The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation:A review

Francis J. Larney1 and Denis A. Angers2

1Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 5403 1st Avenue S., Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1; and 2Agricultureand Agri-Food Canada, 2560 Boul. Hochelaga, Quebec, Quebec, Canada G1V 2J3.

Received 17 December 2010, accepted 4 September 2011.

Larney, F. J. and Angers, D. A. 2012. The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: A review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92:19�38. A basic tenet of sustainable soil management is that current human activities are not detrimental to futuregenerations. Soils are degraded by natural events (erosion) or industrial activity. A prevalent feature of degraded ordisturbed soils is lack of organic matter compared with adjacent undisturbed areas. Organic amendments, such as livestockmanure, biosolids, pulp and paper mill by-products, wood residuals and crop residues, are produced in abundance inCanada and could be widely used in soil reclamation. Biosolids production is�0.5 Tg yr�1(dry wt.); paper mill sludgegenerated in the province of Quebec was�2 Tg (wet wt.) in 2002. This review paper examines mechanisms through whichorganic amendments affect soil properties (physical, chemical, biological) and describes the role of organic amendments inreclamation, with emphasis on amendment types and application rates for soil amelioration and biomass production.Single large applications of organic amendments can accelerate initial reclamation and lead to self-sustaining net primaryproductivity. Readily decomposable organic amendments may provide immediate, but transient, effects, whereas stable,less decomposable materials may provide longer-lasting effects. Using organic amendments for reclamation is mutuallybeneficial wherein waste products from agriculture, forestry and urban areas help other sectors meet their land reclamationgoals.

Key words: Organic amendments, soil reclamation, soil organic matter, soil quality

Larney, F. J. et Angers, D. A. 2012. Role des amendements organiques dans la restauration des sols : une revue de la

litterature. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 19�38. Un des principes fondamentaux de la gestion durable des sols est que les activitesanthropiques ne nuisent pas aux generations a venir. Les sols sont degrades par des phenomenes naturels (erosion) et parles activites industrielles. Une caracteristique importante des sols degrades ou perturbes est la perte de la matiereorganique, comparativement aux zones adjacentes intactes. Les amendements organiques tels le fumier, les biosolides, lessous-produits de papeterie, les residus du bois et les dechets agricoles abondent au Canada, et on pourrait largement s’enservir pour ameliorer les sols. Ainsi, on produit environ 0,5 Tg de biosolides par annee (poids sec); de son cote, le Quebec aproduit pres de 2 Tg de boues de papeterie (poids sec) en 2002. Cet article passe en revue les mecanismes par lesquels lesamendements organiques modifient les proprietes (physiques, chimiques, biologiques) du sol; il decrit le role de telsamendements dans la restauration des sols, en insistant sur la nature de l’amendement et sur le taux d’applicationpermettant d’ameliorer le sol et d’accroıtre la production de biomasse. Une seule application importante d’amendementsorganiques peut accelerer la restauration initiale et mener a une productivite primaire nette qui se maintiendra d’elle-meme.Les amendements organiques qui se decomposent facilement pourraient engendrer des effets immediats, mais passagers,tandis que des materiaux plus stables, se decomposant plus lentement, auront des consequences plus durables. Recouriraux amendements organiques pour restaurer les sols presente un double avantage, les residus de l’agriculture, de laforesterie et des activites urbaines aidant d’autres secteurs a atteindre leurs buts en matiere de restauration des sols.

Mots cles: Amendments organiques, restauration des sols, matiere organique du sol, qualite du sol

Anthropogenic activities can lead to environmentaldegradation through alteration of soil physical, chemicaland biological properties. Ellis et al. (2010) estimatedthat about 95% of earth’s ice-free land was in wildlandsand seminatural anthromes (anthropogenic biomes) in1700. By 2000, 55% of ice-free land had been trans-formed into rangelands, croplands, villages and denselypopulated anthromes, leaving only 45% of the terres-trial biosphere wild and seminatural. Zika and Erb(2009) estimated that�2% of global terrestrial netprimary productivity was lost each year due to drylanddegradation. Poor agricultural management practicescan cause loss of valuable topsoil to water, wind or

tillage erosion. Industries such as mining, oil and gasand quarrying (sand, gravel, limestone) often requireremoval of surface soil horizons. Topsoil loss or removalinstantly shrinks the soil organic matter pool. Theresulting desurfaced soil’s ability to replenish soilorganic matter via net primary production is repressedby altered nutrient, water and soil temperature regimes.Water-holding capacity is reduced by lack of soilorganic matter and by increased runoff capacity due tolower porosity (increased bulk density) and infiltration.Soil microbial activity is also negativity affected.

Intergenerational equity recognizes the right of futuregenerations to have the same, or preferably enhanced,

Can. J. Soil Sci. (2012) 92: 19�38 doi:10.4141/CJSS2010-064 19

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

environmental quality as the current generation. Assuch, degraded soils that are not reclaimed represent adisservice to future generations. Since organic matterplays such a key role in soil productivity by affectingalmost all physical, chemical and biological properties,successful land reclamation, depends on recreatinga surface horizon with enough soil organic matter tosustain productivity (Akala and Lal 2000). Althoughsurface horizons may be recreated by importing topsoil,the practice is expensive and uneconomical, and thetopsoil exporting area is degraded to fix a problemelsewhere. If imported topsoil is not readily available,addition of organic amendments may be an option.Organic amendments occur in many forms (Larney andPan 2006) from manure (fresh, aged, composted) tobiosolids, pulp and paper mill sludges and food proces-sing wastes. They are readily available in the largequantities required in many land reclamation scenarios.Statistics Canada (2008) estimated manure productionfrom all livestock species in Canada at 181 Tg (wet wt.assumed) in 2006, representing a 16% increase over1981. A large proportion of this was deposited directlyto soil by grazing animals. Biosolids production inCanada was estimated at�0.5 Tg yr�1 dry wt. (Coggeret al. 2006), while paper mill sludge generated inQuebec alone was estimated at�2 Tg wet wt. in 2002(Camberato et al. 2006).

Humans have been recycling organic matter (livestockmanure, human waste) through soils for centuries(Montgomery 2007), with beneficial effects on soilfertility and crop yield, so the idea is not new. Therole of organic amendments in enhancing chemical,physical and biological properties of degraded soils iswell documented (Pascual et al. 1999; Stewart et al.2000). In an exhaustive review on land surface reclama-tion, Sims et al. (1984) devoted a significant section tothe role of organic amendments (particularly sewagesludge) in mitigating adverse rooting zone properties.However, organic amendments are often negativelyviewed as waste products with undesirable featuressuch as odour, excessive nitrogen and phosphorus,heavy metals, pathogens, toxins and other contami-nants, which are potentially transportable to surface orground waters by runoff or leaching (Larney et al.2011). Sims et al. (1997) questioned how to assess thequality of soils that we intentionally amend, oftensignificantly, with wastes and by-products. Many viewsuch amendment practices as merely using soil as adumping ground for agricultural or industrial wasteproducts. However, if used judiciously, organic amend-ments have a role to play in soil reclamation. Soils areresilient and can benefit from these products mainly viatheir role in improving soil organic matter. There is theadditional benefit of diverting these products fromincreasingly burdened landfill sites.

Another often asked question is whether fertilizer canbe added to reclaim soils instead of organic amend-ments. Fertilizers add nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus,

potassium, micronutrients) but not organic matter.Organic amendments add nutrients plus organic matter,offering many more opportunities for improvementof soil physical, chemical and biological properties,important for success of soil reclamation initiatives.For example, addition of biosolids was more effective atenhancing properties related to soil quality and fertilityon reclaimed copper mine tailings sites in BritishColumbia than the traditional use of inorganic fertilizer(Gardner et al. 2010). Reid and Naeth (2005a,b)reported similar findings for establishment of vegetationcover on tundra kimberlite mine tailings in NorthwestTerritories, Canada, where biosolids and compostedpaper mill sludge were superior to fertilizer.

Recent research (USDA 2010) has aimed to constructdesigner soils from various source materials in theeastern United States such as poultry litter, mine spoils,coal combustion by-products and biochar. These de-signer soils are then tailored to meet predeterminedrequirements such as the ability to transmit storm wateror sustain turf grass or other vegetation on formermined soils or landfill sites.

Our objective in this paper is to review the role oforganic amendments in soil reclamation. The organicamendments available for soil reclamation will beoutlined followed by the mechanisms through whichthey affect soil properties. The use of organic amend-ments will be described with examples of variousreclamation scenarios from agriculture, oil and gas,mining and forestry. Practical considerations and im-plications involved in utilizing organic amendments, andtheir role in enhancing ecosystem services, will beaddressed.

ORGANIC AMENDMENTS AVAILABLE FOR SOILRECLAMATION

Organic amendments used in soil reclamation emanatefrom a variety of sources, including agriculture, forestryand urban areas. Of those generated by agriculture,livestock manure (fresh, composted, solid fractions fromanaerobic digesters) from various species (cattle, hogs,poultry) is the most prevalent. Other amendmentsderived from agriculture include crop residues (straw,legumes) and spent mushroom compost. Forestry pro-duces organic amendments such as deinking sludges,wood chips and shavings. In the past, wood residualsfrom the forest and lumber industries were incinerated inbeehive or silo burners to produce wood ash. Air qualityconcerns in Canada have eliminated this practice, mean-ing more raw product is available for land application.Organic amendments from urban waste streams includebiosolids (sewage sludge, municipal sludge) from wastewater treatment plants, and the biodegradable compo-nent of municipal solid waste, which is waste resultingfrommunicipal, commercial, institutional or recreationalactivities, such as food and kitchen waste, leaf and yardwaste and paper. The food processing industry (vegeta-bles, grains, meat, fish) creates organic by-products for

20 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

land application (Charmley et al. 2006; MacLeod et al.2006) but currently these are rarely used in reclamation.

Edwards and Someshwar (2000) outlined the chemi-cal, physical and biological characteristics of agriculturaland forest by-products. Traditionally, most organicamendments of urban origin (biosolids, food processingby-products) went to landfills. However, decreasinglandfill space has become a societal concern and anenvironmental issue for many cities, with the result thatmany of these materials are now land applied. Coggeret al. (2006) reported that approximately 60% ofbiosolids produced in Canada and the United States isrecycled through land application. In 2005, MetroVancouver applied�15000 Mg (dry wt.) of biosolids toland throughout British Columbia (Wallace et al. 2009).The largest use was mine reclamation (78%) with asmaller proportion (10%) for fertilization of degradedrangelands and pastures, mostly in the semiarid southerninterior of the province.

Table 1 shows examples of nutrient concentrations(carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, C:N ratio) of organicamendments available for soil reclamation. C:N ratio isoften used as a guide in predicting release of nutrientsfrom organic amendments. Crop residues, (e.g., straw),and paper mill sludge have higher C:N ratios thanlivestock manures. Higher C:N ratios usually denotemore recalcitrant carbon, such as cellulose or lignin,whereas lower C:N ratios imply more stable materials,for example, composted manures have lower ratios thanfresh manures from the same source. Biosolids arecharacterized by higher nitrogen concentrations andhence a low C:N ratio compared with organic amend-ments from agricultural sources.

ORGANIC AMENDMENT EFFECTS ON SOILPROPERTIES

Organic amendments affect soil properties in numerousand variable ways. Effects can be direct, through theintrinsic properties of the organic amendments them-selves, or indirect, by modifying soil physical, biologicaland chemical properties. For example, the reclamationsuccess of mine spoils with biosolids is due to at leastthree interrelated factors. Nitrogen is in a slow releaseorganic form, rather than a readily available inorganic

form which may be prone to leaching or runoff; highorganic carbon content provides an instant energysource, which boosts soil microbial activity, and organicmatter improves poor soil physical conditions resultingfrom topsoil loss and compaction.

Soil Organic Matter and Biological Environment

Increasing Soil Organic Matter ContentSoil organic matter is generally considered the singlemost important property affecting quality and fun-ctioning of soils (Gregorich et al. 1994). As expected,application of organic amendments results in animmediate increase in soil organic carbon, which isgenerally proportional to the amount of carbon applied(Chantigny et al. 1999). However, in cases of highbackground levels and or high variability, changes insoil organic carbon following low or moderate applica-tion rates may not be measurable or detectable (Viaudet al. 2011).

The rate of decomposition of organic amendmentsand soil organic carbon remaining over the long termvary with intrinsic quality of the amendment (Lashermeset al. 2009). Carbon in organic amendments wasoriginally fixed by plants through photosynthesis. Thechemical composition and physical characteristics oforganic amendments will depend on the type of vegeta-tion from which they are derived (e.g., trees vs. annualagricultural crops) and on the fate and transformationof the plant carbon following its harvest. For instance,cereal straw can either be incorporated directly into thesoil or become part of manure (via bedding), which iseventually land applied in fresh or composted forms.If the latter, it will undergo decomposition (mineraliza-tion and transformation) that will modify its properties,more so during composting, where labile carbon formsare mineralized such that the remaining carbon is morestable and results in greater increases in soil organicmatter per unit of carbon applied than fresh plantmaterials in the long term (Lashermes et al. 2009).

