Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ftewsedm htaclrtsrcvr ftefriiyo itre osi ycnrbtn uc with mulch contributing by topsoil disturbed of fertility The the surface. of dump recovery the accelerates at that accumulation dump N waste and the activity C ( of urease greater grass total and indicating that Dehydrogenase N, respectively, available concluded revegetation. 56% of (SOC), study 5-years and carbon 9 after 44% organic doubled by by potentially Soil was increased grass. temperature respiration age the soil revegetation soil than and lowered with N-stock, higher N, along and three-fold was thickness 7.5% legume soil and by 44% by on by density mineralization moisture increased effects, effect mulch biomass soil its the in grass the and assess and increase legume increased To mineralization, An 5-years fertility. (N) respectively. to soil 1- nitrogen 37%, between and accumulation, showed and mulch productivity results Our biomass, in measured. shoot increase were fertility and an ( root to waste grass in lead (hazardous by changes would dump followed waste mixture blanketing examine restored grass-legume topsoil to a coir-matting, the aimed with in study reclaimed 5-years plant) The and pedicellatum steel seeding. and 1- integrated between grass-legume landscape an revegetation deteriorates with of grass-legume pollution, reclaiming water of by and effect controlled air, the be degradation, can land which causes aesthetics, waste hazardous of Dumping of age increasing with mulch contributing Abstract by reclamation topsoil for disturbed used the of be at fertility can accumulation the mixture N of hamata) and recovery (S. accelerates C legume revegetation. and that of greater revegetation. 5-years pedicellatum) dump indicating (P. after waste respectively, grass doubled the 56% that was of and and concluded respiration 7.5% study 44% soil The by by and surface. moisture N-stock, increased dump N, soil activity total respectively. the urease N, 37%, increased and available and potentially Dehydrogenase (SOC), 44% age carbon by organic revegetation assess increased 9 fertility Soil with To biomass soil by grass. along grass on fertility. temperature thickness and effect soil and its legume soil and density and 5-years lowered productivity mulch mineralization, to in (N) 1- in increase nitrogen between increase accumulation, showed an An mulch results to biomass, Our coir-matting, lead shoot hypothesized with would measured. and We reclaimed were mixture root plant) seeding. in grass-legume steel hamata) changes the integrated (Stylosanthes effects, of an legume the effect of and revegetation synergistic waste grass-legume pedicellatum) of (hazardous the (Pennisetum which effect dump that grass the aesthetics, waste by examine and restored followed to landscape a blanketing aimed deteriorates study in topsoil The 5-years pollution, and seeding. water grass-legume 1- and with between air, reclaiming by degradation, controlled land be causes can waste hazardous of Dumping Abstract 2020 20, July 2 1 Kumari Sneha a in dump fertility waste soil hazardous of reclaimed recovery legume on revegetation and hamata) pedicellatum) (Stylosanthes (Pennisetum grass forage of Effect ninIsiueo ehooy(ninSho fMns Dhanbad Mines) Technology of of School Institute (Indian Indian Technology of Institute Indian n eue( legume and ) 1 iedaAhirwal Jitendra , ° t1 mdph uuaieNmnrlzto ylgm a he-odhge hnthe than higher three-fold was legume by N-mineralization Cumulative depth. cm 10 at C .pedicellatum P. tlsnhshamata Stylosanthes 1 n uohKmrMaiti Kumar Subodh and , n eue( legume and ) edn.W yohszdta h yegsi ffc of effect synergistic the that hypothesized We seeding. ) 1 .hamata S. itr a eue o reclamation for used be can mixture ) ° t1 mdph uuaieN- Cumulative depth. cm 10 at C 2 Pennisetum Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. bio,Ftni,&Oou 08 aiet ta. 07.Mlhn hcns hw ietpstv effect positive direct a shows thickness Mulching Ibrahim, 2017). 2016; al., Entz, et & (Halde Radicetti of quality 2018; amount soil which Opoku, the C:N affecting predict & degradation release and Fatondii, rate, nutrients concentration decomposition land Abaidoo, can and (N determines mulch (PMN) to which composition of N variables chemical form are due mineralizable and the residues potentially mulch topsoil quantity in organic The residues in the nutrients. biomass of Plant-derived soil declines ratio) 2015). of al., instantly Maiti, accretion & et N the (Maiti (Wang accelerate available recover soil to and diverse time of takes (SOM) of usually depth development matter cm and organic 30-60 concentrations Soil ( the N legume soil at invasive in legumes when increase than ( observed an grass more were that are communities reported grasses study microbial conditions, of stress greenhouse drought area Under A 2019). root 2020). al., and et (Talema Ethiopia length Southwest in root wastelands restore to used were hsht P trg nasnygasadaeddwt eiet(ue l,21) rs pce,sc as legume such of species, Grass Addition 2019). 2016). al., et al. (Wu sediment et with (Yuan amended revegetation grassland zizanioides sandy of Chrysopogon a al., years in et 11 storage (Lima (P) to Brazil phosphate 1 in ages during varying concentrations sativa of ( N dumps legume soil waste of mine as on introduction (Yang predominant The properties grasses legume 2018). physicochemical to exotic soil compared of of recovery fertility regeneration (Marques grass-legume with soil Natural along Brazil the 2016). slopes Cerrado, highway of al., of of et cover seeding vegetation soil proportional initial pasture the instance, in ( degraded For in (Maiti, grass in aid 2014). of tinctoria matter nutrients that Indigofer Seeding quickly al., organic soil species 2016). legumes et contribute the plant al., and residues Shang in of et Grasses improvement biomass selection 2015; advantage. showed the of Maiti, added but mixture decomposition & surface an and Maiti dump has cover 2012; stabilize cover ground to vegetation thick used adequate developing been an has Maiti dry provide & species eventually (Maiti can plant litter layer of organic legume variety soil and the A grass regenerates time, and humus With soil form 2014). restore to al., to 2015). decomposes technique et which used vegetation mulch Shang widely and and produces 2012; a erosion, and retention control become (Maiti, cover, water now wastelands vegetation has topsoil quick of mixtures for develop fertility grass-legume To beneficial of 2014). seeding are al., pollution, with et mats minimize fertile (Shao revegetation Geotextile which wastelands of benefit amendments, restoration. abandoned primary application rege- soil of on associated growth the different and process its involved involve mat, the time step may Every in geotextile with plantation. method aids wastes with selective restoration and solid area mixture, The of slope seed land. grass-legume degradation exposed the the the of covering proper