Biodiversity and ecosystem services in quarries

Although covering less than 1% of the land surface, extraction activities have long‐lasting impacts on local ecosystems, inevitably damaging biological diversity and depleting ecosystem services. Many extractive companies are now aware of their impacts and, while pressured by society, demand concrete solutions from researchers to reverse the effects of exploitation and restore biodiversity and ecosystems services. In this article, we compile and synthesize the contributions of the latest available research on quarry restoration. We depict and discuss some of the most pressing issues regarding (1) the challenges of restoring quarries; (2) the opportunities for biodiversity and ecosystem services delivery; and (3) outline further research addressing current gaps. We conclude that quarries pose different abiotic and biotic constraints that act interdependently, hampering the attainment of effective restoration if considered solely. Such constraints need to be addressed holistically to lastly encourage the self‐sustainability of the system by reinstating ecological processes. However, a restored site does not have to specifically mimic the pristine situation, as under certain conditions alternative approaches may uphold valuable natural assets contributing to the conservation of rare, restricted, or protected species and habitats.Czech Grant Agency by the project no. 20-06065Sinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Appropriate aspirations for effective post-mining restoration and rehabilitation: a response to Kaźmierczak et al.

Confusion surrounding the definition and application of terminology in post-mining ecological repair has resulted in uncertainty for industry, the scientific community and regulators. This lack of clarity may underrepresent high aspirations or could be misused to disguise low aspirations and so is problematic for setting objectives, establishing goals and assessing recovery trajectories. We respond to a recently published analysis of the ecosystem repair literature, where we highlight inconsistencies stemming from inadequate reference to a large proportion of the restoration and rehabilitation literature. We outline increasingly well-accepted and internationally applied definitions concerning the restoration and recovery process and invite both the mining industry and policy-makers to re-examine their terminology in the interests of attaining an internationally agreed nomenclature. Clarity in the use and understanding of terminology will align post-mining targets with community expectation, enhance the capacity of the mining industry to understand and meet these targets, and foster better analysis and more industry-relevant discussion of recovery methodologies by the scientific community and practitioners