Impact on Soil BiotaApplication of organic amendments has positive effectson soil biota and associated soil biochemical parameters

Table 1. Mean elemental content and C:N ratio of organic amendments commonly used in land reclamation

Amendment Carbon Nitrogen Phosphorus C:N ratio

---------------------------------------------------- (g kg�1, dry wt.)-----------------------------------------------------Beef feedlot manureFresh (Larney et al. 2003a) 292 16.5 5.6 17.7Compost (Larney et al. 2003a) 196 17.4 3.4 11.3

Pig manure (Zanuzzi et al. 2009) 320 21.7 NDz 14.7Alfalfa hay (Larney et al. 2003a) 449 23.8 0.2 18.9Wheat straw (Larney et al. 2003a) 453 8.6 0.6 52.6Paper deinking sludge (Fierro et al. 1999) 382 3.4 0.3 112.4Sewage sludge (Zanuzzi et al. 2009) 340 50.5 ND 6.7

zND, not determined.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 21

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

(e.g., enzymatic activities, ergosterol) and overallsoil biodiversity (Bastida et al. 2008; Biederman et al.2008). A number of studies have shown that amendingsoils with animal manure results in greater earthwormabundance than mineral fertilizers (e.g., Werner andDindal 1989; Whalen et al. 1998; Leroy et al. 2008b).The primary reason is likely the supply of readilyavailable carbon, but the effect of manure applicationon water retention and availability has also beeninvoked (Werner and Dindal 1989). Nature and com-position of the organic amendment can influence theeffect on the faunal population. For instance, Leroyet al. (2008b) found greater earthworm numbers afterapplication of farmyard manure and cattle slurry thancomposts, which they attributed to the larger amountsof available carbon provided by manures. As describedearlier, a large proportion of labile carbon is lost duringcomposting. Cheng and Grewal (2009) found thatcompost amendment increased food web enrichmenttemporarily, but had little effect on food web struc-ture on tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) lawnscreated on a disturbed urban topsoil or subsoil impactedby human activity.

As a carbon source, organic amendments exert a greatinfluence on the heterotrophic microbial communities.The quantitative effect of organic amendments onmicrobial activity can be illustrated by measurement ofsoil microbial biomass carbon, which almost invariablyshows an increase following organic amendment addi-tion to degraded soils (Ros et al. 2003; Mabuhay et al.2006; Belyaeva and Haynes 2009). Similar to their effecton soil fauna, the effect on total microbial biomassvaries with decomposability (Albiach et al. 2000) andinput rate (e.g., N’daygamyie and Angers 1990) of theorganic amendments. The effects of organic amend-ments on soil microbial processes are well illustrated byenzyme activity. Martens et al. (1992) studied theactivity of 10 soil enzymes after application of differentorganic amendments [poultry manure, sewage sludge,barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) straw and green alfalfa(Medicago sativa L.)] over a period of 31 mo. Theyfound a two- to fourfold increase in activity during thefirst year of the experiment, although subsequent addi-tions generally failed to sustain high levels of activity inthe amended soil. Tejada et al. (2006) found that soilmicrobial biomass and six soil enzymatic activities(dehydrogenase, urease, BBA-protease, b-glucosidase,arylsulfatase, alkaline phosphatase) were generallyhigher after amending soils with poultry manure vs.crushed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) gin compost.Biosolids addition enhanced biological activity of minetailings in British Columbia by increasing total aerobic,total anaerobic, iron reducing, sulphate reducing anddenitrifying microorganisms near the surface (Gardneret al. 2010).

Although the effects of organic amendments onmicrobial biomass and activities have been studied andillustrated, their effects on structure and composition of

soil microbial communities is less well documented.However, with advanced molecular tools, a better un-derstanding of the effects of organic amendments onmicrobial diversity is expected (Nicolardot et al. 2007;Baumann et al. 2009; Pascault et al. 2010).

Biological Aggregation � Kick-starting Soil ReclamationThe induction of soil biological activity (faunal andmicrobial) by organic amendments represents a funda-mental mechanism by which soil reclamation occurs.The area where microbial activity is induced by theorganic amendments is very localized and is referred toas the detritusphere (Gaillard et al. 1999) by analogyto the rhizosphere. So far, most studies on the detritu-sphere have been on plant (crop) residues. They allclearly show that the few millimetres around particulateorganic residue is the site of intense microbial activity,and that the magnitude of the activity (Gaillardet al. 2003) and the microbial communities involved(Nicolardot et al. 2007) vary with residue quality.

We suggest that the detritusphere is the discrete areathat is fundamental in initiating or essentially kick-starting the process of soil reclamation followingorganic amendment addition. A number of studieshave now clearly shown that the physical structure ofthe soil is modified around decomposing particulateplant residues. Particulate organic matter enteringthe soil from roots or litter is initially colonized bythe microbial population and at the same time adsorbsmineral particles. The plant fragments are encrustedby mineral particles and become the centre of waterstable aggregates and are protected from rapid decom-position (Golchin et al. 1994). This important processof biogenic aggregate formation around particulateorganic matter has been illustrated by Angers andChenu (1997) for cereal straw (Fig. 1). Application oforganic amendments modifies the soil microenviron-ment through activities of soil organisms. Fungienmesh the soil aggregates within mycelial strandsand the newly stabilized aggregates are colonized bymucilage producing bacteria. This fundamental role oforganic amendments in initiating aggregate formationwas observed for wood derived sludges (Chantignyet al. 1999), a green waste compost and paper millsludge (Sere et al. 2010), and cattle manure (Aoyamaet al. 1999). By feedback mechanisms, biogenic aggre-gation contributes to further protection of soil organiccarbon (Angers and Chenu 1997; Balesdent et al.2000). According to Sere et al. (2010) these processesconstitute early pedogenesis in highly degraded soilssubjected to reconstruction using organic amend-ments. Restoration of soil structure through biologicalaggregation is a crucial factor in kick-starting soilreclamation.

The impact of residue quality on restoration of soilaggregation is well illustrated in the study of Clark et al.(2009), who compared the effects of wheat (Triticum

22 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

aestivum L.) shoots, alfalfa pellets, canola (Brassicaspp.) and chickpea (Cicer arietenum L.) stubbles,chicken manure, peat and sawdust on aggregation of asodic soil in a 174 d incubation experiment. Gypsum, aninorganic amendment, was included for comparison.Formation of slaking resistant macroaggregates(�2 mm) was most rapid with green plant material,wheat and alfalfa, while the stubbles were markedlyslower in reaching the equivalent level of aggregation.However, the largest growth in aggregates after 56 d wasshown by the stubble and chicken manure amendedsoils. The gypsum amendment was not capable offorming large, slaking resistant aggregates, which maybe attributed to the inability of gypsum to stimulate soilbiological processes. Peat and sawdust failed to initiateslaking resistant macroaggregates. Similarly, on a de-surfaced soil in southern Alberta, Sun et al. (1995) foundthat wet aggregate stabilities of crop residue amended

soils [barley straw, alfalfa hay and pea (Pisum sativumL.) hay] were significantly higher (PB0.01) than thosesoils treated with animal manures (cattle, hog, poultry),largely due to the higher freshness factor of the addedcarbon.

Nutrients and Chemical Environment

Nitrogen Mineralization�ImmobilizationOrganic amendments contain nitrogen in widely varyingconcentrations (Lashermes et al. 2010). Nitrogen isusually present in organic form but in particular cases,such as liquid animal manures, the majority is in mineralform (ammonia) and is readily available for plantuptake (Chantigny et al. 2001). In most cases wherenitrogen is present in organic form, mineralization needsto occur for the organic amendment to provide availablenitrogen. Low nitrogen organic amendments can com-pete with plants for soil available nitrogen. Numerousstudies have evaluated nitrogen mineralization potentialof organic amendments. Lashermes et al. (2010) recentlydeveloped a typology based on chemical and biochem-ical composition of organic amendments to predict theirpotential nitrogen mineralization. Six proposed classesranged from high mineralization potential to risk ofinduced immobilization in soil after amendment appli-cation. The organic nitrogen concentration, solublecellulose like and lignin-like fractions were key variablesin predicting potential nitrogen availability.

PhosphorusOne of the benefits of organic amendments is that themechanism of phosphorus release and the risk ofsubsequent binding or tie up are different from thoseof fertilizers derived from inorganic sources such as rockphosphate. Larney and Janzen (1997) showed thatmanure was much better at restoring productivity thanfertilizer phosphorus (even at rates up to 400 kg ha�1),after topsoil removal to simulate erosion, becausefertilizer phosphorus was likely immobilized by highlevels of calcium carbonate in the exposed soil surfaces.Abbott and Tucker (1973) suggested that manurephosphorus can be mixed and dispersed throughout thesurface soil layer without affecting its availability, andcan resist the mechanisms that remove fertilizer phos-phorus from solution in calcareous soils. Hence, theyfound that manure applications assured adequate avail-ability in calcareous soils, while availability from phos-phate fertilizers may be negligible.

Chemical PropertiesThe intrinsic cation exchange capacity of organicamendments can vary widely, and their application tosoils will often increase cation exchange capacity,particularly in the case of degraded sandy soils (Fierroet al. 1999; Kasongo et al. 2011). However, on adegraded rangeland receiving biosolids, White et al.

Fig. 1. (a) Aggregate developing on decomposing wheat strawresidues incubated for 3 mo in a silty soil. (b) Fungi enmeshsoil aggregates within mycelial strands and newly stabilizedaggregates are colonized by bacteria. Low temperature scan-ning electron microscopy. b�bacteria. f�fungi. (C. Chenu,D. A. Angers and S. Recous, unpublished data). Reproducedfrom Angers and Chenu (1997).

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 23

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

(1997) showed that water extractable calcium, magne-sium and sodium concentrations had returned to thoseof control soil (no biosolids) after 8 yr. Allowingdecomposition of organic amendments prior to applica-tion (either composting or field decomposition) usuallyincreases soil cation exchange capacity more than rawresidues (Fierro et al. 1999). Some organic amendmentscontain mineral particles that can contribute to cationexchange capacity, such as kaolin in paper mill sludge(Fierro et al. 1999), or soil from pen floors admixed infeedlot manure.

Depending on their origin and composition, organicamendments can have variable effects on soil pH. Forexample, paper mill sludges can increase pH of degradedacidic soils (Fierro et al. 1999). The alkalinity of papermill sludges comes from compounds added duringindustrial processing (Camberato et al. 2006). Conver-sely, phenomena such as soil decarbonatization can beobserved following application of compost to high-carbonate soils and can lead to decreased pH (Sereet al. 2010). Manure addition may reduce acidity inunproductive low pH soils due to a liming effect(Eghball 1999; Whalen et al. 2000). Benke et al. (2010)found that 160 Mg ha�1 (wet wt.) of cattle feedlotmanure added to acidic Gray Luvisols (pH 4.1 to 4.8) innorthern Alberta led to a similar increase in soil pH asthe addition of 5 Mg ha�1 of lime (97% calciumcarbonate). Correction of acidity by organic amendmentaddition concomitantly ameliorated aluminum toxicityand phosphorus deficiency in low pH soils (Haynes andMokolobate 2001).

Modifying Soil ArchitectureThe intrinsic density of organic material is much lowerthan mineral soils, so soils receiving organic amendmentswill show a decrease in dry bulk density (increased totalporosity), which may be longlasting if application ratesare high (e.g., Fierro et al. 1999). Soil bulk density andpenetration resistance decreased in the upper 15 cm ofcopper mine tailings with increasing dry biosolidsapplication rates between 50 and 250 Mg ha�1 (Gardneret al. 2010). However, similar to soil organic carbon, theeffect may not be detectable over the long term due todecomposition, especially at low application rates (e.g.,Bendfeldt et al. 2001).

Pore size distribution is altered by organic amend-ments. Both microporosity and macroporosity increasedwith application of livestock manure or compost (Pagliaiand Vitorri Antisari 1993). Increases in microporositywere due to the increase in elongated micropores andwere associated with newly formed aggregates, likelythrough the processes described earlier. Farmyard man-ure appeared to be more efficacious than compost inchanging porosity. The effects of organic amendmentson soil porosity may also occur indirectly through theirinfluence on soil fauna (e.g., earthworms) whose feedingand burrowing activities modify porosity (Peres et al.1998) and aggregation (Scullion and Malik 2000).

