Recolonization and Development of Vegetation on Mine Spoils Following Brown Coal Mining in Lusatia



A survey of primary colonization and succession of vegetation on various deposited substrates, littoral and shallow water areas of mining lakes and residual waters of the Lusatian lignite mining district is presented. Dumped substrates are characterized by a high acid potential which is caused by pyrite and marcasite of Tertiary origin. In the process of pyrite oxidation free mineral acids and large quantities of sulphate and bivalent iron are liberated. Residual waters are characterized by extreme acidity with pH values between 1.9 and 3.1 and by extremely high iron contents. Non-linear positive correlations are demonstrated between pH values and free mineral acids and between pH values and free carbonic acids (CO2) and bivalent iron. In aquatic, semi-aquatic and in terrestrial areas the succession of vegetation can be described by the following five main stages: stage of primary colonization and spontaneous vegetation; stage of monodominant species stands; stage of the formation of vegetation mosaics; stage of the formation of plant associations; final stage of succession.

Index species of the terrestrial colonization are Corynephorus canescens and Calamagrostis epigejos, while Juncus bulbosus is the indicator species of aquatic colonization. The succession of vegetation develops in the direction of close-to-nature vegetation conditions which are typical for the heath areas of the Lusatian Lowlands.

Key words

surface mining aquatic and terrerstrial succession substrate chemistry mine spoils mining lakes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Börner, U.: 1982, Natur und Landschaft im Bezirk Cottbus. 4, 39–40.Google Scholar
  2. Heym, W.-D.: 1971, Abh. und Ber. Naturkundemus. Görlitz. 46, 1.–40.Google Scholar
  3. Jentsch, H.: 1975, Naturschutzarbeit in Berlin und Brandenburg. 2/3, 35–39.Google Scholar
  4. Jentsch, H.: 1994, Naturschutz und Landschftspflege in Brandenburg. 3, 1, 29–32Google Scholar
  5. Klemm, G.: 1966, Hercynia N.F. 3, 1, 31–51.Google Scholar
  6. Möckel, R.: 1993, Naturschutz und Landschaftspfege in Brandenburg. 2, 1, 13–22.Google Scholar
  7. Mueller-Dombois, D. and Ellenberg, H.: 1974, Aims and methods of vegetation ecology.John Wiley, New York, London, Sydney, Toronto.Google Scholar
  8. Pietsch, W.: 1965, Limnologica 3, 2, 177–222.Google Scholar
  9. Pietsch, W.: 1973, Arch. Naturschutz und Landschaftsforschung, 13, 3, 187–217.Google Scholar
  10. Pietsch, W.: 1983, Landschaftsarchitektur 12, 3, 87–90.Google Scholar
  11. Pietsch, W.: 1990, Abh. und Ber. Naturkundemus. Görlitz. 64, 1, 65–68Google Scholar
  12. Pietsch, W.: 1991, Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig. Math.-nat. Klasse.57, 3, 29–38.Google Scholar
  13. Pietsch, W.: 1993. Proceedings of XV Internat.Botanical Congress, Yokohama, Japan, 28.08. – 03.09. 1993, 2.9.1 – 14, 1–16Google Scholar
  14. Wiedemann, D.: 1991, Abh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss., Leipzig. Math.-nat. Klasse. 57, 3, 63–73.Google Scholar
  15. Wolf, G. (Ed.): 1985, Schr.-Reihe Vegetationskunde, 16, Bonn-Bad Godesberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brandenburg Technical University CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations