A life‐of‐mine approach to fauna monitoring is critical for recovering functional ecosystems to restored landscapes

Abstract

Mineral extraction activities are intensely disruptive to ecosystems and their associated fauna. Few countries globally have comprehensive legislation surrounding mine site restoration, but within Australia, restoration of discontinued mine sites is a legislative requirement. However, substantial ambiguity regarding the optimal techniques for restoring biodiverse and functional fauna assemblages remains, and monitoring activities typically focus on vegetation communities despite functioning ecosystems being reliant on key trophic interactions involving fauna. When fauna are considered, monitoring efforts typically yield baseline surveys of species richness and the presence or absence of conservation-significant taxa. Even where complete ecosystem recovery is not the goal of post-mining ecological recovery, we argue that there is a critical need for a life-of-mine approach to fauna monitoring underpinned by greater dialog between researchers, environmental regulators, and the mining industry. Environmental Impact Assessments should include requirements for the consideration of all potential impacts of mining on the structure, behavior, and ecological roles of fauna communities, restoration practices must facilitate the return of functional, resilient, and biodiverse fauna communities to restored post-mining landscapes, and the scope of monitoring practices should be broadened to a holistic examination of fauna communities. Recognizing, quantifying, and monitoring the impacts of mining activities and subsequent rehabilitation or restoration on fauna is vital to understanding how anthropogenic disturbances affect natural ecosystems, and in assisting in the successful recovery of ecosystem functionality to areas that have been damaged, degraded, or destroyed.

Ecological Considerations When Designing Mitigation Translocations: An Australian Reptile Case Study

“…The common assumption underpinning translocation and restoration biology is that the return of floristic diversity, and provision of basic habitat structures, such as vegetation and logs, will lead to the return of fauna on their own [ 87 ]. However, research has found that whilst this may be a useful first step in the recreation, or selection, of a translocation site or area for recolonisation, this hypothesis on its own can be unreliable due to the complexity of faunal ecological requirements [ 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 ]. As such, a more specific understanding of key limiting factors to the successful establishment of many fauna species at a release site or restored area is vital.…”

Advances in mining restoration

“…Mining is intensely disruptive to ecosystems and their associated fauna; however, mine site restoration monitoring activities typically focus on vegetation communities despite functioning ecosystems being reliant on key trophic interactions involving fauna. Cross et al (2022) argue for a life‐of‐mine approach to fauna monitoring, and that recognizing, quantifying, and monitoring the impacts of mining activities and subsequent restoration on fauna is vital to understanding how anthropogenic disturbances affect natural ecosystems, and in assisting in the successful recovery of ecosystem functionality.…”

Adoptar los objetivos de la restauración ecológica como meta crucial al mitigar desechos mineros: una propuesta metodológica

“…Además, se debe registrar la sobrevivencia, el diámetro y la altura durante al menos los primeros dos años, ya que estas mediciones pueden predecir el desempeño a mediano plazo (Martínez-Garza et al, 2016). Los monitoreos deben registrar la estructura, el comportamiento y el papel ecológico de las distintas especies que colonicen el sitio, así como el retorno de comunidades faunísticas funcionales, resilientes y biodiversas relacionadas con los paisajes restaurados después de la minería y su seguimiento debe ampliarse hacia un examen holístico (Cross et al, 2021).…”