causes aesthetics topsoil, that Therefore, and natural remedy site. degradation the only disposal land nerating the the minimize is dumping to at restoration devoid the essential Ecological topsoil) and Additionally, are (native challenge. loose, waste horizon severe homogenous, hazardous a soil very of pollution. environmental management poses is surface waste sustainable waste the and of The alters away handling type carried bodies. materials this easily ashes, water waste was of fly nearby waste of stabilization and loose the hence the slag, pollute nutrients, monsoon, caused dolochar, They to in of of pollution. while run-off of summer, consists wastes. with sources the solid continuous plant during along as of iron problems acts dumping pollution and sponge inevitable air aesthetics, integrated severe the of an deterioration and causes activities from together industrial generated dumped to waste due solid worldwide The degraded being are Soils INTRODUCTION Keywords: revegetation. of age increasing ciahrumscoparium) Schizachyriu loicesdaoerudntpiaypoutvt ln ihsi abn() irgn()and (N) nitrogen (C), carbon soil with along productivity primary net aboveground increased also elmto;tpol uc;ntoe;si CO soil nitrogen; mulch; topsoil; Reclamation; , mrh fruticose, Amorpha , enstmmacrourum Pennisetum yoo dactylon Cynodon namxue(il ero,Kih,&Cadl,2020). Crandall, & Knight, Pearson, (Fill, mixture a in .sativa M. and epdz bicolor Lespedeza naadndfrlnsicesdboascvra well as cover biomass increased farmlands abandoned on ) and , ecealeucocephala Leucaena enstmpolystachion, Pennisetum 2 aplmnotatum, Paspalum 2 u;wsedump waste flux; itr trbtdsgicn improvement significant attributed mixture ) epdz cuneate Lespedeza n eue( legume and ) hwdteptnilt recover to potential the showed and nrdcdwt native with introduced ) enstmpurpureum Pennisetum eiaosativa, Medicago M. Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eepce napatccnanradicbtda 28 at incubated and basis; weight container dry plastic a a on in gm packed (0.2 were residues legume and Grass mineralization Nitrogen layer surface 2.4 the cm on 30 accumulated (size: mulch collected. Dry were quadrate Italy). samples using Eurovactor, by 3000 ( EA collected sieved biomass (Euro was root analyzer a and elemental and an Shoot grounded using penetration). 65 finely root ultrasonicator. at Soil of were with m depth biomass. oven-dried water samples 1 (i.e., of root and jet measured of and fine was separated area shoot a depth with an was estimate washing rooting and to and sampling, dump soaking method soil by waste harvest separated During the were the roots at used to We selected attached sampling. randomly particles vegetation was for points marked sampling was 10 of total A analysis and sampling Biomass shown is 2.3 stability. ( (summer), dump lemongrass season increase of lean to tillers in edges covers dumps, the mulch of of berm development the the like In with 3. years, Figure 5 and (d) in after slope drain, the dumps ( garland of stabilized grass of stabilization of for of construction (e) and mixture depth, dump seed surface m (1m the 0.6-1 dimension stage, proper to of of for up mats toe as topsoil 1:3 coir the forest were sidewalls of applying grass-legumes at dump with before pitching slope seeded surface waste stone and maintaining the topsoil like re-grading the and by measures followed of compaction coirmats safety with surface, (c) reclamation blanketed and seeds, the subsequent slopes of of and re-grading leveling (b) closure byrunoff, (a) sustainable surrounded 2): plant in (Figure steel involved follows the stages of outskirts main the The at externally dumped 60–70 were than materials more robusta waste Shorea of 8–49 The slope between mm. a ranged 750 with Limited temperature was m with Power 40-50 climate integrated and between subtropical dump operating ranged waste experience Steel the an height of Nalwa is dump extent aerial The NSPL the The hectares. 1). process. of reduction (Figure 83 direct dump India the between by Chhattisgarh, waste lies iron of sponge solid manufactures district that the Raigarh plant steel on the in established located was (NSPL) plot experimental The area grass of Study role 2.1 the analyze METHODS (iii) effect AND and the MATERIALS grass- dump, examine waste 2. under N-mineralization. revegetated (ii) in properties the 5-years), residue biological of and biomass fertility and the 1- legume soil of (between physicochemical and on objectives revegetation soil (mulch) The of residue in time. ages biomass changes with developmental of fertility the two soil at assess and mixture (i) productivity legume of to restoration revegetation were the grass-legume study of in effect present increase synergistic an the to that is hypothesized lead We grass; it would dump. waste (Deenanath because reclaimed years the grass of (Frouz, for fertility forage sequestration preferred of soils. stylo; carbon been to effect has in (Caribbean nutrients mulching helps the biomass Organic adds and investigated adds 2019). decomposition, We pools also al., after N microbes and et and cost by Zhang mulches labor C 2020; saves litter/organic Pramanik the al., eco-friendly, 2017; of augments et Ito, decomposition simultaneously Guoju & Indirectly, that 2018; Majid, 2017). Senge, SOM al., (Kader, the et temperature to Wang surface 2015; soil al., reduces and et content moisture soil on zdrct indica Azadirachta oiae forest. dominated º 23” o83 to 22’35”E tlsnhshamata Stylosanthes , ecealeucocephala Leucaena .pedicellatum P. º 32” n 22 and 23’27”E o × o 8hust esr h egto h r ims.Biomass biomass. dry the of weight the measure to hours 48 for C L)Tu. eeeainadgaulercmn fmlho soil on mulch of enrichment gradual and revegetation Taub.) (L.) 0)wr sd f o h eeomn fgencvri h initial the in cover green of development the for (f) used, were 30m) < n eue( legume and ) × º m)t eemn h oa abn()adntoe (N) nitrogen and (C) carbon total the determine to 1mm) 05” o22 to 00’51”N 0c) rmtesm oainweesi n vegetation and soil where location same the from cm), 30 , ccanltc,Pnai pinnata Pongamia nilotica, Acacia 3 0 o 4west esr -ieaiain Soil N-mineralization. measure to weeks 14 for C ybpgncitratus Cymbopogon < m ie ie ihtpol(0gm; (20 topsoil with mixed size) 1mm .hamata S. º enstmpedicellatum Pennisetum 21” oeiga rao prxmtl 7 approximately of area an covering 02’10”N o n h enana precipitation annual mean the and C na11rtowssw.teview the sown. was ratio 1:1 a in ) eepatd respecies Tree planted. were ) º eeas lne on planted also were nlnto.Tearea The inclination. rn)adlegume and Trin.) 2 tec point each at < 2mm) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. / ai)rnigfo 2 o19m n orsodn osuepretg agn rm05%(dry % 0.5 from ranging follows: percentage as moisture calculated was corresponding soil) and (wet 1190mV (percent, % content to 20.4 moisture 525 to and (mV) soil) from millivolts between ranging prepared basis) was curve w/w calibration the m laboratory, the