Soil Water

Water-holding Capacity and Plant Available WaterThe intrinsic water-holding capacity of organic amend-ments is greater than that of most mineral soils(Camberato et al. 2006), so degraded soils with organicamendments can show an immediate increase in water-holding capacity (Fierro et al. 1999). As outlined forother soil properties, the magnitude and duration of theeffects are related to the amount applied and thedecomposition status of the organic amendments. Avail-able water (estimated as water held at field capacityminus that retained at permanent wilting point) isprobably a more relevant factor affecting plant growththan water-holding capacity at any given water tension.Organic amendments may (e.g., Zibilske et al. 2000) ormay not (e.g., Gupta et al. 1977) increase availablewater. In the latter case, incorporation increased soilwater retention but most of the increase resulted fromthe water adsorbed by organic matter (15 MPa water).The impact of organic amendments on water content islikely to be of greater significance in degraded sandysoils than finer-textured soils, the latter having greaterintrinsic water-holding capacity.

Gardner et al. (2010) found that addition of biosolidsto mine tailings decreased volumetric water-holdingcapacity on a silt loam, but had no effect on sandy soilbecause of decreased bulk density. Biosolids increasedgravimetric water retention at field capacity and wiltingpoint, but no significant changes occurred in gravimetricwater-holding capacity as both field capacity and wiltingpoint increased proportionally. Similar results have beenreported with manure (Larney et al. 2000b).

Water MovementThe rate of water infiltration is a determining factor inthe redistribution of rain or irrigation water. Slowinfiltration increases surface runoff and erosion, andreduces water use by plants. A field study by Martensand Frankenberger (1992) very clearly illustrated thepositive effects of three loadings (25 Mg ha�1 each) oforganic amendments (poultry manure, sewage sludge,barley straw and alfalfa) on water infiltration in a loworganic carbon soil. Water infiltration rates in theamended soils were initially increased by stimulationof microbial activity, which increased soil aggregatestability. Therefore, similar to aggregate stability, moredecomposable residues (straw, alfalfa) induced greaterincreases in infiltration in the short term than moredecomposed or stable residues. Longer-term increases ininfiltration rates were achieved with incremental addi-tions of amendments.

Incorporating organic amendments will usually in-crease saturated hydraulic conductivity (Gupta et al.1977; Leroy et al. 2008a) although contrasting andinconclusive results have often been reported (Khaleelet al. 1981; Zebarth et al. 1999; Schneider et al. 2009).The very high variability of hydraulic conductivity may

24 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

make it difficult to detect induced effects from organicamendments under field conditions. Occlusion of poresby coarse organic matter and increased hydrophobicityinduced by the incorporation of organic amendmentshave been invoked as possible mechanisms explainingreduced hydraulic conductivity (Schneider et al. 2009).

ContaminantsProtection of water resources adjacent to land receivingorganic amendments containing enteric microorgan-isms, human or veterinary pharmaceuticals, hormonesor other contaminants requires that these contaminantsbe killed, degraded, sequestered or otherwise inactivatedin the soil (Larney et al. 2011). This is best achievedthrough the application of organic amendments toland at a judicious rate, and under suitable weatherand soil conditions to minimize the risk of movementinto adjacent surface or ground water, not always aneasy task in reclamation scenarios. The rate of microbialinactivation by soil at the point of organic amendmentsapplication mainly determines the risk for subsequentenvironmental problems. Understanding the behaviourof manure contaminants following application to soil isimportant in predicting exposure and managing risk toadjacent environments (Haas et al. 1999).

As well as stabilizing nutrients and allowing theirmore economical transportation, composting is a meansof eliminating many of the undesirable features of rawlivestock manure including pathogens such as Escher-ichia coli (Larney et al. 2003b), parasites such as Giardiaand Cryptosporidium (Van Herk et al. 2004), weed seeds(Larney and Blackshaw 2003), antibiotics (Cessna et al.2011) and pesticide residues (Buyuksonmez et al. 2000).

USE OF ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOILRECLAMATION

Resilience is an important concept in soil reclamationand is defined as the ability of an ecosystem to recoverfollowing disturbance (Hobbs 1999), often referred toas the bounce-back or snap-back effect (Cooke andJohnson 2002). At its simplest and slowest, resilience inecological restoration may equate with primary succes-sion or recovery of land when it is largely left to naturalprocesses after disturbance. Bradshaw (1997) pointedout that by natural succession, nature can achieverestoration unaided, and develop fully functioning soils.In disturbed soils, however, certain extreme conditionsmay inhibit plant growth, particularly soil physicallimitations, gross lack of certain nutrients and toxicity,and natural succession may take too long. It is in thesesituations that organic amendments are most effective.

The following examples highlight the role of organicamendments in enhancing the resilience of degraded ordisturbed soils and their ability to help overcomeextreme conditions that limit plant growth and produc-tivity. Examples include soils degraded during agricul-ture, oil and gas, mining and forestry activities.

Eroded Agricultural SitesTopsoil removal studies (simulated or artificial erosion,desurfacing), whereby incremental depths of topsoil, orcuts, are mechanically removed with an excavator, are awidely used approach in quantifying erosion effects onsoil productivity (Eck 1987; Tanaka and Aase 1989;Larney et al. 1995a). Levels of organic amendmentsnecessary to restore productivity may also be studiedwith this approach, where different amendments areapplied at various rates in an effort to restore soilproductivity or reclaim the soils (Dormaar et al. 1988;Larney and Janzen 1996, 1997).

A series of soil productivity studies was initiated inAlberta in 1990, whereby incremental depths of topsoil(0, 5, 10, 15, 20 cm) were mechanically removed.Following topsoil removal, the resulting surfaces wereamended with nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer, 5 cmof topsoil addition, or 75 Mg ha�1 (wet wt.) of feedlotmanure as a single application aimed at restoring soilproductivity. Subsequent effects on crop productivity(continuous spring wheat) were monitored. Unamendedplots were left on each cut as controls. Larney et al.(1995a) reported on erosion, but not amendment, effectsin the initial year at four sites in southern Alberta andtwo sites in north central Alberta. The early impact (first3 yr) on crop (Larney et al. 2000b) and soil (Larney et al.2000a) responses at the four southern Alberta sites havebeen reported as has crop response (first 5 yr) at the twonorth central Alberta sites (Izaurralde et al. 2006). Thesestudies complemented an earlier study (initiated in 1967at the Lethbridge Research Centre), which had threelevels of topsoil removal and five amendment treatments(Dormaar et al. 1988, 1997a, b; Freeze et al. 1993).

For the studies initiated in 1990, the average grainyield (over 11 site years) showed that the performance ofthe amendments, compared with unamended soils, wasof the order manure�topsoil�fertilizer (Larney et al.2000b). For example, on the 10 cm cut, grain yieldincreased 73% with manure, 38% with topsoil and 28%with fertilizer; while on the 20 cm cut, increases were158% with manure, 89% with topsoil and 40% withfertilizer. Manure’s ability to supply crop phosphorus,magnesium, manganese and zinc partially explained itspositive effect (Fig. 2). The results showed that thegreater the degradation, the higher the crop response toamendments.

Larney et al. (2009) updated findings after 16 yr ontwo of the southern Alberta sites, which have beenmaintained since 1990. Amendments still ranked man-ure�topsoil�fertilizer at restoring productivity to thedesurfaced soils. These results show that a singleapplication of manure at a modest rate (75 Mg ha�1

wet wt.) at the beginning of the study contributed tosignificant yield responses some 16 yr later. Increasednet primary productivity would have returned higheramounts of root mass and straw residue to the soil,perhaps self-perpetuating the manure effect beyond astrict response to nutrient addition at the outset.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 25

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

In 1990 a study was initiated to examine three levels oftopsoil removal (0, 10, 20 cm cuts corresponding touneroded, moderately and severely eroded conditions)and various combinations of nitrogen and phosphorusfertilizer application rates (Larney et al. 1995b; Smithet al. 2000) at four sites. In 1992, the fertilizer treatmentswere replaced by manure application rate treatments(Larney and Janzen 1997). Crop yield response tomanure was of the order severe erosion�moderateerosion�non-eroded, which suggests greatest benefitsare achieved by applying manure to the most severelydegraded areas of the landscape. For example, on onesite in 1992, application of 24 Mg ha�1 of manureincreased grain yield by 0.58 Mg ha�1 on the severelyeroded soil, 0.25 Mg ha�1 on the moderately eroded soiland 0.16 Mg ha�1 on the uneroded soil compared withtreatments without manure at each erosion level. Highlevels of soil nitrate nitrogen after manure applicationwere largely responsible for maintaining high crop yieldsand restoring soil productivity.

Another study established in 1992 had one level oftopsoil removal (15 cm cut) and 14 one-time amendmenttreatments, including various livestock manures andplant residues (20 Mg ha�1 dry wt.) and inorganicfertilizers. After the first 3 yr Larney and Janzen (1996)found that the overall best amendments were hogmanure, poultry manure and alfalfa hay. In all years,yields from desurfaced plots amended with hog orpoultry manure were not significantly different fromplots with no topsoil removal. Nitrate nitrogen concen-tration in the 0 to 60 cm soil depth explained 71% of thevariation in restorative ability (based on average plantdry matter yield) of the amendments, while extractablephosphorus concentrations in the 0 to 15 cm depthexplained 16% of this variation.

The longer-term findings from this study (Larneyet al. 2011) were evaluated by examining cumulativeyield (expressed as a percent of the topsoil checktreatment) over the entire period of the study (1992 to2009), a total of 18 yr. Loss of productivity ranged fromonly 6.5% with hog manure to 28.8% with barleystraw�200 kg nitrogen ha�1. The eroded check treat-ment (topsoil removal, no amendment) treatmentshowed an overall productivity loss of 26.4%. Cumula-tive grain yield losses (1992 to 2009) on the hog(�6.5%) or poultry manure (�8.3%) treatments werenot significantly different from the topsoil check treat-ment (no topsoil removed, no amendment).

Oil and Gas Well SitesRealizing that regulations and practices governingreclamation of oil or gas well sites differ depending onjurisdiction, Alberta will be used as an example tohighlight this particular facet of soil reclamation.Cumulative statistics since the 1940s show that, asof 31 May 2009, Alberta had 359690 well sites (EnergyResources Conservation Board 2009). A typical well siteis�1.4 ha in area (excluding access roads and pipelinerights-of-way). Of the total number, 223237 (62%) wereactive and 136453 (38%) were inactive. Of the inactivesites, 89841 (66%) were reclamation certified (in receiptof a reclamation certificate) or reclamation exempt(not requiring a reclamation certificate), while 46612(34%) were abandoned and remain unreclaimed underAlberta’s equivalent land capability legislation (AlbertaEnvironment 2010). Equivalent land capability is de-fined as ‘‘the ability of the land to support various landuses after conservation and reclamation is similar to theability that existed prior to an activity being conducted

Fig. 2. Productivity of spring wheat plots (3�10 m) following 20 cm of topsoil removal at Hill Spring, Alberta, July 17, 1991.(a) Check treatment (no amendment); (b) Manure treatment (75 Mg ha�1, wet wt. cattle manure). See Larney et al. (2000b) forfurther details, including crop yields.

26 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

on the land, but that the individual land uses will notnecessarily be identical.’’

The reclamation criteria currently used for well sitesand associated facilities for cultivated lands in Alberta(Alberta Environment, 2010) lists manure, compost,gypsum, straw and peat as amendments that ‘‘canprovide physical, biological and nutrient improvementsto soils’’. While the criteria state that ‘‘any use ofamendments must comply with the applicable guidelinesand have approval from the appropriate regulator’’ theyemphatically affirm that ‘‘amendments (including peat)are not topsoil replacements’’. While most manure isspread on agricultural land for crop production, there isincreased interest in using feedlot manure (especiallywhen composted) in the reclamation of oil and gas wellsites, especially on well sites constructed before 1983.For oil and gas well sites drilled prior to 1983 in Alberta,there was no requirement to salvage topsoil for use inreclamation when production ceased. Topsoil was oftentransported off site and used for reclamation elsewhere.For these well sites, the reclamation criteria state thatthe required replacement depth of topsoil is 60% of thecontrol soil depth (Alberta Environment 2010). Thecontrol soil is outside the lease area on adjacent landand provides a benchmark for the reclaimed site.Obviously, this criterion may be difficult to achieve ifthe original topsoil was transported off site.

