and use of the protocol has resulted in healthy tree establishment on SMCRA landscapes (Casselman et al. 2006, Groninger et al. 2007, McCarthy et al. 2008, Skousen et al 2009). Another approach is to establish a diverse prairie plant community comprised of herbaceous species that form extensive root systems. This approach is currently being explored at The Wilds. As soil productivity, fertility, and organic matter increase (Fornara and Tilman 2009, Tilman et al. 2006), diversity at many trophic levels also increases, including the addition of pollinators and seed dispersers that will lead to the succession of native forest (Cavender-Bares and Cavender 2010). Coal mining has impacted over 600,000 ha of land in the Appalachian region of the United States and continues at a rate of an additional >10,000 ha per year (Zipper et al. 2011). Our study at The Wilds, in Muskingum County, OH, shows that following current reclamation guidelines and passive management protocols does not result in a native plant community—even after 30 years. We suggest that more active management and proven restoration initiatives are required to promote natural recovery that more closely resembles historic vegetation communities and provide the ecosystem services and support the diversity and trophic levels of the native ecosystem. Acknowledgments This project was supported by a partnership with Conservation Centers for Species Survival and funded in part by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. The authors would like to thank Corine Peugh for her assistance with the manuscript, Jeff Lombardo for his field assistance as well as his contribution to developing OWC, Kristen Smock for her contribution, Robert Ford for his field assistance, Al Parker for his help with mining history, and David Brandenburg, Bill McShea, Nina Sengupta, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the manuscript. We would also like to thank Evan Blumer for his leadership at The Wilds during this project. Literature Cited Boruvka, L., and J. Kozak. 2001. Geostatistical investigation of a reclaimed dumpsite soil, with emphasis on aluminum. Soil and Tillage Research 59:115–126. Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, NY. 596 pp. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 41 Burger, J.A. 2011. Sustainable mined land reclamation in the eastern US coalfields: A case for an ecosystem reclamation approach. Pp. 113–141, In R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.). The American Society of Mining and Reclamation Proceedings: Sciences Leading to Success. Lexington, KY. Bussler, B.H., W.R. Byrnes, P.E. Pope, and W.R. Caney. 1984. Properties of minesoil reclaimed for forestland use. Soil Science Society of America Journal 48:178–184. Carr, S.C., K.M. Robertson, and R.K. Peet. 2010. A vegetation classification of fire-dependent pinelands of Florida. Castanea 75:153–189. Casselman, C.N., T.R Fox, J.A. Burger, A.T. Jones, and J.M. Galbraith. 2006. Effects of silvicultural treatments on survival and growth of trees planted on reclaimed mine lands in the Appalachians. Forest Ecology and Management 223:403–414. Cavender-Bares, J., and N. Cavender 2010. Phylogenetic structure of plant communities provides guidelines for restoration. Pp.119–129, In S. Greipsson (Ed.). Restoration Ecology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc., Boston, MA. 408 pp. Cooperrider, T.S., A.W. Cusick, and J.T. Kartesz. 2001. Seventh Catalog of the Vascular Plants of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. 195 pp. Fornara, D.A., and D. Tilman. 2009. Ecological mechanisms associated with the positive diversity-productivity relationship in N-limited grassland. Ecology 90:408–418. Gleason, H., and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd Edition. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. 910 pp. Groninger, J., J. Skousen, P. Angel, C. Barton, J. Burger, and C. Zipper. 2007. Mine reclamation practices to enhance forest development through natural succession. USOSM. Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 5. Available online at http://arri.osmre.gov/fra.htm. Accessed 18 March 2012. Holl, K. 2002. Long-term vegetation recovery on reclaimed coal surface-mines in the eastern USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:960–970. Jacinthe, P.A., and R. Lal. 2006. Spatial variability of soil properties and trace gas fluxes in reclaimed mine land of southeastern Ohio. Geoderma 136:598–608. Jacobs, D. 2005. American Chestnut as a future resource to enhance reclamation productivity. Pp. 512–522, In R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.). Proceedings of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation 22nd Annual National Conference. Morgantown, WV. Kindt, R., and R. Coe. 2005. Tree diversity analysis. A manual and software for common statistical methods for ecological and biodiversity studies. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi. Available online at http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/ publications/PDFs/B13695.pdf. Last accessed February 2014. McCarthy, B.C., J.M. Bauman, and C.H. Keiffer. 2008. Mine-land reclamation strategies for the restoration of American Chestnut. Ecological Restoration 26:292–294. Mummey, D.L., P.D. Stahl, and J.S. Buyer. 2002. Soil microbiological properties 20 years after surface mine reclamation: Spatial analysis of reclaimed and undisturbed sites. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34:1717–1725. Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2011. A citizens guide to mining and reclamation in Ohio. Available online at http://ohiodnr.com/Portals/11/publications/pdf/ citizens_guide.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2012. Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Reclamation (ODNR-DR). 1983. Coal mining and reclamation permit application. Central Ohio Coal Company, Columbus, OH. Oksanen, J., R. Kindt, and R.B. O’Hara. 2005. Vegan: Community ecology package, version 1.6.9. Available online at http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/. Accessed 18 March 2012. Northeastern Naturalist 42 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Peet, R.K, T.R Wentworth, R. Thomas, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262–274 Peugh, C.M., J.M. Bauman, and S.M. Byrd. 2013. Restoring remnant hardwood forest impacted by surface mining for coal through removal of the invasive Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Pp. 208–222, In R.I. Barnhisel (Ed.). The 30th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 1–7 June 2013, Lara mie, WY. Poncelet, D.M., N. Cavender, T.J. Cutright, and J.M. Senko. 2014. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186:1917–1929. Pritekel, C., A. Wittemore-Olson, N. Snow, and J.C. Moore. 2006. Impacts from invasive plant species and their control on the plant community and belowground ecosystem at Rocky Mountain National Park, USA. Applied Soil Ecology 32:132–141. R Development Core Team 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available online at http:// www.R-project.org. Accessed 18 March 2012. Ricketts, T.H., E. Dinerstein, D.M. Olson, C.J. Loucks, W. Eichbaum, D. DellaSalla, K. Kavanaugh, P. Hedao, P. Hurley, K. Carney, R. Abell, and S. Walters. 1999. Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America: A Conservation Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC. 508 pp. Rodrigue, J.A., J.A. Burger, and R.G. Oderwald. 2002. Forest productivity and commercial value of pre-law reclaimed mined land in the eastern United States. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 19:106–114. Schwartz, M. 1997. Defining native plants. Pp. 8–11, In J. Luken and J. Theiret (Eds.). Assessment and Management of Plant Invasions. Springer, New York, NY. 324 pp. Simmons, J., W. Currie, K.N. Eshleman, K. Kuers, S. Monteleone, T.L. Negley, B. Pohlad, and C. Thomas. 2008. Forest to reclaimed land-use change leads to altered ecosystem structure and function. Ecological Applications 18:104–118. Skousen, J.G., C.D. Johnson, and K. Garbutt. 1994. Natural revegetation of 15 abandoned mine land sites in West Virginia. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:1224–1230. Skousen, J., J. Gorman, E. Pena-Yewtukhiw, J. King, J. Stewart, P. Emerson, and C. De- Long. 2009. Hardwood tree survival in heavy groundcover on reclaimed land in West Virginia: Mowing and ripping effects. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:1400–1409. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). 2006. Public Law 95-87. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. US Code, Title 30, Chapter 25. USOSM, Washington, DC. Available online at http:www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/30/ usc_sup_01_30_10_25_20_V.html. Accessed 18 March 2012. Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman. 2006. Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input highdiversity grassland biomass. Science 314:1598–1600. Torbert, J.L., and J.A. Burger. 2000. Forest land reclamation. Pp. 371–378, In R.I. Barnhisel, R.G. Darmody, and W.L. Daniels (Eds.). Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. Agronomy Monograph No. 41. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2011. The PLANTS database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro, NC. Available online at http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 18 March 2012. US Office of Surface Mining (USOSM). 2010. Annual evaluation reports for states and tribes. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Available online at http:www. osmre.gov/Reports/EvalInfo/EvalInfo.shtm. Accessed 13 December 2010. Vaness, B.M., and S.D. Wilson. 2007. Impact and management of Crested Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) in the northern Great Plains. Canada Journal of Plant Science 87:1023–1028. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 43 Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: Towards an integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos 57:7–13 . Wedin, D.A., and D. Tilman. 1996. Influence of nitrogen loading and species composition on the carbon balance of grasslands. Science 274:1720–1723. Wickham, J.D., K.H. Riitters, T.G. Wade, M. Coan, and C. Homer. 2007. The effect of Appalachian mountaintop mining on interior forest. Landscape Ec ology 22:179–187. Zipper, C.E., J.A. Burger, J.G. Skousen, P.N. Angel, D. Barton, V. Davis, and J.A. Franklin. 2011. Restoring forests and associated ecosystem services on Appalachian coal surfacemines. Environmental Management 47:751–765. Northeastern Naturalist 44 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Appendix 1. Species relative abundance, reported as occurrence-weighted cover (OWC), for twelve 100-m2 vegetation plots established on a coal reclamation site in southeastern Ohio, sampled in 2007 and 2009, 30 years after mining activities ceased. Species are listed by their functional group and native status (N = native, NZ = naturalized, and I = invasive). Native OWC (%) Species name Common name status '07 '09 Forbs and vines Achillea millefolium L. Yarrow N <1 <1 Ageratina altissima (L.) R.M. King White Snakeroot N 0 <1 & H Rob Allium vineale L. Field Garlic NZ <1 0 Amaranthus hybridus L. Smooth Pigweed NZ 0 <1 Amaranthus retroflexus L. Rough Pigweed NZ <1 0 Amaranthus spinosus L. Spiny Amaranth NZ 0 <1 Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Common Ragweed N <1 <1 Ampelamus albidus (Nutt.) BrittonA Honey-vine N 0 <1 Apocynum cannabinum L. Indian-hemp N <1 <1 Arctium lappa L. Great Burdock NZ <1 0 Arctium minus Bernh. Common Burdock NZ <1 0 Asclepias syriaca L. Common Milkweed N 1.1 <1 Asclepias tuberosa L. Butterfly-weed N <1 <1 Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. Yellow Rocket NZ <1 <1 Bidens polylepis S.F. Blake Ozark Tickseed Sunflower N 0 <1 Carduus nutans L. Nodding Thistle I 0 <1 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.B Ox-eye Daisy I <1 <1 Cichorium intybus L. Chicory NZ <1 0 Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Canada Thistle I 2.8 3.8 Cirsium discolor (Muhl. ex Willd.) Spreng. Field Thistle N <1 0 Cirsium pumilum (Nutt.) Spreng. Pasture Thistle N <1 0 Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Bull Thistle NZ <1 <1 Clinopodium vulgare (L.)C Wild Basil N <1 <1 Convolvulus arvensis L. Common Bindweed I <1 <1 Daucus carota L. Queen Anne’s Lace I <1 <1 Dianthus armeria L. Deptford Pink NZ <1 0 Dipsacus fullonum L. Common Teasel I 1 <1 Epilobium angustifolium L. Fireweed N 0 <1 Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) Raf. ex DC. Pilewort N 0 <1 Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers. Daisy Fleabane N <1 0 Eupatorium altissimum L. Tall Thoroughwort N <1 0 Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.D Flat-topped Goldenrod N <1 <1 Galium mollugo L. White Bedstraw NZ <1 <1 Glechoma hederacea L. Ground Ivy NZ <1 0 Hackelia virginiana (L.) I.M. Johnst. Common Stickseed N 0 <1 Hypericum perforatum L. Common St. Johnswort NZ < 1 <1 Lactuca serriola L. Prickly Lettuce NZ <1 0 Lepidium campestre (L.) R. Br. Field Pepper-grass NZ <1 0 Lepidium virginicum L. Virginia Pepper-grass NZ 0 <1 