as In expressed is Probe content The manual: water length). soil instruction Similarly, cm of LI-8100 temperature. VWC 5 volume the soil 8100-202; in and record given p/n mV), Infrared to as EC-5, (700–1300 LI-8100 10cm equation Model mV regression of LICOR (ECHO following as depth by probe given a seconds) moisture 6.4 to is 90 a 8100-201; up output p/n by for inserted interval E-thermocouple, measured was (type was min length) probe moisture 20 cm Temperature every 25 USA). NE, hours diameter, Lincoln, mm (24 Inc. week (LICOR a analyzer for gas bulk forest is Sal BD CO natural (%), soil concentration of nitrogen Rate total is CO N Soil (%), 2.6 concentration carbon m organic (Mg soil soil density is specific SOC soils, Where in concentration elemental stock N respective or using SOC by follows: as calculated organic sodium density Soil exchange was 1N bulk 1973). measured stock Cation and (Jackson, with and N India) depth acetate) and saturated photometer, total ammonium was flame 1945) 1N and Microprocessor (soil with Kurtz, carbon (ESICO-1388, treated method photometer & subsequently flame Na-saturation and (Bray a by ethanol by method with determined Available washed Bray’s was solution, 1956). soil the acetate &Asija, Santoro, the by nitrogen (Subbiah & of determined semiautomatic Klein, India) capacity(CEC) a (Casida, was Equipment, using substrate determined (Av-P) Pelican a were VA, phosphorus concentration as (KJELODIST-EAS N chloride the total system tetrazolium and and 5-triphenyl estimation method (Av-N) 3, colorimetric N available 2, the Plant by using 1964). measured estimated was was (UA) soil activity K in urease M Soil weight /0.5 1985). NH the fumigation al., released et chloroform as Brookes by determined 105 1987; measured was between al., were (SOM) (LOI) (MBN) matter ignition Hartge, nitrogen organic dichromate on probe & and rapid loss Soil multi-parameter the (Blake a 1996). the using method by after by Sommers, estimated differences w/v) core & was (1:2.5, (SOC) (Nelson soil water carbon technique the organic soil: oxidation Soil by in cm India). potentiometrically determined Instruments 12 Hanna determined was (HI2020, and was collected (BD) pH 9 The density Soil ( diameter. 6, Bulk 1986). internal particles 3, gravimetrically. cm soil both 0, (25-29 8 size and coarse and temperature under mesh forest height The room dumps the cm pestle. at revegetated from 10 10-20cm air-dried and of old and were corer 5-years collected 0-10 soil samples were from of stainless-steel composite samples soil depth samples a soil quadrat, consecutive using 10 composite each a thickness 110 and Within at mulch of each dumps reference. total samples revegetated as A 10 (NF) the subsamples. manner, five forest similar mixing natural a by 10m and in obtained by of revegetation were analyzed quadrats of samples was random 5-years soil extract laying and soil by 1 the collected after in were concentration samples N inorganic Soil analysis The and weeks. interval sampling an 14 1983). at Soil and Nelson, paper 2.5 12 filter & #42 10, (Keeney KCl Whatman 8, method 1M through 6, distillation ml filtered steam 100 and 4, shaker with the 3, orbital without extracted 2, an were samples in samples 1, Soil h soil of experiment. 1 incubated the for The shaking throughout control. by capacity as solution incubated field also of were 50% residue at plant maintained was content moisture  m m 3 3  4 + 2 = u measurement flux -3 a unie yU-I pcrpooee Ga,18) eyrgns ciiy(DHA) activity Dehydrogenase 1986). (Guan, Spectrophotometer UV-VIS by quantified was 2 ,Ti oltikes(m). thickness soil is T ), − u a esrda h eeeae upsraedrn w eeomna gsand ages developmental two during surface dump revegetated the at measured was flux gha Mg 3 . 14 × − 1 107
[ = mV x O rNconc N or SOC 1 + > msz)wr eaae rmtecuhdsi sn standard using soil crushed the from separated were size) mm 2 . 16 × × 103 BD 4 mV x o × n 375 and C 0 T )frawe n ihl rse ihamortar a with crushed lightly and week a for C) × − 100](1) 0 . × o 1 (2) 612 .Si irba ims abn(MBC) carbon biomass microbial Soil C. 0 ntesraeo h at dump waste the of surface the on 10m 2 SO 4 xrcinmto Vneet (Vance method extraction 3 /m 3 yuigthe using by Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eesgicnl ieetfo aua oetsis(al ) h itre osi ro ograss-legume to prior topsoil kg revegetation cm disturbed (p mg g grass-legume The (1.26 (0.74 of BD 3). Av-P 5-years (Table (4.7), (0.34%), and pH soils 1 a forest had after natural seeding properties from biological different significantly and were physicochemical soil in (Figure negative grass Changes and properties and legume soil biomass of in decomposing biomass Changes of root shoot 3.2 and pool legume shoot TN by both on greater in dependent ratio was C:N highly 6). rate biomass was mineralization with N N relationship mineralized curvilinear cumulative of The percentage kg period. the N kg incubation mg N the (166 mg The of biomass 7-8 end 5). from ranging (Figure the mineralization by time kg kg N incubation N lowest N with mg the mg showed grass 15 (22.6) (25-27 than to root values declined legume and greater and by (12.4) g showed greater shoot 2.55 rate were a – for residues mineralization 2.18 ratio biomass from C:N with in ranged amended differences residue showed legume incubation concentration in for of N used concentration while residues N grasses biomass Inorganic in The temperature C soil 2). of on amount (Table effect greater kg legumes significant a a in showed has residues dead higher that biomass to was surface The conversion dump content. subsequent the ha moisture on their Mg and accumulation and 28.0 mulch to revegetation greater 11.4 in since from resulted age density the mulch legumes with increase that accumulation biomass showed results Biomass The 1). revegetation. (Table ha of Mg ages developmental (26.82 the biomass between stock mulch and biomass, potential N-mineralization of and Growth biomass plant in Changes 3.1 this in analyses dependent statistical RESULTS the All between 3. relationship ratio). corre- SPSS21.0 C:N the using Pearson investigate and performed using (TN to were variables assessed out study independent va- was carried with of was them (N-mineralization) at analysis analysis influencing variable test using Regression factors tested hoc and analysis. were post parameters lation covers Tukey different land by between different compared relationship under and mean (ANOVA) the riance between differences significant The analysis Statistical 2.7 Moisture osuecneto h elie at upfo . o1.%cmae oantrlfrs 72% and (7.20%) forest natural a to significant compared A 11.8% to soil. 3.8 (26-23 topsoil revegetated from the temperature 1-year increase dump help in soil waste which conditions reclaimed highest decrease soil the favorable found in of and resulted content years depth the moisture over soil density mulch with the trend in increase increasing an showed BD Ardcdwt oldpha aiu neato fsi irbswsfudt cu ntetpsurface top (10.14 the in soil occur and forest to DHA in found Both was observed residue. (p microbes was biomass significantly soil DHA legume increased of of Highest soil interaction abundance maximum 1165 an as cm). and to depth (132 (0-10 due soil 5-years C with after over reduced greater N UA significantly of accumulation were compared greater concentrations lower Total-N justifies significantly and but Av-N years kg the Soil mg over decomposed soil. which forest mulch to grass-legume of (p enrichment different to significantly due and 5-years in doubled + -1 .hamata S. kg ) oprdt .214 kg g 0.32-1.44 to compared -1 -1 oprdt nta ocnrtos(4ad59m kg mg 579 and (54 concentrations initial to compared ) .Cagsi olp 5856 ihicesn g frvgtto eentsgicn (p significant not were revegetation of age increasing with (5.8-5.6) pH soil in Changes ). (% .hamata S. / basis w/w , n ho 2.)adro 3.)of (31.1) root and (20.3) shoot and -1 -1 and a ihrta h rs ims 1.2M ha Mg (19.02 biomass grass the than higher was ) ol oprdt rs 5 gNkg N mg (58 grass to compared soil) 0 = ) -1 .pedicellatum P. -1 ,U (1.26 UA ), < wk .5 rm37t 5.32 to 3.7 from 0.05) -1 . 03 0 -1 )a h o ae 01 m Tbe3 iue4.SCconcentrations SOC 4). Figure 3; (Table cm) (0-10 layer top the at C) ntegaswt ho ims otiuigtehgetconcentration. highest the contributing biomass shoot with grass the in oadte14 the toward × -3 mV ,A- 4.8m kg mg (46.68 Av-N ), μ NH g − hwdsgicn hne nroigdph ho n root and shoot depth, rooting in changes significant showed 14 < 4 .pedicellatum P. + . .5 nbt h oldph O ocnrto improved concentration SOM depth. soil the both in 0.05) 1[R 41 th g -1 ekb h eue iial,sotboaso grass of biomass shoot Similarly, legume. the by week μ 5 h P g TPF g -1 2 -1 .0](3) 0.909] = ,DA(1.57 DHA ), Fgr ) otnosices nmlhdensity mulch in increase Continuous 4). (Figure -1 1 -1 α μ wk -1 -1 ol.Lna ersinaayi hwdthat showed analysis regression Linear soil). ,T 396 gkg mg (389.60 TN ), P g TPF g -1 ? .5sgicnelvl h statistical The level. significance 0.05 [?] wk hne nlbl olfo olextract soil from pool N labile in Changes . h -1 ntetplyr eraesi : ratio C:N soil Decrease layer. top the in ) -1 uigtefis -ek fincubation of 3-weeks first the during ) -1 Tbe3.Smlry Aas hwda showed also UA Similarly, 3). (Table nfis -ek n gNkg N mg 2 and 3-weeks first in μ P g TPF g -1 h -1 -1 fe er frevegetation of years 5 after ) hra H nreclaimed in DHA whereas ) -1 h -1 -1 n E 52 cmol (5.23 CEC and ) ,SM(.1) SOC (0.81%), SOM ), > -1 0.05). wk -1 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. upie hc a ercvrdtruhrvgtto n usqetntin yln i decomposition via waste cycling the at nutrient use subsequent initial and during topsoil revegetation in through declines recovered readily concentration be N can and activity which C enzymes SOM, dumpsite, of and terms important SOM in fertility is on Soil revegetation mixture during grass-legume cycling. N nutrient soil of the in the understanding Effect dynamics to Therefore, 4.2 and N 2017). returned 2020) soil al., biomass al., of et legume management et Tian micro- the and Prommer 2020; for soil grass controlled 2020; al., the of be Acosta-Martinez, et stimulated patterns can & Sekaran which mineralization West, SOC 2018; mineralization grass-legume Bhandari, (Joniec, of C:N of via activities al.,2020; accumulation higher residues cycling decomposed enzymatic et the biomass whereas, nutrient readily (Amorim the term, the species of activities plant long be shifts characteristics bial associated soil in can chemical by in but the ratio used in incorporated C C:N difference be mixture 2020; soil low These can Frouz, to with concentration. that & contributes N biomass soil Strakova, by biomass (Jilkova, Legume in grass N populations 2019). Figure of excess microbial al., 6; ratio leaving of et (Figure microbes process functioning Li soil N-mineralization the 2019; by the high- for McDonald, enhances constituting desirable & stock ratio revegetation. mulch it Lei C:N of of low makes years enrichment with and five the mineralizable biomass to and 7) of legume moisture one presence Li rich soil after the 2020; N in mixture indicates al., increase quality the soil et revegetation, in dump (Li of reclaimed biomass 5-years species the grass After the in and than both pool legume (33%) of N by legumes biomass labile contributed by whereas in N root greater pool increase organic and was The mineralization N shoot 5). 2019). N across Figure total al. net differs 2; biomass that et (Table and reported the grass species mineralization of the (20%) N than respectively non-legumes and legume greater C 0.42% in three-folds of concentration and were study N 0.91% residues The Inorganic 2018; legume for al., 2020). by et accounted Rezaei, the N-mineralization (Abdelhafez & biomass cumulative on pool kharazi, root depends N Shahbazi, inorganic and Marzi, plant to 2018; shoot to organic al., available of et (2017). conversion nutrients Omari Wang, the potential a surface Ansong & regulates which releases Li, creates the mineralization Wu, residue which ameliorating of Liu, biomass rate Wang, surface by of of dump moisture findings decomposition the the soil by Microbial over with holds dropped consistent formed was and are mulch layer mulch results temperature evapotranspiration, surface upper Our grass-legume soil reduces thick the temperature. maximum in environment, to in accumulation soil increase attributable temperature mulch and are cooler An in substantially moisture changes increase has on These 1). an effect dump 2). (Table to positive waste Due 93% a the showed by soil. 9 on 5-years stock of in revegetation mulch cm) cm of (0-10 and 12 years to 41% 5 up by thickness after biomass mixture the grass-legume increased of N-mineralization growth on The mixture grass-legume of Effect 4.1 DISCUSSION revegetation. of 4. periods experimental SOM, CO the soil pool, over mean dump N The The waste with 8). 7). (Figure positively (Figure NF correlated parameters the for (3.17 CO of values soil soil accelerated Soil level peak the assessed surface 5). The showed fertility. (Table the in dump and activity soil all residues the enzyme promoting for biomass on revegetation and thickness mineralizable of microbial, cm) mulch stages potentially 12 cm early of and 12 the amount 9, in with even 6, highest N 3, was and improvement (p (0, C higher thickness biomass significantly mulch microbial soil also in was increase increase stock stock an age SOC Additionally, N revegetation revegetation Soil with grass-legume significantly of layer. 5-years increased top After stocks (1.47 the N 4). (Table in and depth 66% C soil by Soil the with soil. decreased forest and to compared when 7.11 significant – 4.57 from increase significant ° hc nrae osuecneto h elie upsraeb .%cmae obr ol(Figure soil bare to compared 7.5% by surface dump reclaimed the of content moisture increased which C ± ± .1M ha Mg 0.21 0.55 μ o m mol -1 -2 oprdt oetNsok(1.00 stock N forest to compared ) s -1 ) > -er (1.21 5-years μ NH g 4 ± + 0.15 g -1 h μ -1 2 o m mol mn h eeeae ie uig1t -er u non- but 5-years to 1 during sites revegetated the among u ae ie infiatyudrdffrn adcovers land different under significantly differ rates flux 6 ± -2 .2M ha Mg 0.32 s -1 2 ) > u a on nteodro aua forest natural of order the in found was flux -er(1.01 1-year -1 < ). .5 fe -er frevegetation of 5-years after 0.05) ± 0.62 μ o m mol -2 s -1 reclaimed ) Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. n topei eprtr n ep eansi osuecnet euewt o ims : ratio soil C:N between biomass zone low buffer with Legume a content. created moisture revegetation soil of retain helps 5-years and over temperature formed atmospheric cover and mulch grass-legume Dense Singh, favorable & are Maiti, conditions Conclusions (Ahirwal, revegetation. soil 5. fertility term the soil long whether in assess indicating 2016) to process Merritt, matter decomposition & organic for Dixon, of CO Erickson, quality of Munoz-Rojas, the 2017b; rate legume and The perennial temperature 2016). soil of varying al., 7-years et et Similarly, Liu (Guan C. 3). 74% (Table stable soil revegetation ( relatively sequester of biomass and to davurica, years legume during greater potential 1-5 of declined contribute after greater benefits gradually decreased showed differences the to these ratio reported reported Apparently, C:N (2020) 2017). been soil al. biomass- Katterer, e. have because Root i. & C 2020). leaching decomposition Poeplau, N al., microbial biomass (Ghafoor, reduce et pools shoot residues Wu C An biomass 2020; to soil grass Pivokonsky, decomposition. compared the pool & of as Cermakova, C N stages Novotna, respiration soil derived (Frouz, the soil on increase effect throughout would effect priming respiration CO pool efficacious positive increases microbial C and an soil labile pool showed 2017). the in C (Frouz, residues increase soil increases growth built root root microbes residue plant and CO for grass and soil available shoot in input, of C legume litter/biomass rate root the the higher temperature, in whereas of soil Variation in concentration 8). difference N (Figure the dump Higher to waste and due reclaimed respiration old be 5-years microbial can the influence than revegetation, greater of times 5-years over mulch CO enzyme increased grass-legume to CO of revegetation. related soil decomposition during on is The nutrients mixture that soil N grass-legume of biomass higher recovery of microbial have effective Effect Wang, soil in revegetation 2018; 4.3 & of role grass-legume al., Liu, crucial growth under Lin, et a the (Yu, soils play Luo plantation for reclaimed that the 2018; beneficial activities that of al., and fact 3-years et potential the ( after mineralization activity (Hou illustrates legume enzyme of finding studies urease plantation Our other and change, 2020). in concentration use N that explained land 5) soil During trends (Table the 2016). environment similar nutrient soil Villamil, between the driven & linkage decomposition with and Zuber high correlation agreements a positive 44% in in the and activities are show enzyme 56 N results and demonstrate and These microbial 1 activity soil biomass. C parameters, to to enzyme microbial promotes compared related the urease enzymes revegetation of mineralization, of time, of and same N composition years build-up dehydrogenase the 5 in the At i.e. after 7). increase processes modifies respectively (Figure an increase, N decomposition mixture and from N in C resulted and biomass accumulation microbial which C mulch soil Reddy, soil, increase and & to the biomass Wu, link Maiti, recovery to (Ahirwal, 2016; shoot added reclamation al., and residue biological et root mulch of (Guan stage in C early changes soil the The of in recovery 2016). stock the Soegaard, N also depth in & have and rooting Elgersma helps studies 2017) plant 2017a; Previous biomass Shi, and activity. legume microbial & microbes increased of Tian, soil to by Liu, incorporation leading governed nutrient, the pool the that N of and reported amount These recovery C large 4). the of a showed (Table impedes absorb forms residue, also concentration available will legume soil initial potentially decomposing blanketed rapidly to and the 35% of SOM, compared in presence and stock of the 5-years concentration to N after 94% SOM attributed and respectively, mainly and by SOC are 122%, Similarly, SOC differences concentration grass- soil. and both reclaimed SOM 66% of soil, in forest by and Enrichment lower with increment 111% 3). SOC compared and (Table when the 23% However, still systems increased depth. was et soil cm revegetation surface Semenov 0-10 below-ground dump of in 2015; on and 5-years respectively mixture al., above over grass-legume et both of mulch Oliveira growth in legume the de changes that 2014; showed significant (ANOVA) Hidalgo, variance bought of & Analysis Oleschko, 2019). Etchevers, al., (Campos, mineralization and and 2 srglsadsurgens Astragalus u ftercamdwsedm y1% olCO Soil 19%. by dump waste reclaimed the of flux rwhicesdtesi eusrto faal adb 9 8and 68 79, by land arable of sequestration C soil the increased growth 2 u,ulk te olprmtr,rsodmr ucl under quickly more respond parameters, soil other unlike flux, 2 aaaakorshinskii Caragana 7 flux st 2 erwihpoal eetdtegeneral the reflected probably which year u trbtdb aua oetws1.5 was forest natural by attributed flux 2 .sativa M. fflxadteradto smulch as addition their and efflux nteLesPaeuo China of Plateau Loess the on ) infiatyimproved significantly ) .stv,Lespedeza sativa, M. 2 fluxes Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aps .C,Ecees .B,Oeck,K . iag,C .(04.Si irba ims and biomass the microbial (Mexico): Volcano Soil Perote (2014). de M. Cofre C. the Hidalgo, on & gradient L., altitudinal K. an Oleschko, along B., rates J. mineralization soil. Etchevers, in nitrogen C., nitrogen biomass A. release microbial the Campos, measure and to fumigation method Chloroform in (1985). extraction phosphorus S. direct Biochemistry D. of rapid and Jenkinson, a forms & nitrogen: available G., soil and Pruden, of A., organic, Landman, total, C., of P. Brookes, Determination (1945). T. L. Kurtz, soils. & H., R. Bray, density. Bulk (1986). into H. methods alfalfa K. Hartge, seeding & Plains. inter R., G. High of Blake, Texas role semi-arid the in Assessing health (2020). soil V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103399 Acosta-Martinez, pasture improving & P., on C. grass with West, amended B., soils K. tropical Bhandari, different Oikawa, in & dynamics K., biomass Sarpong, resources. (2020). microbial Appiah organic S. E., and contrasting Sarkodee-Addo, F. mineralization Y., Carlos, Nitrogen Fujii, (2018). & S., Y. D. B., Bellingrath-Kimura, C. R., Rocha, environment) Omari, (savannah L., Ansong cerrado the S. in flux 1. D. oxisol in region CO2 L. attributes northeast microbial Duarte, soil the affect L., in crops and cover C. as pool Boechat, legumes