Given the well-documented effects of organic amend-ments in restoration of soil productivity, Larney et al.(2003a) examined the effect of four (0, 50, 100, 150%)topsoil replacement depths and five amendment treat-ments (compost, manure, alfalfa hay, wheat straw,check) on the reclamation of three abandoned well sitesin south central Alberta. They used cumulative yieldrankings over 4 yr (expressed as a percent of the baselinetreatment, 100% topsoil replacement depth-check) toassess reclamation capacity. The reclamation capacities(average of 12 site years: three sites�4 years) of all 20reclamation treatments (four topsoil replacementdepths�five amendments) are ranked in Table 2. Thebest treatment was 100% topsoil replacement depth-compost (19% higher than baseline treatment) and theworst was 0% topsoil replacement depth-straw (64% ofbaseline). The information in Table 2 facilitates choice ofa reclamation treatment based on availability of topsoiland/or amendments in the vicinity of abandoned wellsites. These results showed that manure/compost actedas a substitute for topsoil, at least in the short term (4 yr).In the absence of topsoil (0% topsoil replacement depth),manure had a reclamation capacity of 99% of thebaseline (100% topsoil replacement depth-check) whilecompost was 95% and alfalfa, 91%. If there was onlyenough topsoil to replace 50% of the required replace-ment depth, addition of compost and manure wouldachieve a reclamation capacity 8 to 9% higher than thebaseline. A 150% topsoil replacement depth was un-justified as the incremental effect of extra topsoil with anorganic amendment was marginal (Table 2).

Larney et al. (2005) compared the amount of carbonadded in the various amendments in the above studywith increases in soil organic carbon, thus obtainingestimates of the amount of carbon conserved over theduration of the study (40 mo). The average amounts(n�three well sites) of added carbon conserved near thesoil surface ranked compost (65910% SE)�manure(45916% SE)�alfalfa (28911% SE)�straw (2396%SE). Larney et al. (2005) speculated that once soilorganic carbon is given an initial boost by the additionof amendments (especially compost with its high level ofstable carbon), the effect may be self-sustaining, pro-vided land is farmed under a soil building managementsystem (absence of fallow, continuous no till). Linkingsoil (Larney et al. 2005) and crop (Larney et al. 2003a)responses from this study showed that soil organiccarbon (as manipulated by topsoil replacement depthand amendment treatments) accounted for 57% of thevariation in crop response (Fig. 3a). Omitting the strawamendment (which increased soil organic carbon, butsuppressed crop response due to nitrogen immobiliza-tion) improved prediction of reclamation capacity bysoil organic carbon data to 87% (Fig. 3b).

Mine and Quarry SitesLong-term restoration of soil quality and ecosystemfunction on disturbed mine sites whose end land usesare not highly managed depends on reclamation

Table 2. Ranking of 20 topsoil replacement depth�amendment treat-

ments in the order of highest to lowest reclamation capacity, at three well

sites in south central Albertaz

Ranking

Topsoilreplacementdepth (%) Amendment

Reclamationcapacity (%)y

1 100 Compost 119 (95)x

2 150 Manure 113 (96)3 150 Compost 112 (95)4 150 Alfalfa 110 (98)5 50 Compost 109 (97)6 50 Manure 108 (97)7 100 Manure 107 (93)8 100 Alfalfa 107 (96)9 150 Check 103 (95)10 100 Check 100 (90)w

11 50 Alfalfa 100 (98)12 0 Manure 99 (96)13 0 Compost 95 (95)14 150 Straw 94 (94)15 0 Alfalfa 91 (96)16 50 Check 90 (93)17 100 Straw 85 (94)18 0 Check 83 (94)19 50 Straw 79 (96)20 0 Straw 64 (95)

zFrom Larney et al. (2003a).yBased on biomass yields (10 site years) or grain yields (2 site years).xStandard error of the mean in parentheses.w100% topsoil replacement depth � check�baseline treatment setat 100%.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 27

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

that establishes self-sustaining vegetation (Bendfeldtet al. 2001). A self-sustaining plant community dependson accrual of organic matter (Pichtel et al. 1994).Establishment of plant cover is essential to decreaseerosion on any mine site and on sites with acid minedrainage, plants establishment will also reduce oreliminate contamination of water bodies with aciddrainage containing large concentrations of trace ele-ments. In Saskatchewan, Anderson (1977) reported thatit could take 250 to 350 yr for mine spoils to reachorganic matter levels similar to adjacent undisturbedsoils. However, the use of organic amendments in minesoil reclamation can speed up the recovery process byinjecting large amounts of organic matter to initiatenutrient cycling and overcome soil physical limitations(Shipitalo and Bonta 2008; Salazar et al. 2009).

A key to long-term reclamation success lies in under-standing how the reclaimed ecosystem will functionthrough time. Noyd et al. (1997) found that as wellas increasing plant biomass production, yard wastecompost addition (44.8 Mg ha�1) reduced litter decom-

position rates in taconite tailings in Minnesota. Thisresulted in the continued accrual of soil organic matter,which helped meet the reclamation goal of establishmentof self-sustaining native plant communities on tailingsdeposits.

In mine soil reclamation, vegetation establish-ment requires improvement of limiting conditions andre-initiation of carbon and nutrient cycling. The ap-proach used by Fierro et al. (1999) for reclaiming anabandoned sand pit in Quebec was based on a heavyorganic amendment rate to accelerate reconstruction ofa functional ecosystem. Paper deinking sludge wasincorporated into soil at 105 Mg ha�1 (dry wt.),supplemented with mineral nitrogen and phosphorusat various rates followed by seeding (midsummer)tall wheat grass [Agropyron elongatum (Host) Beauv.].Compared with a control (no sludge), standing biomassincreased with sludge after the first and second growingseasons. High nitrogen application rates further in-creased yield in the second season. The high phosphorusrate improved grass establishment in all cases. Groundcover increased with time, doubling with sludge anddeclining on the control. Phosphorus and nitrogenuptake increased consistently with sludge. Sludge appli-cation resulted in increased water retention and cationexchange capacities, and increased pH and bulk densityof sand pit mine soil, all of which may have accountedfor the significant improvement in plant responses. Theresearchers suggested that concentrations of soil carbonand nitrogen in this reconstructed system approachedsustainability in that they neared levels of surroundingnon-degraded land, and they advised that adequatenitrogen and phosphorus supplements would accentuatethe positive influence of sludge on revegetation.

In southeastern Spain, Zanuzzi et al. (2009) added pigmanure and sewage sludge in combination with ablanket application of marble wastes aimed at buildingsoil organic matter and accumulating calcite in minetailings. The acidity of the tailings combined with lowrainfall in the study area precipitated secondary calciteas infillings within the 0 to 4 cm surface layer. The build-up of soil organic matter resulted from a stable organicmatter calcite complex as dense incomplete infillingsmixed with secondary calcite, and cappings on calciteparticles from marble waste addition. These cappingsprovided water and nutrients to support initial seedlingestablishment in mine tailings. Winter Sydnor andRedente (2002) found that incorporation of organicmatter significantly increased above-ground biomass, inreclamation of a high elevation gold mine in Colorado,with mushroom compost being more effective thanbiosolids. Treatments with topsoil supported plantgrowth with significantly higher trace element tissueconcentrations than those without topsoil.

Castillejo and Castello (2010) outlined the risk of overfertilizing as one of the major concerns in applyingorganic amendments to degraded quarry soils. This mayincrease canopy cover of introduced species, decrease

Rec

lam

atio

n c

apac

ity,

%

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

CompostManureStrawAlfalfaCheck

Organic C (0-15 cm depth), g kg-115 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Rec

lam

atio

n c

apac

ity,

%

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

CompostManureAlfalfaCheck

y = -16.1+6.0xR2 = 0.57P = <0.001

y = 5.0+5.1xR2 = 0.87P = <0.001

a

b

Fig. 3. Relationship between soil organic carbon (0 to 15 cmdepth, average of three well sites, fall 2000) and reclamationcapacity (Table 2) using (a) all 20 topsoil replacementdepths�amendment treatments; (b) 16 topsoil replacementdepths�amendment treatments (straw amendment omitted).Adapted from Larney et al. (2005) using re-analyzed soilorganic carbon data.

28 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

that of native species, and reduce overall speciesdiversity. They found that higher rates (50 Mg ha�1)of municipal solid waste compost favoured halophytespecies such as Mediterranean salt bush (Atriplexhalimus) over native gypsiferous species, while low ratesshowed no beneficial effect on soil properties. However,Pedrol et al. (2010) reported that unlike nitrogen,phosphorus, or potassium fertilizer, compost main-tained plant species diversity and richness and signifi-cantly boosted metabolic activity in the edaphic flora ofa lignite mine in Spain. Compost gradually correctedphosphorus limitations and significantly improved plantproduction compared with untreated spoils.

Shrestha et al. (2009) considered build-up of soilorganic carbon to be important in the choice of mine sitereclamation technique. They compared normal reclama-tion practice (control), cow manure (10 Mg ha�1),mulching with oat (Avena sativa L.) straw (15 Mg ha�1)and chiselling (30 cm depth) at three reclaimed coal minesites in eastern Ohio. After 5 yr, soil organic carbonaccumulation rates ranged from 0.6 to 2.8 Mg carbonha�1 yr�1, with the highest rates recorded in manure-treated plots. Above-ground biomass production, bio-mass nitrogen, soil nitrogen and soil organic carbonpools were significantly higher in manure and chisellingtreatments, probably due to greater exploration of thesoil volume by plant roots and more efficient uptake ofwater and available nutrients.

The impact of biosolids on soil organic carbon build-up in calcareous strip-mined land in soil was investi-gated in Illinois (Tian et al. 2009). Unlike the single largedose approach, land received biosolids at a cumulativeloading rate from 455 to 1654 Mg ha�1 (dry wt.) for 8 to23 yr in rotation from 1972 to 2004. The fields werecropped or fallowed. Soil organic carbon increasedrapidly with application of biosolids, whereas it fluctu-ated slightly in fertilizer controls. Over a 34 yr reclama-tion period, mean net soil carbon accumulation rate was1.73 (0.54 to 3.05) Mg carbon ha�1 yr�1 in biosolidsamended fields compared with 0.07 to 0.17 Mg carbonha�1 yr�1 in fertilizer controls, demonstrating a highpotential for soil organic carbon accumulation by landapplication of biosolids. Soil carbon accumulation ratewas significantly correlated with biosolids applicationrate, expressed as y�0.064x�0.11, in which y is theannual net soil carbon sequestration Mg C ha�1 yr�1,and x is annual biosolids application (Mg ha�1 yr�1,dry wt.). Results indicated that biosolids applicationscan turn degraded soils from carbon neutral to carbonsinks.

Deep ripping is a common management techniqueused to shatter dense subsurface soil horizons that limitpercolation of water and penetration of roots. Batemanand Chanasyk (2001) evaluated the effect of deepripping (40 to 45 cm) with and without the use oforganic amendments (275 Mg ha�1 dry wt. cattlemanure, 117 Mg ha�1 peat) incorporated to 15 cm, onthe physical properties of Ap horizons of reconstructed

mine soils in Alberta. Significant treatment effects wereidentified for particle size distribution (all fractions),plasticity index and the October mean penetrationresistance. Effects on bulk density, soil water contentat the time of sampling, water retention characteristicsand modulus of rupture were not significant.

Gryndler et al. (2008) found that establishment ofplant cover in spoil bank substrates can be facilitated bybeneficial soil microorganisms such as arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizo-bacteria. The stimulatory effects of organic matteraddition on development of arbuscular mycorrhizalfungi, especially on growth of extraradical myceliummay be ascribed to improved physical properties of thesubstrate, especially soil porosity or increased carbondioxide concentration resulting from mineralization ofadded organic matter (Becard and Piche 1989). Arbus-cular mycorrhizal fungi are able to exploit nutrientsreleased by mineralization of organic matter. However,when applied in high concentrations, organic amend-ments such as manure, sewage sludge or compost can beharmful to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Thorne et al.1998). Given this disparity, Gryndler et al. (2008)assessed application of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungiand plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to spoil bankclays to increase plant growth and compensate forreduced organic amendments. The standard process ofspoil banks reclamation in central Europe involvesapplication of excessive amounts of organic amend-ments (at least 500 Mg ha�1). Their study showed thataddition of compost had a strong negative impact onarbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and almost eliminatedmycorrhizal colonization of roots. However, if lesscompost was applied together with lignocellulose papermill waste, its negative effect on arbuscular mycorrhizalfungi was substantially reduced, whereas the positiveeffect on plant growth was maintained. They concludedthat microbial inoculation and reduced organic matterrates could substantially decrease reclamation costs,which would offset the modest reduction in crop yield.

Forestry SitesRehabilitation of forest roads and landings not neededfor permanent access is often required under soilconservation provisions of provincial regulations inCanada. In British Columbia, such access structuresoften occur on fine-textured soils with poor structure,high bulk densities and greatly reduced soil organicmatter. Sanborn et al. (2004) compared soil propertiesand seedling growth on landings rehabilitated with threeoperationally feasible treatments: incorporation ofwaste wood chips (140 Mg ha�1, dry wt.), supplementedwith 600 kg nitrogen ha�1; subsoiling; and shallowtillage combined with recovery and spreading of topsoil.After 4 yr, soil bulk density at 7 to 14 cm depth waslowest in the chip incorporation treatment. Althoughtotal carbon, nitrogen and sulphur, and mineralizablenitrogen concentrations were highest in the topsoil

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 29

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

recovery treatment, the chip incorporation treatmenthad the highest 3 yr growth rates of hybrid white spruce(Picea glauca�engelmannii).

