FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3081994413> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3081994413 abstract "&lt;p&gt;Massive biodiversity loss, alarming the scientific community, is a hot topic nowadays. On the other hand, mining sites, active or closed, represent almost 1 percent of Earths&amp;#8217; surface. Mine safety imposes physical protection and isolation of mines by high fences, signs and guards in active and sometimes even in closed mines. Human activity, other than extraction, is most often legally restricted in mines, and hence the human disturbance is low; even in active mines, extraction is mostly taking place in one relatively small part of the mine, at one time, while the fence protects the whole mining area. As such, even active mines might present shelters for biodiversity, especially outside the working hours (late afternoon and night) for animal species, or in areas that are not exploited at the moment for plant species.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, active and closed mines are rarely regarded as an opportunity for biodiversity. They are rather commonly regarded as degradations that require intense fixing actions. Instead of constantly rehabilitating them, in order to make them less dangerous for local populations or making them functional for humans &amp;#8211; by giving them back the function they had before mining (i.e. agriculture, forestry) or creating a new one like landfill or industrial zone in quarries or fishing, hiking or other leisure activities in gravel pits &amp;#8211; should we keep them protected and look at them as potential biodiversity reservoirs, in nowadays landscapes, overpopulated and generally highly impacted by human activities?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Should we rehabilitate mining sites or let them be biodiversity sanctuaries, where nature will develop itself as is suits her? Should we humans constantly try to &amp;#8220;improve&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;help&amp;#8221; nature, or should we let it be?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Existing studies showed that spontaneous succession can lead to valuable high-diversity habitats, but the attention given to its effect in mining sites has not yet been extensive. We studied biodiversity in mining sties, and we present empirical evidence suggesting that mining sites where nature has been left to develop on its own should be regarded as opportunities for biodiversity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We compared the influence of four different rehabilitation techniques - mineral base left to spontaneous succession, mineral base covered with topsoil, mineral base covered with topsoil and planted, and mineral base covered with topsoil, sown and planted - on biodiversity development in quarries and gravel pits, in order to determine the technique that favors the most biodiversity development. We conducted inventories of five taxonomic groups present on-site after application of those four different rehabilitation techniques. 29 flora plots and 18 fauna transects were thoroughly inventoried, several times, in sites in northeastern France. We recorded 186 species of plants, 14 individuals/2 species of reptiles, 479/11 of amphibians, 91/39 of butterflies and 325/27 of dragonflies. For all five taxonomic groups, natural succession had the most favorable impact, compared to other rehabilitation techniques.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our results suggest a necessity for a perspective change in favor of regarding mining sites as opportunities for becoming biodiversity shelters.&lt;/p&gt;" @default.
• W3081994413 created "2020-09-08" @default.
• W3081994413 creator A5012545698 @default.
• W3081994413 date "2020-03-23" @default.
• W3081994413 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3081994413 title "Mining sites: Landscape degradation or Opportunity for Biodiversity?" @default.
• W3081994413 doi "https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-10901" @default.
• W3081994413 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3081994413 type Work @default.
• W3081994413 sameAs 3081994413 @default.
• W3081994413 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3081994413 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W3081994413 hasAuthorship W3081994413A5012545698 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C118518473 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C130217890 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C2777601987 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C514101110 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C526734887 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C118518473 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C130217890 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C151730666 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C166957645 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C18903297 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C205649164 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C2777601987 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C514101110 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C526734887 @default.
• W3081994413 hasConceptScore W3081994413C86803240 @default.
• W3081994413 hasLocation W30819944131 @default.
• W3081994413 hasOpenAccess W3081994413 @default.
• W3081994413 hasPrimaryLocation W30819944131 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W1148094 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W1216819 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W13252005 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W13973205 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W25339050 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W26431048 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W2932723 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W35970905 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W37517061 @default.
• W3081994413 hasRelatedWork W7102471 @default.
• W3081994413 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3081994413 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3081994413 magId "3081994413" @default.
• W3081994413 workType "article" @default.