and carbon D., Grasses Nascimento, ecosystem P., in S. Changes Amorim, (2017b). India. K. environment, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.043 A. tropical 153-162. dry Singh, , in & reclamation K., post-mine S. following with Maiti, of forestation stocks J., phosphate after Ahirwal, and years nitrogen 8 Mineralization carbon, within (2018). of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.03.019 soil Development E. 42-50. (2017a). mine S. fertilization. M.S. coal Mahrous, &Reddy, inorganic reclaimed & S.K., and Maiti, W., organic J., Bably, under Ahirwal, El soils semi-arid M., in T. Innovation nitrogen Attia, & and Technology H., carbon M. organic Abbas, of A., A. in Abdelhafez, us assisting for Raigarh (NSPL), REFERENCES Limited Power and interest: the Steel of work. appreciate Nalwa Conflict experimentation Dhanbad authors of and Mines), The EHS sampling of study. Head for School this Sahu, dumpsites (Indian during Technology their M.L. facilities of research Mr. Institute other of Indian and help the fellowship thank research to providing like for would author first The fertility. Acknowledgement soil of recovery accelerates ( subsequent and legume and concentrations, that biomass shows Therefore, root study import. this and to conclusion, shoot pedicellatum In impractical sufficient time. often provide over and also they stock mulch CO mixture as mulch of of revegetation, grass-legume amount rate grass-legume of massive the recommend a 5-years Growth doubling we requires after soils. and dumps fertility increased stocks, forest waste significantly N Soil natural of and was the reclamation soil. SOC activity to activity, the enhancing enzyme microbial close by in and the are leaching enhanced biomass, N that N microbial of revegetation N, reduces mineralization grass-legume SOC, biomass of balanced SOM, grass contributing of of synergistically terms ratio in and C:N uptake high N conversely, microbial mineralization N rapid favor olScience Soil , 5 6-7.https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c13. 363-375. , pce ffcigaoeadblwgon olssesdrn eeeain nraenutrient increase revegetation, during systems soil ground below and above affecting species ) , , 59 17 1,39-46. (1), h uhr onthv oflc fitrs nayform. any in interest of conflict a have not do authors The 6,8782 https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(85)90144-0 837-842. (6), eit Caatinga Revista , 9 4-5.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2017.12.011 243-253. , olSystems Soil , , 33 2 1,3-2 https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21252020v33n104rc 31-42. (1), 4,6.https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems2040063 63. (4), ehd fsi nlss at1Pyia n mineralogical and Physical 1 Part analysis: soil of Methods 8 rspsjuliflora Prosopis .hamata S. cec fteTtlEnvironment Total the of Science ple olEcology Soil Applied scmail ihgas( grass with compatible is ) 2 u n5yas Field-scale 5-years. in flux S. Dc. (Sw.) Environmental aea 156 Catena, , 147 olBiology Soil 103399. , , 583 P. , Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. neato ihsi ffc irba eprto n t epnet n diinmr hnC changes N C: and than decomposition more addition matter N organic and of C to stage response ratio, its N decomposition. and respiration C: during microbial Foliage affect (2020). soil with J. interaction &Frouz, Hall. P., prentice Strakova, analysis V., Jilkova, chemical mi- Soil soil (1958). the L. and M. micro-dosing in Jackson, fertilizer Variation of use Agroecosystems Integrated (2018). in (2015). Cycling J. A. Nutrient Opoku, Li, & & D., tumida Fatondji, J., C., Acacia R. periods. Ma, Abaidoo, reclamation A., Y., Ibrahim, different Yang, over S., land Zhang, reclaimed Z., https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072286 of Ding, community cover C., crobial of Wang, decomposition H., affected rate Hou, application systems. mulch no-till and rotational species organic Plant https://doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2015-0095 in (2016). used H. mulches carbon M. crop organic Entz, soil & on C., cultivation Halde, of China. Impact of (2020). regions L. semiarid Ming, in soil. & https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12540 potential surface sequestration W., sequestration carbon the Jing, Soil carbon in Z., Qiang, and than (2016). reduce H., layers M. Yanbin, F. soil X., Li, deeper Guoju, fauna & in C., greater T. is Wang, Soil J., s China. Y. pasture 13 Gu, Beijing, legume L., Press: perennial Song, Agriculture three C., China by N. approaches; Turner, (2020). research K., its X. Guan, and M. enzyme agricultural Soil Swedish a (1986). litter. in Pivokonsky, S.Y. carbon derived Guan, root from and & straw- of Fate leaching (2017) T. L., soil. Katterer, C., N Poeplau, Cermakova, A., Ghafoor supporting K., by https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103585 Novotna, respiration soil J., Frouz, cutting. and under yield grass herbage pure in and variation seasonal mixtures on grass-legume Organic diversity binary (2015). species Agronomy S. seven of T. of Effects Oliveira, value (2016). de nutritive K. & &Soegaard, O., A., E. Elgersma, agriculture. M. irrigated Escobar, to converted C., Brazil S. northeastern Development of Blum, activity. soils & B., in dehydrogenase N. stocks Soil nitrogen Lacerda, and (1964). de carbon P., T. S. Santoro, Oliveira, & de A., D. Klein, E., 371-376. L. Jr, Casida use. land and position ps://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2185 landscape of importance ru,J 21) ffcso olmcoadmsfuao itrdcmoiinadsi rai matter organic soil and decomposition litter on mesofauna macro-and soil of Effects stabilization. (2018). J. Frouz, chronosequence. soil post-mining Assessing a peren- sequestration: along carbon increases experiment Development soil transplant on legume & field quality invasive a litter and with An time saturation development (2019). carbon soil of change. M. Effects community (2017). R. J. plant Frouz, Crandall, for & pathway M., indirect T. An ps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211295. Knight, biomass: E., grass Pearson, nial M., J. Fill, 2,57 tp:/doi:10.5194/bg-13-527-2016 https:// 527. (2), ilg n etlt fSis 53 Soils, of Fertility and Biology , 78 Geoderma ucigicessmle il n ae s ffiinyi aeinsm-rdenvironment. semi-arid Sahelian in efficiency use water and yield millet increases mulching 38.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.04.011 73-83. , , , 26 28 1,92.https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2264 9-21. (1), 2,6462 https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2580 664-672. (2), ple olEcology Soil Applied , 332 6-7.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.08.039 161-172. , , 103 5–6.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-016-1168-7 257–267. , 3,3538 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-015-9752-z 375-388. (3), , 152 adDgaain&Development & Degradation Land 058 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2020.103568 103568. , 9 aainJunlo ln Science Plant of Journal Canadian n. nlwo lff,NJ Cliffs, Englewood Inc., ple olEcology Soil Applied olUeadManagement and Use Soil lSone PloS Sustainability , 14 , olScience Soil 25 uoenJunlof Journal European , , 1,e219.htt- e0211295. (1), 498 adDegradation Land adDegradation Land 6,5153 htt- 581-593. (6), 153 Biogeosciences , , , 10 96 36 183-204. , 103585. , 1,59-71. (1), 1,83-92. (1), 7,2286. (7), , 98 (6), , Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. uo-oa,M,Eiko,T . io,K . ert,D .(06.Si ult niaosto matter. indicators organic and quality carbon, organic Soil carbon, methods Total Chemical (1996). (2016). 3 E. Part J. L. analysis: Sommers, D. & ecosystems. W., Merritt, D. semiarid & Nelson, degraded W., in K. soils Dixon, restored https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12368 E., of functionality T. on assess Erickson, source amendment M., organic Munoz-Rojas, of influence The alternative soils. An (2020). different https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-00116-w M. in Pontes, 177-191. Brazil: Rezaei, mineralization blanket- & & nitrogen Cerrado, N., D., and topsoil of Kharazi, Urashima, carbon K., soil Carvalho by Shahbazi, on de M., soil? legume Marzi, dumps S., pasture and degraded O. waste in grass B. nutrients with of Pires, of input geotextile https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.06.002 L., the coir restoration M. improving Utilizing in Monteiro, strategy Ecological R., (2016). C. P. mixture. Vianna, P. R., grass–legume (2015). A. with Marques, D. seeding Maiti, and & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.01.003 coir-matting asso- K., the ing, Deciphering S. (2018). Q. Maiti, Shen, & (2012). fertilization K. S., long-term S. Guo, by Maiti, driven M., of multifunctionality Wang, potential ecosystem M., utilization and Liu, diversity biomass management. microbial H., of soil Chen, Assessment between C., ciations Microbes Rensing, (2020). G., C. Luo, Peng, & (2019). Development X., & S. Zhou, Degradation Land Q., Niu, dynamics Zhu, The korshinskii & Z., (2018). Caragana C. Yu, K. Y., Tonello, W., & regeneration. T., Liu, H. natural G. under Pires, mining Chen, G., calcary A. in Rosa, dumps S., T., waste https://doi.org/10.1590/01047760201824012476 C. of recovery H. Wang, substrate Dias, the I., of A. J., Ribeiro, T., Wang, M. availability.Lima, B., and between mineralization Wang, differ nitrogen mineralization https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14557 D., soil nitrogen global Tian, and crops. drive Carbon cover Z., based (2020). non-legume Li, 643–698. E. versus J. legume p. Olesen, of https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04358-6 & WI. roots in 243-257. X., Madison, and mineralization Li, shoots SSSA, nitrogen P., on incorporated and Sorensen, effects ASA F., temperature Li, and 9. Methods moisture ma- Soil mulching al.(ed.) system. Monogr. (2019). et farming https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1654503 in M. Page tunnel Agron. advances L. AL high McDonald, a In Recent ed. & L., 2nd forms. Lei, Nitrogen—Inorganic (2017). 2. (1983). K. Part W. Ito, https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c33. D. analysis. Nelson, & soil & of environment. A., R., D. soil M. Keeney, modifying Mojid, for M., methods https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.01.001 Senge, and A., terials M. Kader, with reclaimed soil degraded in processes https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1602-x regeneration waste. of indicator of an types as various activity Enzymatic (2018). J. Joniec, ucinlEcology Functional crsoaino h oliedgae lands degraded coalmine the of Ecorestoration n t ffc ncro eusrto nteNrhr hax os lta,China. Plateau, Loess Shaanxi Northern the on sequestration carbon on effect its and nentoa ora fEvrnetlSineadTechnology and Science Environmental of Journal International omnctosi olSineadPatAnalysis Plant and Science Soil in Communications , , 32 , 31 5 4,10-16 https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13039 1103-1116. (4), 961-1010. , 1,5-4 https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3425 53-64. (1), 10 ora fSi cec n ln Nutrition Plant and Science Soil of Journal oladTlaeResearch Tillage and Soil lblCag Biology Change Global clgclEngineering Ecological pigrSine&Bsns Media. Business & Science Springer . ple olEcology Soil Applied etrto Ecology Restoration ln n Soil and Plant , , Cerne , 50 15 25 , 1) 2140-2150. (17), 1) 2241-2252. (10), 168 , 3,1078-1088. (3), , ehd fsoil of Methods 107 , 24 77 , 24 155-166. , 1,18-26. (1), 290-297. , , 74-84. , , 446 43-52. , 20 (1), (1), Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. u . u . hn,Y,X,C,Yn,H,Zo,W,...&Hn .(09.Sdmn diinand addition Sediment (2019). X. Han, & . . . W., grasslands. sandy Zhou, of H., functions ecosystem Yang, in Development C., increases & long-term Xu, Degradation sustainable, Y., in result Zhang, cultivation carbon L., legume organic soil Lu, promotes H., group Wu, functional Legumes traits diversity. (2017). plant morphological H. Z. increasing root northwest Shi, by https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2570 & of in P., storage region F. changes nitrogen Tian, semiarid Adaptive and Y., the Liu, of L., (2020). G. restoration Wu, Z. ecological the Shangguan, in & seedlings Y., Leguminosae China. for Fang, and legumes Gramineae and S., mulches of Liu, of types G., different Wang, of China. Effects northern semi-arid (2017). in X. land Wang, abandoned & https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.02.001 microbial urban C., soil of Li, measuring restoration X., for Wu, the method H., extraction Liu, An J., Wang, (1987). S. D. Jenkinson, & steppe C. C., nitrogen biomass semi-arid P. elevated of Brookes, in Effects D., enzymes E. (2017). nitrogen-mineralizing Vance, L. and Chen, & fractions J., nitrogen cropland. Feng, Z., abandoned organic tropics. analy- Xu, and soil growth subhumid Z., on Chen, and the M., precipitation Survival in L. and Condron, badlands (2019). soils. K., rehabilitate Wei, J. in J., to Diels, Tian, nitrogen used & available grasses H., of and Dibaba, Development assessment shrubs, R., & for trees, degradation Padro, multipurpose procedure B., of Muys, rapid sis J., slope A Poesen, for mulches A., (1956). Talema, geotextile L. of G. Effectiveness Asija, (2014). Science & Y. Current V., Liu, carbon & B. organic S., Subbiah, soil Makoto, of China. reseeding. Y., northern response or Q. semi-arid The abandonment Dai, in by (2014). restoration W., grassland B. Gu, Deng, to Q., & steppe Shao, J., alpine R. cultivated Long, returning Y., after R. Catena years Guo, incubation 10 J., the nitrogen J. of and soil Cao, the H., in V. Z. matter Gerenyu, Shang, de organic & active A., of N. formation Semenova, In- P., and D. decomposition experiments. Khromychkina, residues (2020). N., Plant T. S. Lebedeva, (2019). B., L. Kumar, N. Pautova, & M., V. V., Semenov, Owens, S., structure. community Subramanian, microbial https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.103427 and O., activities tillage G. biochemical ( and soil Abagandura, clover enhanced crops kura R., cover of J. winter tercropping Loya, How U., (2017) Sekaran, R. Mancinelli, eggplant. & in availability A., https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-017-9849-7 nitrogen Marucci, affect E., intensities mi- Campiglia, Increased E., diversity. (2020). plant A. Radicetti, higher Richter, at & accumulation Y., carbon Hu, organic D., soil Biology Zezula, drive Change turnover J., and Braun, biomass, W., of growth, Wanek, crobial W., Effect T. Walker, (2015). J., P. Prommer, Aggarwal, & R., Bhattacharyya, , review. D., regimes-A thermal Bhaduri, soil K., on mulch K. Bandyopadhyay, P., Pramanik, 8 3,6568 https://doi.org/10.5958/2230-732X.2015.00072.8 645-658. (3), adDgaain&Development, & Degradation Land , 119 olbooyadBiochemistry and biology Soil uainSi Science Soil Eurasian 83.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2014.03.006 28-35. , , 5 259-260. 25, , 26 2,6961 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14777 669-681. (2), ln n Soil and Plant Trifoliumambiguum , , 30 30 4,4040 https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3239 470-480. (4), 1) 6717.https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3348 1667-1676. (14), , 52 nentoa ora fArclue niomn n Biotechnology and Environment Agriculture, of Journal International 1) 1319.https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229319100119 1183-1194. (10), Catena , –3 https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3616 1–13. , 417 19 12,2729 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3253-6 217-229. (1-2), 6,703-707. (6), .Be)wt rii odrs ( cordgrass prairie with Bieb) M. , 116 11 adDgaain&Development & Degradation Land uretCcigi gocsses 108 Agroecosystems, in Cycling Nutrient -.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2013.12.006 1-9. , clgclEngineering Ecological ple olEcology Soil Applied priapectinata Spartina , 28 4,1336-1344. (4), , , 147 102 177–194. , 103427. , 55-63. , Global link.) Land Land Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. otdfile (NF). Hosted forest natural and mixture of grass-legume with ages developmental with (e) 8 mulch) and FIGURE (without (MBN), soil nitrogen bare biomass microbial to biomass. (d) relative revegetation. grass (MBC), (PMN) of carbon nitrogen ratio biomass mineralizable C:N microbial potentially and (c) (%) (SOM), N matter N mineralized mineralized ganic (c) (d) biomass, and, 7 grass biomass FIGURE in legume concentration of (TN%) ratio nitrogen C:N total and and (%) (%) N mineralized (b) biomass, 6 FIGURE ( revegetation. legume grass-legume of ages 5 (d) developmental FIGURE and with dump surface, wasted dump reclaimed the the at at mulch grass-legume slope. 4 of dump FIGURE accumulation waste the the (c) (d) on slope, mulches and dump of seeded, accumulation the grass-legumes at with grass-legume soil of and mat slope. 3 coir dump FIGURE the with on blanketed mixture is grass-legume slope of tillage (c) growth topsoil, of with of surface growth effect showing year). surface 2 1 dump assess FIGURE (after waste Early-revegetated slope (c) the to Limited in Power mixture and approach grass-legume Steel Nalwa of Meta-analysis dump waste 1 FIGURE (2016). activities. B. CAPTION enzyme FIGURE M. and &Villamil, biomass https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.03.011 microbial M., mulch of intercropping plateau. Effects of on S. loess Effects the (2019). on (2016). orchard M. Zuber, apple M. Li, in & F. matter H., organic Li, dissolved Li, Management soil Environmental Y., & of Zheng, of a composition J., Q., and Yang, in content Q. T., the croplands Yan, on Liu, Q., abandoned Huang, T., R., on J. Zhang, development China. Li, nutrient Plateau, Nitrogen C., soil Loess Fang, and and the https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.108 H., Carbon vegetation on Structural, Epstein, environment on Soil semi-arid L., introduction in K. species Role Yu, legume Recovery Q., Z. China. (2020). Northwest Yuan, in slope X. Land highway Wang, Alfalfa to of Nutrition & Land Plant restoration Vegetable X., and of Ecological Conversion Liu, the of F., (2016). Properties Lin, P. age T., stand Zhao, mixture. Yu, and & grass–legume change X., with use seeding Huang, Land and T., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.01.052 straw-mat (2020). Zhao, with G. covering J., Liu, community.by Yang, & microbial Y., Y., and Yang, Lv, supply substrate B., Fu, soil C., influencing https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.113991 Wang, by 113991. D., respiration Tuo, soil H., regulate Xu, X., Wu, tlsnhshamata), Stylosanthes aito nmlhtikes uc est,si osue oltmeaueadartemperature air and temperature soil moisture, soil density, mulch thickness, mulch in Variation orltosbten()mnrlzdN()adttlntoe T% ocnrto nlegume in concentration (TN%) nitrogen total and (%) N mineralized (a) between Correlations euneo elmto fwsedm a erdn fdm lp,()baktn h dump the blanketing (b) slope, dump of regrading (a) dump waste of reclamation of Sequence vrgdsi CO soil Averaged e ieaiain(gkg (mg mineralization N Net elie up fe -er a rwho rs-eue ttedm ufc,()growth (b) surface, dump the at grass-legumes of growth (a) 5-years after dumps Reclaimed ffc fgaslgm uc hcns nrcamdsi rpris()mitr,()si or- soil (b) moisture, (a) properties soil reclaimed on thickness mulch grass-legume of Effect a oainmpo h td raChtigr,Ida()stlieve ftereclaimed the of view satellite (b) India Chhattisgarh, area study the of map Location (a) -2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00218-w 1-12. , 2 n b rs ( grass (b) and , u esrda elie at upatr1ad5yaso revegetation of 5-years and 1 after dump waste reclaimed at measured flux 250 051 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109531 109531. , -1 week ensempedicellatum Pennisteum -1 ntpolwt ho n otboasrsde f(a) of residues biomass root and shoot with topsoil in ) 12 olBooyadBiochemistry and Biology Soil cec fteTtlEnvironment Total the of Science clgclEngineering Ecological ). ora fSi Science Soil of Journal , Geoderma , 97 541 , 90 176-187. , 692-700. , Journal 68-76. , , 359 , Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. revegetation-on-recovery-of-soil-fertility-in-a-reclaimed-hazardous-waste-dump effect-of-forage-grass-pennisetum-pedicellatum-and-legume-stylosanthes-hamata- (16-07-2020).docx Tables vial at available https://authorea.com/users/343769/articles/470365- 13 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 14 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 15 Posted on Authorea 20 Jul 2020 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159526738.87898151 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 16