Bulmer et al. (2007) evaluated soil conditions ofrehabilitated log landings in British Columbia. Rehabi-litation treatments included combinations of tillage andaddition of either stockpiled topsoil or one of threeorganic amendments: hog fuel, sorted yard waste and awood waste biosolids compost. Tillage and addition ofwood waste reduced bulk density and increased soilorganic carbon. Added wood wastes reduced daytimesoil temperatures and increased soil water content,which may have improved conditions for planted trees.Plots receiving wood waste had lower mechanicalresistance as measured with a cone penetrometer.

Other Soil Reclamation ScenariosApplication of biosolids to arid and semiarid rangelandareas that have been degraded by one or more differentfactors (e.g., overgrazing; fire suppression; increaseddrought frequency, duration or intensity) has beenpracticed for many years in the western United States.However, few of these studies measured persistenceof biosolids in soil. Walton et al. (2001) reported that�32% of biosolids applied in 1979 persisted as frag-ments �2 mm diameter 18 yr later (1997). Theyhypothesized that much of the applied sludge remainedbecause of the recalcitrant nature of digested biosolidscombined with soil environmental conditions in aridecosystems.

In reclaiming a landfill site in the United Kingdom,the use of biosolids and other organic materials wasinvestigated in soil formation on topsoil treatments(Chambers et al. 2002), which compared biosolids(digested cake), waste peat/compost (peat and peatbasedcompost) and composted green waste incorporated intothe surface of geological clay. Organic amendmentsreduced bulk density and increased plant available waterand infiltration rates. Topsoil organic matter, totalnitrogen and extractable phosphorus concentrations,biomass nitrogen, readily mineralizable organic nitro-gen, aggregate stability and soil respiration ratesincreased.

Composts have been used to restore disturbed soilsurfaces after highway construction (Persyn et al. 2007).The low water-holding capacity and nutrient concentra-tions of road cuts cause many of these disturbed areas toremain chronically barren. In northern California,Curtis and Claassen (2009) incorporated yard wastecompost into four unvegetated substrates (decomposedgranite, lahar, serpentine, sandstone) along road cuts toregenerate topsoil infiltration, water-holding capacityand nutrient availability. Compost increased plantavailable water, in coarse- but not in fine-textured soils,and above-ground biomass. Hansen et al. (2009) re-ported on the use of composted dairy manure for rapidsoil stabilization after construction of highway rights-of-way in Texas. Volume or depth based compost amend-

ments promoted stabilization by revegetation andthereby reduced runoff and sediment losses due toerosion. However, the researchers stressed that thequantity of compost applied must be balanced with itspotential role as a nonpoint source of dissolved nitrogenand particulate phosphorus.

Manufactured SoilsAn alternative technology to traditional reclamationpractices is a pedo-engineering approach, which includesconstructed or manufactured soils. These soils oftendevelop on, or include, non-traditional substrates andare largely due to intensive human activity. They havevarious names, such as Technosols in some classificationsystems (IUSS Working Group WRB 2006; Rossiter2007) and Anthroposols in others (Naeth et al. 2012).They may be composed of various materials, somewhich do not exist in nature (technogenic). They maybe blended from various organic and inorganic materialswithout a technogenic ingredient. Similar to naturalsoils, technogenic parent materials and the constructedor manufactured soils themselves are transformed bypedogenic factors leading to changes in chemical (weath-ering) and physical status (aggregation) and contribut-ing to their evolution (Sere et al. 2010).

In France, Sere et al. (2008) reported on soilconstruction using green waste compost, paper millsludge and thermally treated industrial soil excavatedfrom a coking plant (a technogenic component), whichwere stacked in layers to build a new soil profile over insitu degraded substrates. Carpenter and Fernandez(2000) listed the basic components of a manufacturedtopsoil as an organic material such as peat, bark ormanure; a mineral base material, which could besupplied by a common, unprocessed sand; and fertilizerand lime, to provide balanced nutrition for the crops tobe grown. They evaluated the use of uncomposted,dewatered pulp sludge as the organic matter componentin a manufactured topsoil. Seven manufactured topsoils,containing 5.1 to 13.8% pulp sludge and 0 to 20.7%flume grit (dry wt.), were applied to an abandonedgravel pit. Significant nitrogen mineralization wasevident in all of the manufactured topsoils within thefirst field season. Soil cation exchange capacity, pH andphosphorus availability were positively correlated withpulp sludge loading rate. Cumulative grass yields fromthe 15 mo following topsoil placement were greater thanthose in the control topsoil. Tree height, diametergrowth and foliar nutrient concentrations respondedpositively to the manufactured topsoils. Carpenter andFernandez (2000) concluded that topsoils manufacturedwith pulp sludge as the organic matter componentcan be an environmentally sound alternative tonatural topsoil for reclamation of sites on whichexisting conditions necessitate importing topsoil forrevegetation.

Belyaeva and Haynes (2009) reported on manufac-tured soils used for landscaping purposes in place of

30 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

natural topsoil. Manufactured soils were composed ofmunicipal green waste material either co-compostedwith inorganic additives (e.g., coal fly ash, sand, subsoil)or composted and then blended with the inorganiccomponents. The inorganic portion typically made uponly 10 to 20% of the final product volume. Visualobservations suggested that the bulk of such manufac-tured soil is slowly decomposable woody material,which remains after composting. The product, which isconsiderably cheaper than excavated natural topsoil,is commonly used by landscaping contractors and localcouncils and state governments in Australia.

CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Initial Degradation LevelResponse to amendment is expected to vary with initialdegradation level of the soil and the site. Usually, soilswith lower soil organic matter content benefit morefrom organic amendment, in net primary productionand improvement in soil properties, than those withhigher contents. According to the carbon saturationtheory, soils with low soil organic carbon content wouldhave a greater carbon stabilization efficiency than thosewith higher contents (Six et al. 2002). For example,while manure was the best amendment for enhancingsoil productivity after topsoil removal, the magnitude ofits effect on yield depended on organic carbon contentof the recipient soil (Larney et al. 2000a). At an organiccarbon content (0 to 7.5 cm depth) of 8 g kg�1, manureaddition increased average wheat yield over 2 years by1.75 Mg ha�1, compared with only 0.27 Mg ha�1 at anorganic carbon content of 15 g kg�1. At an organiccarbon content�16.3 g kg�1 there was no productivitygain from added manure, representing a threshold levelfor that particular soil.

Amendment ChoiceThe choice of amendment for use in reclamation isgoverned by various factors. These range from thephysical, chemical and biological suitability of theorganic amendment material to those counterparts ofthe soil to the reclaimed; to potential for off-site move-ment of undesirable constituents; to material availabilityand transportation costs; to societal judgments andpolitical ramifications. Several of these factors areaddressed in the following discussion.

Stability and maturity of organic amendments are twoimportant factors for their successful use in agriculture(Senesi and Plaza 2007). These factors are potentiallyeven more important in reclamation where soil physical,chemical and/or biological limitations usually exist,making potential environmental transport of undesirableaspects of organic amendments (dissolved nitrogen orphosphorus, particulate phosphorus, pathogens, heavymetals) a considerable concern. Generally the term‘‘stability’’ is related to the rate or degree of organicmatter decomposition, whereas ‘‘maturity’’ refers to

decomposition of potentially phytotoxic organic sub-stances (Wang et al. 2004). Application of unstable orimmature organic amendments may induce adverseeffects on soil properties. These include increasedmineralization rate of native soil organic carbon (lessof a concern as soil organic carbon concentrations areoften inherently low on soils requiring reclamation),alteration of soil and water pH, microbial immobiliza-tion of available nitrogen and addition of phytotoxinsand animal pathogens into soil and water. Anaerobicconditions induced by mineralization of large amountsof non-stabilized organic carbon may lead to increasednitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas) production. Rawbiosolids can release nitrogen very rapidly giving a burstof fertility that promotes annual weed species, whichmay dominate the vegetation and reduce biodiversity(Paschke et al. 2005).

The slow release of nutrients, especially nitrogen, isimportant in establishing species rich semi-naturalcommunities. Claassen and Carey (2007) concludedthat management of nitrogen inputs to degraded lowfertility substrates was difficult due to the contrastingneed for both high total nitrogen inputs to sustainvegetation growth and low nitrogen availability to avoiddominance of slower-growing native plants by weedyspecies. This may be best achieved with the addition ofcompost, containing stabilized organic matter (whichwill not tie up available nitrogen) and slow releasenitrogen, made from wastes that have been blended togive the desired balance of nutrients.

The effects of organic amendments on soil propertiesvary greatly with their composition and degree ofdecomposition prior to land application. Readily bioa-vailable organic amendments (e.g., biosolids, swinemanure, chicken litter) may less likely be retained inthe soil over long periods of time and thus maycontribute little to long-term carbon storage. However,they usually show a rapid but transient effect on soilproperties. More recalcitrant, lignin-rich amendments,such as woody biomass and possibly pulp and paper millsludge, are less labile in the soil and will usually show asmaller but longer-lasting effect on soil properties.Microbial oxidation of lignin to polyphenols is consid-ered one of several pathways in the humification process(Senesi and Loffredo 1999), leading to formation ofrecalcitrant organic carbon that will contribute to long-term carbon stabilization.

Combinations of amendments may work better thaneach applied singly (de Varennes et al. 2010). On pyritemine spoils, unamended soil (control) was comparedwith that receiving mineral fertilizers only, fertilizer pluscompost, fertilizer plus polyacrylate polymers, or ferti-lizer plus both amendments in promoting establishmentand growth of indigenous plant species. Greatest accu-mulated biomass was obtained in fertilized soil receivingboth amendments. However, plant species respondeddifferently to treatments, and researchers suggestedbotanical composition changes over time need to be

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 31

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

considered when large-scale applications are projected.In a review on the use of coal combustion by-products(fly ash, flue gas desulfurization by-product) in seques-tering carbon and reclaiming degraded lands, Palumboet al. (2004) indicated that their potential may be mostfully realized when these inorganic by-products areapplied in conjunction with organic amendments suchas mulch from biomass, biosolids or pulp and papersludge (Haering et al. 2000).

Palumbo et al. (2004) suggested source, quality andamount of organic amendments should be selected forspecific reclamation sites and goals. Choosing the mostappropriate amendment for soil type, climate or degra-dation problem may often be confined by what isavailable locally. Municipal solid waste or sewage sludgeis an organic amendment that has been widely used formine soil reclamation where extensive mining areas arelocated close to large urban centres (Sopper 1992;Brofas et al. 2000). Peat is naturally abundant in theoil sands mining footprint around Fort McMurray,Alberta, and is currently used as the main organicamendment in reclamation (Hemstock et al. 2010) astransportation of other amendments to the region isconsidered cost prohibitive. Transportation costs alsolimit the use of organic amendments in remote regions,as mine sites in Canada’s arctic are long distances fromagricultural (source of manure, compost), forested(source of wood residuals) or urban (source of biosolids)areas.

Application Rates and FrequenciesThe addition of organic amendments to agriculturalsoils is generally governed by the philosophy of bestmanagement practices, which aim to match applicationrates to potential plant uptake so as to minimizenutrient losses, thus improving the economic value ofmanure and maintaining environmental quality (Larneyet al. 2011). Depending on the degree of degradation,higher rates of organic amendments are generally usedin reclamation than on farmland, but usually only asingle application is made, which allows vegetation tobecome self-sustaining (Sopper 1992). Higher applica-tion rates have positive implications for organic amend-ment utilization as long as nutrient loss from the soilsystem is minimized. However, Vetterlein and Huttl(1999) cautioned that although increases in soil organicmatter were observed as a result of organic matterapplication, accumulation rates differed widely and nogeneral relationship was found between amount oforganic matter applied per unit time and accumulationrate.

Delschen (1999) found that while regular inputs ofmanure, waste compost or sewage sludge increased soilorganic matter on lignite mine soils, amendment typewas less important than application rate for long-termaccumulation of soil organic matter. Most reclamationscenarios generally rely on a single activity with large

amounts of organic matter, rather than multiple loweramounts over longer time periods. The single activityensures fast establishment of vegetation, which is crucialto initiation of nutrient cycling and improvement of soilphysical properties. Mine soils, because they are in sucha degraded state, tend to be subjected to the highestapplication rates of organic amendments. In reviewing alarge number of studies, Sopper et al. (1992) presentedrates of 7 to 997 Mg ha�1 of municipal sludge for minesoil reclamation. Kost et al. (1997) reported an extre-mely high paper mill sludge rate of 3450 Mg ha�1,admittedly incorporated to 60 cm depth, but never-theless 10 to 100 times higher than agricultural landapplication rates.

Zvomuya et al. (2007) conducted a study on threeabandoned well sites in southern Alberta, to examine theeffects of one time applications of alfalfa hay or beefcattle feedlot manure compost on soil properties undercontinuous wheat. The base amendment rate (1�) (drywt.) was 5.3 Mg ha�1 for compost and 3.1 Mg ha�1 foralfalfa. The five amendment rates of 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8times were incorporated into the soil at the well sites.Although approximately twice as much carbon wasapplied with alfalfa than with compost, final soil organiccarbon content was similar for the two amendments,indicating the greater stability of compost derivedcarbon. Nitrate nitrogen content in the 0 to 60 cmdepth was not affected by compost rate (mean 213 kgha�1) but increased by 7.8 kg ha�1 for each Mg ha�1

increase in alfalfa rate. This reflected the greater stabilityof compost nitrogen compared with alfalfa nitrogen andsuggests a lower risk of nitrate-nitrogen leaching withcompost application. Compost rates�20 Mg ha�1

resulted in excessive extractable phosphorus build-upin the topsoil (up to 95.7 mg kg�1), which may poseenvironmental risk to surface water. The researchersrecommended amending well sites with up to 12 Mgha�1 of alfalfa orB20 Mg ha�1 of manure compostduring reclamation to improve carbon storage andnutrient cycling, while minimizing potential nutrientloss to water systems. For the same study, Zvomuyaet al. (2008) showed that spring wheat yields on thesereclaimed soils can be optimized at alfalfa and compostrates of no more than 6 and 10 Mg ha�1, respectively, atlower rates than would lead to environmental concerns.

Exogenous vs. Indigenous Organic MatterQuestions often arise about the differences betweenyoung soil organic matter accumulated via addition ofexogenous organic matter and the indigenous soilorganic matter of undisturbed adjacent soils. Delschen(1999) reported hardly any differences in structure ofhumic substances, but indicated differences in sorptionbehaviour toward organic chemicals (polychlorinatedbiphenyls). Vetterlein and Huttl (1999) queried whetherapplied organic matter in reclaimed soils had the samequality, and thus the same function as that in natural

32 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

soils. They concluded that if organic matter was appliedto promote plant growth, and soil organic matteraccumulated indirectly through litter production, qual-ity of soil organic matter would develop similarly to thatin natural ecosystems. They contended that instead ofaiming for the highest possible input of organic matter,the goal in soil reclamation should be to maximizeorganic matter production by alleviating the mostlimiting factor for plant growth (usually nitrogen orphosphorus). In this way, the potential for nutrientlosses via leaching and runoff is also reduced. Delschen(1999) discussed whether rapid accumulation of organicmatter (e.g., by addition of large doses of organicamendments) should be preferred to rapid turnover oforganic matter and pointed out that many tasks andfunctions of humus in soil are based not so much on itslong-term residence, but on its continuous turnover andattendant production of short-lived conversion productsthat are formed in the process.

RESTORING ECOSYSTEM SERVICESBradshaw and Huttl (2001) advised that a narrowengineering approach is not enough for soil restoration,and argued that a more biological approach is necessaryfor creation of fully functioning, self-sustaining ecosys-tems. We believe that addition of organic amendmentscan be a major part of this biological approach, whichis ultimately aimed at restoring ecosystem services.These ecosystem services include but are not confinedto: provisioning services (food and fibre production,energy production and biomass fuels); regulating ser-vices (carbon sequestration and climate regulation,waste decomposition and detoxification, nutrient dis-persal and cycling); supporting services (water purifica-tion, crop pollination and seed dispersal, pest anddisease control); and cultural services (cultural, intellec-tual and spiritual inspiration, recreational experiences,scientific discovery).

Lal (2003) thought that restoring degraded soils andecosystems would reduce the rate of enrichment ofatmospheric carbon dioxide and hence play a role inoffsetting fossil fuel emissions. However, the issue ofcarbon sequestration in the case of organic amendmentsis complex. Carbon in the form of organic material isdecomposed in various ways and is transferred from onelocation to another. Leaving soils in a degraded andnon-productive state will not play a role in storingcarbon or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.However, the increase in soil organic carbon followingapplication of organic amendments should not alwaysbe considered as true sequestration of atmosphericcarbon (Janzen et al. 1998; Schlesinger 1999; Powlsonet al. 2008). For true carbon sequestration to occur,there has to be removal of carbon dioxide from theatmosphere. Carbon contained in organic amendmentswas originally fixed by vegetation through photosynth-esis. Ultimately, in most situations, part of this carbonwill return to the soil in one form or another (straw,

manure, compost, litter) unless it is completely oxidizedthrough combustion or otherwise. There are twonotable situations where organic amendment applica-tion can result in true atmospheric carbon sequestra-tion. Since dynamics and retention of carbon derivedfrom organic amendments can vary with soil propertiesand climate, application of organic amendments to soilswith greater capacity to store carbon may be analternative representing true atmospheric carbon se-questration. True carbon sequestration also occurswhen organic amendments increase net primary pro-ductivity. This is obviously the case when organicamendments are applied to highly degraded soils(e.g., Larney et al. 2009) as outlined above. Increasesin net primary productivity will result in increasedcarbon inputs to the soil and therefore true carbonsequestration.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSWe have shown that organic amendments are ideal forrapidly accelerating soil regeneration processes andhence land reclamation. More decomposable organicamendments may have more intense but shorter-termeffects, while recalcitrant materials may be less intensebut longer lasting. However, in reclamation, no onesolution fits all, and research should be carried out totest various organic amendments in as many soils,climates and end land uses as possible.

With world population forecasts showing increasedgrowth until later this century, there is the potential fororganic amendments to become more available in thefuture as demand for food, fuel and fibre increases; forexample, biosolids from urban areas or manure fromintensive livestock operations. There will be an increasedreliance on soils to act as recipients of such materials.We propose that disturbed or degraded soils willshow the greatest benefits, from both soil quality andnet primary productivity perspectives, from additionof organic amendments. Future research on the role oforganic amendments in land reclamation could focuson the following issues.

. Trade-offs between single high rates of organicamendments vs. repeated low rates over several years.

. Aspects of soil overloading with nutrients or con-taminants especially as it relates to water quality.

. Fundamental aspects of nutrient dynamics, such asphosphorus release and immobilization.

. Mechanisms of soil genesis following organic amend-ment incorporation, such as creation of new organo-mineral complexes.

. Economic analyses on long distance transport oforganic amendments for reclamation purposes.

. Life cycle analyses, carbon footprints and overallimpacts on greenhouse gas emissions from utilizationof organic amendments in reclamation.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 33

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Research on the above topics would help elucidate therole of organic amendments in soil amelioration orrehabilitation as a first step in reclamation or restora-tion toward a self-sustaining ecosystem in the long term.

Abbott, J. L. and Tucker, T. C. 1973. Persistence of manurephosphorus availability in calcareous soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.Proc. 37: 60�63.Akala, V. A. and Lal, R. 2000. Potential of mine landreclamation for soil organic carbon sequestration in Ohio.Land Degrad. Devel. 11: 289�297.Alberta Environment. 2010. 2010 reclamation criteria forwellsites and associated facilities for cultivated lands.[Online] Available: http://environment.alberta.ca/03002.html[2010 Dec. 15].Albiach, R., Canet, R., Pomares, F. and Ingelmo, F. 2000.

Microbial biomass content and enzymatic activities after theapplication of organic amendments to a horticultural soil.Bioresour. Technol. 75: 43�48.Anderson, D. W. 1977. Early stages of soil formation onglacial till mine spoils in a semi-arid climate. Geoderma 19:11�19.Angers, D. A. and Chenu, C. 1997. Dynamics of soil aggrega-tion and C sequestration. Pages 199�206 in R. Lal, J. F.Kimble, R. F. Follett, and B. A. Stewart, eds. Soil processesand the carbon cycle. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Aoyama, M., Angers, D. A. and N’dayegamiye, A. 1999.

Particulate and mineral-associated organic matter in water-stable aggregates as affected by mineral fertilizer and manureapplications. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79: 295�302.Balesdent, J., Chenu, C. and Balabane, M. 2000. Relationshipof soil organic matter dynamics to physical protection andtillage. Soil Tillage Res. 53: 215�230.Bateman, J. C. and Chanasyk, D. S. 2001. Effects of deepripping and organic matter amendments on Ap horizons ofsoil reconstructed after coal strip-mining. Can. J. Soil Sci. 81:113�120.Bastida, F., Kandeler, E., Hernandez, T. and Garcıa, C. 2008.

Long-term effect of municipal solid waste amendment onmicrobial abundance and humus-associated enzyme activitiesunder semiarid conditions. Microbial Ecol. 55: 651�661.Baumann, K., Marschner, P., Smernik, R. J. and Baldock, J. A.

2009. Residue chemistry and microbial community structureduring decomposition of eucalypt, wheat and vetch residues.Soil Biol. Biochem. 41: 1966�1975.Becard, G. and Piche, Y. 1989. Fungal growth stimulation byCO2 and root exudates in vesicular�arbuscular mycorrhizalsymbiosis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 55: 2320�2325.Belyaeva, O. N. and Haynes, R. J. 2009. Chemical, microbialand physical properties of manufactured soils produced by co-composting municipal green waste with coal fly ash. Bioresour.Technol. 100: 5203�5209.Bendfeldt, E. S., Burger, J. A. and Daniels, W. L. 2001. Qualityof amended mine soils after sixteen years. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.65: 1736�1744.Benke, M. B., Hao, X., O’Donovan, J. T., Clayton, G. W.,

Lupwayi, N. Z., Caffyn, P. and Hall, M. 2010. Livestockmanure improves acid soil productivity under a cold northernAlberta climate. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90: 685�697.Biederman, L. A., Boutton, T. W. and Whisenant, S. G. 2008.

Nematode community development early in ecological restora-tion: The role of organic amendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40:2366�2374.

Bradshaw, A. 1997. Restoration of mined lands � using naturalprocesses. Ecol. Eng. 8: 255�269.Bradshaw, A. D. and Huttl, R. F. 2001. Future minesiterestoration involves a broader approach. Ecol. Eng. 17: 87�90.Brofas, G., Michopoulos, P. and Alifragis, D. 2000. Sewagesludge as an amendment for calcareous bauxite mine spoilsreclamation. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 811�816.Bulmer, C., Venner, K. and Prescott, C. 2007. Forest soilrehabilitation with tillage and wood waste enhances seedlingestablishment but not height after 8 years. Can. J. For. Res. 37:1894�1906.Buyuksonmez, F., Rynk, R., Hess, T. F. and Bechinski, E. 2000.

Occurrence, degradation, and fate of pesticides during com-posting. Part II: Occurrence and fate of pesticides in compostand composting systems. Compost Sci. Util. 8: 61�81.Camberato, J. J., Gagnon, B., Angers, D. A., Chantigny, M. H.

and Pan, W. L. 2006. Pulp and papermill by-products as soilamendments and plant nutrient sources. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86:641�653.Carpenter, A. F. and Fernandez, I. J. 2000. Pulp sludge as acomponent in manufactured topsoil. J. Environ. Qual. 29:387�397.Castillejo, J. M. and Castello, R. 2010. Influence of theapplication rate of an organic amendment (MunicipalSolid Waste [MSW] compost) on gypsum quarry rehabilitationin semiarid environments. Arid Land Res. Manage. 24:344�364.Cessna, A. J., Larney, F. J., Kuchta, S. L., Hao, X., Entz, T.,

Topp, E. and McAllister, T. A. 2011. Veterinary antimicrobialsin feedlot manure: dissipation during composting and effectson composting processes. J. Environ. Qual. 40: 188�198.Chambers, B., Royle, S., Hadden, S. and Maslen, S. 2002. Theuse of biosolids and other organic substances in the creation ofsoil-forming materials. Water Environ. J. 16: 34�39.Chantigny, M. H., Angers, D. A. and Beauchamp, C. J. 1999.

Aggregation and organic matter decomposition in soilsamended with de-inking paper sludge. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.63: 1214�1221.Chantigny, M. H., Rochette, P. and Angers, D. A. 2001. Short-term C and N dynamics in a soil amended with pig slurry andbarley straw: A field experiment. Can. J. Soil Sci. 81: 131�137.Charmley, E., Nelson, D. and Zvomuya, F. 2006. Nutrientcycling in the vegetable processing industry: Utilization ofpotato by-products. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86: 621�629.Cheng, Z. and Grewal, P. S. 2009. Dynamics of the soilnematode food web and nutrient pools under tall fescue lawnsestablished on soil matrices resulting from common urbandevelopment activities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 42: 107�117.Clark, G. J., Sale, P. W. G. and Tang, C. 2009. Organicamendments initiate the formation and stabilisation of macro-aggregates in a high clay sodic soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 47:770�780.Claassen, V. P. and Carey, J. L. 2007. Comparison of slow-release nitrogen yield from organic soil amendments andchemical fertilizers and implications for regeneration ofdisturbed sites. Land Degrad. Devel. 18: 119�132.Cogger, C. G., Forge, T. A. and Neilsen, G. H. 2006. Biosolidsrecycling: Nitrogen management and soil ecology. Can. J. SoilSci. 86: 613�620.Cooke, J. A. and Johnson, M. S. 2002. Ecological restorationof land with particular reference to the mining of metals andindustrial minerals: A review of theory and practice. Environ.Rev. 10: 41�71.

34 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Curtis, M. J. and Claassen, V. P. 2009. Regenerating topsoilfunctionality in four drastically disturbed soil types by com-post incorporation. Restor. Ecol. 17: 24�32.Delschen, T. 1999. Impacts of long-term application of organicfertilizers on soil quality parameters in reclaimed loess soils ofthe Rhineland lignite mining area. Plant Soil 213: 43�54.de Varennes, A., Cunha-Queda, C. and Qu, G. 2010. Amend-ment of an acid mine soil with compost and polyacrylatepolymers enhances enzymatic activities but may change thedistribution of plant species. Water Air Soil Pollut. 208:91�100.Dormaar, J. F., Lindwall, C. W. and Kozub, G. C. 1988.

Effectiveness of manure and commercial fertilizer in restoringproductivity of an artificially eroded Dark Brown Chernoze-mic soil under dryland conditions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:669�679.Dormaar, J. F., Lindwall, C. W. and Kozub, G. C. 1997a. Roleof continuous wheat and amendments in ameliorating anartificially eroded Dark Brown Chernozemic soil under dry-land conditions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 77: 271�279.Dormaar, J. F., Lukow, O. M., Lindwall, C. W. and Kozub

G. C. 1997b. Effect of artificially eroded Dark BrownChernozemic soil and subsequent amendments on the millingand baking quality of wheat under dryland conditions. Can. J.Soil Sci. 77: 27�32.Eck, H. V. 1987. Characteristics of exposed subsoil � atexposure and 23 years later. Agron. J. 79: 1067�1073.Edwards, J. H. and Someshwar, A. V. 2000. Chemical,physical, and biological characteristics of agricultural andforest by-products for land application. Pages 1�62 in J. F.Power and W. A. Dick, eds. Land application of agricultural,industrial and municipal by-products. SSSA Book SeriesNo. 6, SSSA, Madison, WI.Eghball, B. 1999. Liming effects of beef cattle feedlot manureor compost. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 30: 2563�2570.Ellis, E. C., Klein Goldewijk, K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D. and

Ramankutty, N. 2010. Anthropogenic transformation of thebiomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 19: 589�606.Energy Resources Conservation Board. 2009. Cumulativeabandonment, reclamation and drilling well licence statistics,May 2009. [Online] Available: www.ercb.ca [2010 Dec. 15].Fierro, A., Angers, D. A. and Beauchamp, C. J. 1999.

Restoration of ecosystem function in an abandoned sandpit:plant and soil responses to paper de-inking sludge. J. Appl.Ecol. 36: 244�253.Freeze, B. S., Webber, C., Lindwall, C. W. and Dormaar, J. F.

1993. Risk simulation of the economics of manure applicationto restore eroded wheat cropland. Can. J. Soil Sci. 73: 267�274.Gaillard, V., Chenu, C. and Recous, S. 2003. Carbon miner-alisation in soil adjacent to plant residues of contrastingbiochemical quality. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35: 93�99.Gaillard, V., Chenu, C., Recous, S. and Richard, G. 1999.

Carbon, nitrogen and microbial gradients induced by plantresidues decomposing in soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 50: 567�578.Gardner, W. C., Broersma, K., Naeth, A., Chanasyk, D. and

Jobson, A. 2010. Influence of biosolids and fertilizer amend-ments on physical, chemical and microbiological properties ofcopper mine tailings. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90: 571�583.Golchin, A., Oades, J. M., Skjemstad, J. O. and Clarke, P.

1994. Soil structure and carbon cycling. Aust. J. Soil Res. 32:1043�1068.Gregorich, E. G., Carter, M. R., Angers, D. A., Monreal, C. M.

and Ellert, B. H. 1994. Towards a minimum data set to assess

soil organic matter quality in agricultural soils. Can. J. Soil Sci.74: 367�385.Gryndler, M., Sudova, R., Puschel, D., Rydlova, J.,

Janouskova, M. and Vosatka, M. 2008. Cultivation of high-biomass crops on coal mine spoil banks: Can microbialinoculation compensate for high doses of organic matter?Bioresour. Technol. 99: 6391�6399.Gupta, S. C., Dowdy, R. H. and Larson, W. E. 1977. Hydraulicand thermal properties of a sandy soil as influenced byincorporation of sewage sludge. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:601�605.Haas, C. N., Rose, J. B. and Gerba, C. P. 1999. Quan-titative microbial risk assessment. John Wiley & Sons,New York, NY.Haering, K. C., Daniels, W. L. and Feagley, S. E. 2000.

Reclaiming mined lands with biosolids, manures, and paper-mill sludges. Pages 615�644 in R. I. Barnhisel, R. G. Darmody,and W. L. Daniels, eds. Reclamation of drastically disturbedlands. Agronomy Monog. No. 41, ASA, CSSA, SSSA,Madison, WI.Hansen, N. E., Vietor, D. M., Munster, C. L., White, R. H. and

Provin, T. L. 2009. Runoff water quality from constructedroadside soils receiving large volume-based compost applica-tions. Trans. ASABE 52: 793�800.Haynes, R. J. and Mokolobate, M. S. 2001. Amelioration of Altoxicity and P deficiency in acid soils by additions of organicresidues: A critical review of the phenomenon and themechanisms involved. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 59: 47�63.Hemstock, S. S., Quideau, S. A. and Chanasyk, D. S. 2010.

Nitrogen availability from peat amendments used in boreal oilsands reclamation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90: 165�175.Hobbs, R. J. 1999. Restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Pages673�688 in L. R. Walker, ed. Ecosystems of disturbed ground.Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands.IUSS Working Group WRB. 2006. World reference base forsoil resources 2006. 2nd ed. World Soil Resources Reports No.103, FAO, Rome, Italy.Izaurralde, R. C., Malhi, S. S., Nyborg, M., Solberg, E. D. and

Quiroga Jakas, M. C. 2006. Crop performance and soilproperties in two artificially eroded soils in north-centralAlberta. Agron. J. 98: 1298�1311.Janzen, H. H., Campbell, C. A., Izaurralde, R. C., Ellert, B. H.,

Juma, N., McGill, W. B. and Zentner, R. P. 1998.Managementeffects on soil C storage on the Canadian prairies. Soil TillageRes. 47: 181�195.Kasongo, R. K., Verdoodt, A., Kanyankagote, P., Baert, G. and

Van Ranst, E. 2011. Coffee waste as an alternative fertilizerwith soil improving properties for sandy soils in humid tropicalenvironments. Soil Use Manage. 27: 94�102.Khaleel, R., Reddy, K. R. and Overcash, M. R. 1981. Changesin soil physical properties due to organic waste applications:A review. J. Environ. Qual. 10: 133�141.Kost, D. A., Boutelle, D. A., Larson, M. M., Smith, W. D. and

Vimmerstedt, J. P. 1997. Papermill sludge amendments, treeprotection, and tree establishment on an abandoned coalminesoil. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1409�1416.Lal, R. 2003. Offsetting global CO2 emissions by restoration ofdegraded soils and intensification of world agriculture andforestry. Land Degrad. Devel. 14: 309�322.Larney, F. J. and Blackshaw, R. E. 2003.Weed seed viability incomposted beef cattle feedlot manure. J. Environ. Qual. 32:1105�1113.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 35

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Larney, F. J. and Janzen, H. H. 1996. Restoration ofproductivity to a desurfaced soil with livestock manure, cropresidue and fertilizer amendments. Agron. J. 88: 921�927.Larney, F. J. and Janzen, H. H. 1997. A simulated erosionapproach to assess rates of cattle manure and phosphorusfertilizer for restoring productivity to eroded soils. Agric.Ecosyst. Environ. 65: 113�126.Larney, F. J. and Pan, W. L. 2006. Organic waste to resource:recycling nutrients. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86: 585�586.Larney, F. J., Akinremi, O. O., Lemke, R. L., Klaassen, V. E.

and Janzen, H. H. 2003a. Crop response to topsoil replacementdepth and organic amendment on abandoned natural gaswellsites. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83: 415�423.Larney, F. J., Akinremi, O. O., Lemke, R. L., Klaassen, V. E.

and Janzen, H. H. 2005. Soil responses to topsoil replacementdepth and organic amendments in wellsite reclamation. Can. J.Soil Sci. 85: 307�317.Larney, F. J., Hao, X. and Topp, E. 2011. Manure manage-ment. Pages 247�263 in J. L. Hatfield and T. J. Sauer, eds. Soilmanagement: building a stable base for agriculture. ASA,SSSA, Madison, WI.Larney, F. J., Izaurralde, R. C., Janzen, H. H., Olson, B. M.,

Solberg, E. D., Lindwall, C. W. and Nyborg, M. 1995a. Soilerosion-crop productivity relationships for six Alberta soils. J.Soil Water Conserv. 50: 87�91.Larney, F. J., Janzen, H. H. and Olson, A. F. 2011. Residualeffects of one-time manure, crop residue and fertilizer amend-ments on a desurfaced soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 91: 1029�1043.Larney, F. J., Janzen, H. H. and Olson, B. M. 1995b. Efficacyof inorganic fertilizers in restoring wheat yields on artificiallyeroded soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75: 369�377.Larney, F. J., Janzen, H. H., Olson, B. M. and Lindwall, C. W.

2000a. Soil quality and productivity responses to simulatederosion and restorative amendments. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80:515�522.Larney, F. J., Janzen, H. H., Olson, B. M. and Olson, A. F.

2009. Erosion-productivity-soil amendment relationships forwheat over 16 years. Soil Tillage Res. 103: 73�83.Larney, F. J., Olson, B. M., Janzen, H. H. and Lindwall, C. W.

2000b. Early impact of simulated erosion and soil amendmentson crop productivity. Agron. J. 92: 948�956.Larney, F. J., Yanke, L. J., Miller, J. J. and McAllister, T. A.

2003b. Fate of coliform bacteria in composted beef cattlefeedlot manure. J. Environ. Qual. 32: 1508�1515.Lashermes, G., Nicolardot, B., Parnaudeau, V., Thuries, L.,

Chaussod, R., Guillotin, M. L., Lineres, M., Mary, B., Metzger,

L., Morvan, T., Tricaud, A., Villette, C. and Houot, S. 2009.

Indicator of potential residual carbon in soils afterexogenous organic matter application. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 60:297�310.Lashermes, G., Nicolardot, B., Parnaudeau, V., Thuries, L.,

Chaussod, R., Guillotin, M. L., Lineres, M., Mary, B., Metzger,

L., Morvan, T., Tricaud, A., Villette, C. and Houot, S. 2010.

Typology of exogenous organic matters based on chemical andbiochemical composition to predict potential nitrogen miner-alization. Bioresour. Technol. 101: 157�164.Leroy, B. L. M., Herath, H. M. S. K., Sleutel, S., De Neve, S.,

Gabriels, D., Reheul, D. and Moens, M. 2008a. The quality ofexogenous organic matter: Short-term effects on soil physicalproperties and soil organic matter fractions. Soil Use Manage.24: 139�147.Leroy, B. L. M., Schmidt, O., Van den Bossche, A., Reheul, D.

and Moens, M. 2008b. Earthworm population dynamics as

influenced by the quality of exogenous organic matter.Pedobiologia 52: 139�150.Mabuhay, J. A., Nakagoshi, N. and Isagi, Y. 2006. Microbialresponses to organic and inorganic amendments in eroded soil.Land Degrad. Devel. 17: 321�332.MacLeod, J. A., Kuo, S., Gallant, T. L. and Grimmett, M.

2006. Seafood processing wastes as nutrient sources for cropproduction. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86: 631�640.Martens, D. A. and Frankenberger, Jr., W. T. 1992. Modifica-tion of infiltration rates in an organic-amended irrigated soil.Agron. J. 84: 707�717.Martens, D. A., Johanson, J. B., Frankenberger, Jr., W. T.