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 21, No. 1 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 45 Native OWC (%) Species name Common name status '07 '09 Lobelia inflata L. Indian-tobacco N 0 <1 Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle I <1 0 Oxalis stricta L. Common Wood-sorrel N <1 <1 Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia Creeper N <1 <1 Penstemon digitalis Nutt. ex Sims Foxglove Beardtongue N 0 <1 Physalis longifolia var. subglabrata Smooth Ground-cherry N <1 <1 (Mack. & Bush) Cronquist Phytolacca americana L. American Pokeweed N 0 <1 Pilea pumila (L.) A. Gray Common Clearweed N 0 <1 Plantago lanceolata L. English Plantain NZ 0 <1 Polygonum convolvulus L. False Buckwheat NZ <1 0 Potentilla palustris (L.) Scop. Marsh Cinquefoil N <1 0 Potentilla recta L. Sulphur Cinquefoil NZ <1 0 Prunella vulgaris L. Self-Heal N 0 <1 Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock NZ 0 <1 Solanum carolinense L. Horsenettle N <1 <1 Solanum nigrum L. Black Nightshade N <1 <1 Solidago canadensis L. Canada Goldenrod N 1.4 2.5 Sonchus arvensis L. Field Sow-thistle NZ <1 0 Sonchus asper (L.) Hill Prickly Sow-thistle NZ < 0 Spiranthes cernua (L.) Rich. Nodding Ladies’-tresses N 0 <1 Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Common Chickweed NZ 0 <1 Symphyotrichum ericoides (L.) G.L. White Heath Aster NZ 0 <1 Nesom Taraxacum officinale Weber ex F.H. Common Dandelion NZ <1 <1 Wigg. Thymus pulegioides L. Creeping Thyme NZ <1 0 Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Poison Ivy N <1 <1 Tragopogon lamottei RouyE Jack-go-to-bed-at-noon NZ <1 0 Trifolium repens L. White Clover NZ 0 <1 Verbascum blattaria L. Moth Mullein NZ 0 <1 Verbascum thapsus L. Common Mullein NZ 0 <1 Verbena urticifolia L. White Vervain N <1 <1 Vernonia fasciculata Michx. Prairie Ironweed N 0 <1 Vitis aestivalis Michx. Summer Grape N <1 <1 Graminoids Agrostis gigantea Roth Redtop NZ 0 <1 Andropogon gerardii Vitman Big Bluestem N 0 <1 Andropogon virginicus L. Common Broom-sedge N <1 <1 Bromus inermis Leyss. Smooth Brome I 20.7 40.2 Dactylis glomerata L. Orchard Grass NZ <1 <1 Danthonia spicata (L.) P. Beauv. ex Roem. Poverty Oat Grass N <1 0 & Schult. Elymus repens (L.) GouldF Quack Grass NZ <1 <1 Festuca arundinacea Schreb.G Tall Fescue NZ 21.7 4.7 Northeastern Naturalist 46 N. Cavender, S. Byrd, J.M. Bauman, and C.L. Bechtoldt 2014 Vol. 21, No. 1 Native OWC (%) Species name Common name status '07 '09 Juncus spp. Rushes N <1 0 Panicum capillare L. Witch Grass N 0 <1 Phleum pratense L. Timothy NZ 0 <1 Poa pratensis L. Kentucky Blue Grass NZ 32 13.9 Setaria faberi R. A. W. Herrm. Nodding Foxtail Grass NZ 0 <1 Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. Green Foxtail Grass NZ 0 <1 Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash Indian Grass N 0 <1 Legumes Coronilla varia L. Crown-vetch I <1 0 Gleditsia triacanthos L. Honey-locust N <1 <1 Lespedeza cuneata (Dumont) G. Don Chinese Lespedeza I 7.8 16.5 Lotus corniculatus L. Bird’s-foot-trefoil I 4.2 5 Medicago lupulina L. Black Medick NZ <1 0 Melilotus albus Medik. White Sweet-clover I 1.16 4.6 Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pall. Yellow Sweet-clover I 1 2.5 Trifolium campestre Schreb. Low Hop Clover NZ 0 <1 Trifolium hybridum L. Alsike Clover NZ <1 <1 Trifolium pratense L. Red Clover NZ <1 <1 Woody plants Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle Tree-of-heaven I <1 <1 Crataegus spp. Hawthorns N <1 0 Elaeagnus umbellata Thunb. Autumn-Olive I 2.5 1 Fraxinus americana L. White Ash N <1 0 Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. Amur Honeysuckle I 0 <1 Lonicera morrowii A. Gray Morrow’s Honeysuckle I <1 <1 Prunus serotina Ehrh. Wild Black Cherry N 0 <1 Robinia pseudoacacia L. Black Locust N 0 <1 Rosa carolina L. Pasture Rose N 0 <1 Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murray Multiflora Rose I <1 <1 Rubus allegheniensis Porter Common Blackberry N <1 1.94 Rubus occidentalis L. Black Raspberry N <1 <1 Ulmus americana L. White Elm N 0 <1 ASyn. Cynanchum laeve (Michx.) Pers. BSyn. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. CSyn. Satureja vulgaris (L.) Fritsch DSyn. Solidago graminifolia (L.) Salish ESyn. Tragopogon pratensis (L.) FSyn. Agropyron repens (L.) P. Beauv., Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv. ex B.D. Jacks. GSyn. Lolium arundinaceum (Schreb.) Darbysh., Schedonorus phoenix (Scop.) Holub.