Ecology and Ecosystem in Mine-Degraded Land

  • Subodh Kumar Maiti


Surface mining completely destroyed the delicate plant–microbes–soil link during its operation. Unlike other use, mining uses the land very temporarily, and at the end of project or even during the project, the ecosystem is regenerated on degraded land by afforestation only or left to the nature as it is. The question arises now, what is the capacity of these lands to regenerate the ecosystem? As per the laws of succession, the new ecological link will be established itself by nature. However, the natural process is slow; thus, artificial intervention is required; for example, planting is done to enhance the speedy recovery of ecosystem.


Energy Flow Biogeochemical Cycle Shannon Index Secondary Succession Ecological Succession 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies (2012)
  2. Berger WH, Parker FL (1970) Diversity of planktonic foraminifera in deep sea sediments. Science 168:1345–1347Google Scholar
  3. Brillouin L (1962) Science and Information Theory, 2nd edn. Academic press, New York, p 386Google Scholar
  4. CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity. Convention text, article 2 – use of terms. Online available at
  5. Clark WA (1985) Plant succession on abandoned mine lands in the Eastern united states. In: Schlosser et al (ed) National symposium on abandoned mined land reclamation, Northwood, England, pp 613–631Google Scholar
  6. MacArthur RH (1955) Fluctuations of animal populations, and a measure of community stability. Ecology 36:533–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Maiti SK (1995) Some experimental studies on Ecological aspects of reclamation in Jharia coalfield. Ph.D dissertation, Indian School of Mines, DhanbadGoogle Scholar
  8. Odum EP (1971) Fundaments of ecology, 3rd edn. W. B. Sunders and Co., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Odum EP (1975) Ecology, 2nd edn. Oxford/IBH Publications, CalcuttaGoogle Scholar
  10. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Sys Tech J 27:379–423Google Scholar
  11. Simpson EH (1949) Measurement of diversity. Nature 163:688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Southwick CH (1976) Ecology and the quality of our environment, 2nd edn. Van Nostrand, New York, p 426Google Scholar
  13. Stiling P (2002) Ecology- theory and application, 4th edn. PHI, New Delhi, p 278Google Scholar
  14. Tansley AG (1935) The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wali MK, Freeman PG (1973) Ecology of some mined areas in North Dakota. In: Wali MK (ed) Some environmental aspects of strip mining in North Dakota, vol 5, North Dakota, education series. North Dakota Geological Survey, Grand Forks, pp 25–47Google Scholar
  16. William CB (1964) Patterns in the balance of nature and related problems in quantitative ecology. Academic press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson HA (1965) The microbiology of strip mined spoil. West Virginia Ag Stn Bull, 506T, p 44Google Scholar
  18. Woodbury AM (1954) Principles of general ecology, 1st edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Subodh Kumar Maiti
    • 1
  1. 1.Indian School of Mines Department of Environmental Science and EngineeringCentre for Mining EnvironmentDhanbadIndia

Personalised recommendations