1992. Production and persistence of soil enzymes with repeatedaddition of organic residues. Soil Sci. 153: 53�61.Montgomery, D. R. 2007. Dirt�the erosion of civilizations.University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Naeth, M. A., Archibald, H. A., Nemirsky, C. L., Leskiw, L. A.,

Brierly, J. A., Bock, M. D., VandenBygaart, A. J. and

Chanasyk, D. S. 2012. Proposed classification for humanmodified soils in Canada: Anthroposolic order. Can. J. SoilSci. 92: 7�18.N’dayegamiye, A. and Angers, D. A. 1990. Effects of long-termcattle manure application on physical and biological propertiesof a Neubois silty loam cropped to corn. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:259�262.Nicolardot, B., Bouziri, L., Bastian, F. and Ranjard, L. 2007.

A microcosm experiment to evaluate the influence of locationand quality of plant residues on residue decomposition andgenetic structure of soil microbial communities. Soil Biol.Biochem. 39: 1631�1644.Noyd, R. K., Pfleger, F. L., Norland, M. R. and Hall, D. L.

1997. Native plant productivity and litter decomposition inreclamation of taconite iron ore tailing. J. Environ. Qual. 26:682�687.Pagliai, M. and Vittori Antisari, L. 1993. Influence of wasteorganic matter on soil micro- and macrostructure. Bioresour.Technol. 43: 205�213.Palumbo, A. V., McCarthy, J. F., Amonette, J. E., Fisher, L. S.,

Wullschleger, S. D. and Daniels, W. L. 2004. Prospects forenhancing carbon sequestration and reclamation of degradedlands with fossil-fuel combustion by-products. Adv. Environ.Res. 8: 425�438.Pascault, N., Cecillon, L., Mathieu, O., Henault, C., Sarr, A.,

Leveque, J., Farcy, P., Ranjard, L. and Maron, P.-A. 2010. Insitu dynamics of microbial communities during decompositionof wheat, rape, and alfalfa residues. Microb. Ecol. 60: 816�828.Paschke, M. W., Topper, K., Brobst, R. B. and Redente, E. F.

2005. Long-term effects of biosolids on revegetation ofdisturbed sagebrush steppe in northwestern Colorado. Restor.Ecol. 13: 545�551.Pascual, J. A., Garcıa, C. and Hernandez, T. 1999. Lastingmicrobiological and biochemical effects of the addition ofmunicipal solid waste to an arid soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 30: 1�6.Pedrol, N., Puig, C. G., Souza, P., Forjan, R., Vega, F. A.,

Asensio, V., Gonzalez, L., Cerqueira, B., Covelo, E. F. and

Andrade, L. 2010. Soil fertility and spontaneous revegetationin lignite spoil banks under different amendments. Soil TillageRes. 110: 134�142.Peres, G., Cluzeau, D., Curmi, P. and Hallaire, V. 1998.

Earthworm activity and soil structure changes due to organicenrichments in vineyard systems. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 27:417�424.

36 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Persyn, R. A., Richard, T. L., Glanville, T. D., Laflen, J. M.

and Dixon, P. M. 2007. Evaluation of revegetation fromblanket applied composts on a highway construction site.Appl. Eng. Agric. 23: 631�635.Pichtel, J. R., Dick, W. A. and Sutton, P. 1994. Comparison ofamendments and management practices for long-term recla-mation of abandoned mine lands. J. Environ. Qual. 23:766�772.Powlson, D. S., Riche, A. B., Coleman, K., Glendinin, M. J. and

Whitmore, A. P. 2008. Carbon sequestration in European soilsthrough straw incorporation: Limitations and alternatives.Waste Manage. 28: 741�746.Reid, N. B. and Naeth, M. A. 2005a. Establishment of avegetation cover on tundra kimberlite mine tailings: 1. Agreenhouse study. Restor. Ecol. 13: 594�601.Reid, N. B. and Naeth, M. A. 2005b. Establishment of avegetation cover on tundra kimberlite mine tailings: 2. A fieldstudy. Restor. Ecol. 13: 602�608.Ros, M., Hernandez, M. T. and Garcia, C. 2003. Soil microbialactivity after restoration of a semiarid soil by organicamendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35: 463�469.Rossiter, D. G. 2007. Classification of urban and industrialsoils in the World Reference Base for Soil Resources. J. SoilsSediments 7: 96�100.Salazar, M., Bosch-Serra, A., Estudillos, G. and Poch, R. M.

2009. Rehabilitation of semi-arid coal mine spoil bank soilswith mine residues and farm organic by-products. Arid LandRes. Manage. 23: 327�341.Sanborn, P., Bulmer, C. and Coopersmith, D. 2004. Use ofwood waste in rehabilitation of landings constructed on fine-textured soils, central interior British Columbia, Canada.West. J. Appl. For. 19: 175�183.Schlesinger, W. H. 1999. Carbon and agriculture: carbonsequestration in soils. Science 284: 2095.Schneider, S., Coquet, Y., Vachier, P., Labat, C., Roger-

Estrade, J., Benoit, P., Pot, V. and Houot, S. 2009. Effect ofurban waste compost application on soil near-saturatedhydraulic conductivity. J. Environ. Qual. 38: 772�781.Scullion, J. and Malik, A. 2000. Earthworm activity affectingorganic matter, aggregation and microbial activity in soilsrestored after opencast mining for coal. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32:119�126.Senesi, N. and Loffredo, E. 1999. The chemistry of soil organicmatter. Pages 239�370 in D. L. Sparks, ed. Soil physicalchemistry. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Senesi, N. and Plaza, C. 2007. Role of humification processesin recycling organic wastes of various nature and sources assoil amendments. Clean Soil Air Water 35: 26�41.Sere, G., Schwartz, C., Ouvrard, S., Renat, J.-C., Watteau, F.,

Villemin, G. and Morel, J. L. 2010. Early pedogenic evolutionof constructed Technosols. J. Soils Sediments 10: 1246�1254.Sere, G., Schwartz, C., Ouvrard, S., Sauvage, C., Renat, J.-C.

and Morel, J. L. 2008. Soil construction: A step for ecologicalreclamation of derelict lands. J. Soils Sediments 8: 130�136.Shipitalo, M. J. and Bonta, J. V. 2008. Impact of usingpapermill sludge for surface-mine reclamation on runoff waterquality and plant growth. J. Environ. Qual. 37: 2351�2359.Shrestha, R. K., Lal, R. and Jacinthe, P.-A. 2009. Enhancingcarbon and nitrogen sequestration in reclaimed soils throughorganic amendments and chiseling. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:1004�1011.Sims, H. P., Powter, C. B. and Campbell. J. A. 1984. Landsurface reclamation: A review of the international literature.

Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council, ReportNo. RRTAC 84-1, Queen’s Printer, Edmonton, AB.Sims, J. T., Cunningham, S. D. and Sumner, M. E. 1997.

Assessing soil quality for environmental purposes: Roles andchallenges for soil scientists. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 20�25.Six, J., Conant, R. T., Paul, E. A. and Paustian, K. 2002.

Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: Implicationsfor C-saturation of soils. Plant Soil 241: 155�176.Smith, E. G., Peng, Y., Lerohl, M. and Larney, F. J. 2000.

Economics of N and P fertilization to restore wheat yields onthree artificially eroded sites in southern Alberta. Can. J. SoilSci. 80: 165�169.Sopper, W. E. 1992. Reclamation of mine land using municipalsludge. Pages 351�439 in R. Lal and B. A. Stewart, eds. Soilrestoration. Advances in soil science. Vol. 17. Springer-Verlag,New York, NY.Statistics Canada. 2008. A geographical profile of livestockmanure production in Canada, 2006. [Online] Available:http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-002-x/2008004/article/10751-eng.htm#a3 [2011 Apr. 27].Stewart, B. A., Robinson, C. A. and Parker, D. B. 2000.

Examples and case studies of beneficial reuse of beef cattlebyproducts. Pages 387�407 in J. F. Power and W. A. Dick, eds.Land application of agricultural, industrial and municipal by-products. SSSA Book Series No. 6, SSSA, Madison, WI.Sun, H., Larney, F. J. and Bullock, M. S. 1995. Soilamendments and water-stable aggregation of a desurfacedDark Brown Chernozem. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75: 319�325.Tanaka, D. L. and Aase, J. K. 1989. Influence of topsoilremoval and fertilizer application on spring wheat yields. SoilSci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 228�232.Tejada, M., Hernandez, M. T. and Garcia, C. 2006.

Application of two organic amendments on soil restoration:Effects on the soil biological properties. J. Environ. Qual. 35:1010�1017.Thorne, M. E., Zamora, B. A. and Kennedy, A. C. 1998. Sewagesludge and mycorrhizal effects on secar bluebunch wheatgrassin mine spoil. J. Environ. Qual. 27: 1228�1233.Tian, G., Granato, T. C., Cox, A. E., Pietz, R. I., Carlson, C. R.

and Abedin, Z. 2009. Soil carbon sequestration resulting fromlong-term application of biosolids for land reclamation. J.Environ. Qual. 38: 61�74.USDA. 2010. Better ballfields and rain gardens start below thesurface. [Online] Available: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/Nov10/gardens1110.htm [2011 Apr. 27].Van Herk, F. H., McAllister, T. A., Cockwill, C. L., Guselle,

N., Larney, F. J., Miller, J. J. and Olson, M. E. 2004.

Inactivation of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts inbeef feedlot manure by thermophilic windrow composting.Compost Sci. Util. 12: 235�241.Vetterlein, D. and Huttl, R. F. 1999. Can applied organicmatter fulfil similar functions as soil organic matter? Risk-benefit analysis for organic matter application as a potentialstrategy for rehabilitation of disturbed ecosystems. Plant Soil213: 1�10.Viaud, V., Angers, D. A., Parnaudeau, V., Morvan, T. and

MenasseriAubry, S. 2011. Response of organic matter toreduced tillage and animal manure in a temperate loamy soil.Soil Use Manage. 27: 84�93.Wallace, B. M., Krzic, M., Forge, T. A., Broersma, K. and

Newman, R. F. 2009. Biosolids increase soil aggregation andprotection of soil carbon five years after application on acrested wheatgrass pasture. J. Environ. Qual. 38: 291�298.

LARNEY AND ANGERS * ORGANIC AMENDMENTS IN SOIL RECLAMATION 37

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.

Walton, M., Herrick, J. E., Gibbens, R. P. and Remmenga,M. D. 2001. Persistence of municipal biosolids in a Chihua-huan desert rangeland 18 years after application. Arid LandRes. Manage. 15: 223�232.Wang, P., Changa, C. M., Watson, M. E., Dick, W. A., Chen,Y. and Hoitink, H. A. J. 2004. Maturity indices for composteddairy and pig manures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 36: 767�776.Werner, M. R. and Dindal, D. L. 1989. Earthworm communitydynamics in conventional and low-input agroecosystems.Revue d’Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol 26: 427�437.Whalen, J. K., Chang, C., Clayton, G. W. and Carefoot, J. P.

2000. Cattle manure amendments can increase the pH of acidsoils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64: 962�966.Whalen, J. K., Parmelee, R. W. and Edwards, C. A. 1998.

Population dynamics of earthworm communities in cornagroecosystems receiving organic or inorganic fertilizeramendments. Biol. Fertil. Soils 27: 400�407.White, C. S., Loftin, S. R. and Aguilar, R. 1997. Application ofbiosolids to degraded semiarid rangeland: nine-year responses.J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1663�1671.Winter Sydnor, M. E. and Redente, E. F. 2002. Reclamation ofhigh-elevation, acidic mine waste with organic amendmentsand topsoil. J. Environ. Qual. 31: 1528�1537.

Zanuzzi, A., Arocena, J. M., van Mourik, J. M. andFaz Cano, A. 2009. Amendments with organic and industrialwastes stimulate soil formation in mine tailings as revealed bymicromorphology. Geoderma 154: 69�75.Zebarth, B. J., Neilsen, G. H., Hogue, E. and Neilsen, D. 1999.Influence of organic waste amendments on selectedsoil physical and chemical properties. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79:501�504.Zibilske, L. M., Clapham, W. M. and Rourke, R. V. 2000.Multiple applications of papermill sludge in anagricultural system: Soil effects. J. Environ. Qual. 29: 1975�1981.Zika, M. and Erb, K. H. 2009. The global loss of net primaryproduction resulting from human-induced soil degradation indrylands. Ecol. Econ. 69: 310�318.Zvomuya, F., Larney, F. J., DeMaere, P. R. and Olson, A. F.2007. Reclamation of abandoned wellsites with organicamendments: effects on soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71: 1186�1193.Zvomuya, F., Larney, F. J., DeMaere, P. R. and Olson, A. F.2008. Organic amendment effects on crop productivity andnutrient uptake on reclaimed natural gas wellsites. Nutr. Cycl.Agroecosyst. 80: 223�232.

38 CANADIAN JOURNAL OF SOIL SCIENCE

Can

. J. S

oil.

Sci.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

pub

s.ai

c.ca

by

Agr

icul

ture

and

Agr

i-fo

od C

anad

a on

01/

29/1

5Fo

r pe

rson

al u

se o

nly.