Evaluation of Quarry Rehabilitation Status Using Soil Physico-chemical and Soil Enzyme Activity in Tezo Ward, Kilifi County, Kenya

Tunje Mwamuye Pole^1, , Mwakio Tole¹ and Suhaila Hashim²

¹Department of Environmental Sciences, Pwani University, Kenya

²Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Pwani University, Kenya

Cite this paper:
Tunje Mwamuye Pole, Mwakio Tole and Suhaila Hashim. Evaluation of Quarry Rehabilitation Status Using Soil Physico-chemical and Soil Enzyme Activity in Tezo Ward, Kilifi County, Kenya. World Journal of Agricultural Research. 2026; 14(2):54-62. doi: 10.12691/wjar-14-2-4

Abstract

Quarrying activities create significant health, environmental and visual impacts which require to be addressed through the implementation of some rehabilitation practices. The process usually starts and proceeds using key steps following a decision to reach a targeted desired final ecosystem. As the processes progresses however, the most important factor considered to affect ecosystem integrity, is soil quality which is determined using the physicochemical and biological characteristics for ecosystem structure and function. Literature has indicated that most past ecosystem rehabilitation research has been using inaccurate, time consuming and costly methods. This study evaluated the changes among selected soil physicochemical properties and enzyme activity as measures of the quarry rehabilitation status. The study analyzed the soil bulk density (BD), organic matter (OM), pH, nitrates (NO₃^-_-N), nitrites (NO₂^--N), ammonium ion (NH₄⁺), phosphates (PO₄^3-) and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the Tezo rehabilitated quarry sites in Kilifi County, Kenya. In addition, amylase, cellulase and protease enzyme activities were also evaluated. Soil samples were collected from early (< 10 years), intermediate (11 – 20 years) and mature (> 20 years) rehabilitation plots. Undisturbed virgin plots and abandoned plots which were recovering naturally represented the control plots. Findings showed that soil bulk density was significantly different (P ˂ .0001) and was highest among the intermediate and early plots while the mature plots had the lowest BD values. Relative to soil organic matter, the study results showed that BD decreased as OM increased among all the plots. Additionally, soil OM revealed significant difference (P ˂ .0001) among all plots while reporting a general increase with rehabilitation stages. All the selected soil chemical parameters revealed significant differences (P ˂ .0001) across all rehabilitation stages. Both nitrates and nitrites ions were highest within intermediate plot but on the contrast, nitrates were lowest within early plots while nitrites were lowest within the virgin plots. The highest ammonium ion levels were reported in mature plot which were twice that of the early plots while phosphate levels were however, highest among the natural sites but similarly lowest within the early plots. Virgin plots reported CEC levels that were about 2.5 times higher than the early sites. Soil pH measurements were within a narrow range of between 7.7 and 8.6 between the lowest and highest value. Except protease enzyme activity, which had significant differences (P ˂ .02) only among the naturally recovering plots, amylase and cellulase were significantly different across all plots at different rehabilitation stages. There were, in addition, strongly to moderately positive correlations between amylase and cellulase with organic matter, nitrates, nitrites ammonium and phosphate ions. Protease activity however, revealed negative correlations with organic matter. The study therefore identified, due to their consistent trend, OM, CEC, ammonium phosphate ions as well as amylase and cellulase activity as being the most reliable soil quality indicators that can be used to predict the rehabilitations status of quarries.

Keywords:
Rehabilitation physicochemical properties ecosystem integrity enzyme activity

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Rasti A, Ebrahimi N, Tabaei M, Adarmanabadi HR. Maximizing the Mining Exploitation Efficiency of a Quarry: A Case Study. Rud Geol Naft Zb. 2021 Nov 24; 36(5): 21–31.
[2]	Wang X, Wang B, Gu W, Li J. Effects of Carbon-Based Fertilizer on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties, Soil Enzyme Activity and Soil Microorganism of Maize in Northeast China. Agronomy. 2023 Mar 1; 13(3).
[3]	Pagouni C, Pavloudakis F, Kapageridis I, Yiannakou A. Transitional and Post-Mining Land Uses: A Global Review of Regulatory Frameworks, Decision-Making Criteria, and Methods. Land. 2024 Jul 13; 13(7): 1051.
[4]	Ruiz-Jaén MC, Aide TM. Vegetation structure, species diversity, and ecosystem processes as measures of restoration success. For Ecol Manage. 2005; 218(1–3): 159–73.
[5]	Heneghan L, Miller SP, Baer S, Callaham MA, Montgomery J, Pavao-Zuckerman M, et al. Integrating soil ecological knowledge into restoration management. Restor Ecol. 2008; 16(4): 608–17.
[6]	Gilardelli F, Sgorbati S, Citterio S, Gentili R. Restoring Limestone Quarries: Hayseed, Commercial Seed Mixture or Spontaneous Succession? L Degrad Dev. 2016; 27(2): 316–24.
[7]	Ruiz-Jaen MC, Aide TM. Restoration success: How is it being measured? Restor Ecol. 2005; 13(3): 569–77.
[8]	Kravchenko YS, Zhang X, Song C, Hu W, Yarosh A V., Voitsekhivska O V. Seasonal Dynamics of Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in Biomasses of Microorganisms in Arable Mollisols Affected by Different Tillage Systems. Land. 2022 Apr 1; 11(4).
[9]	Wbcsd. Cement Sustainability Initiative ( CSI ) Guidelines on Quarry Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation. 2011; (December).
[10]	Zhang H, Chu LM. Early development of soil microbial communities on rehabilitated quarries. Restor Ecol. 2013; 21(4): 490–7.
[11]	Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M. Evaluating ecological restoration success: A review of the literature. Restor Ecol. 2013; 21(5): 537–43.
[12]	Okalebo JR, Gathua KW, Paul LW. Laboratory Methods of Soil and Plant Analysis: A Working Manual The Second Edition. SACRED Africa, Kenya Any. 2002; SECOND EDI: 1–131.
[13]	Pal S. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2013.
[14]	Rokupr Agricultural Research Center & Japan International Cooperation Agency. Soil Analysis Manual. Japan Int Coop Agency. 2014; (June): 1–107.
[15]	Pittarello M, Ferro ND, Chiarini F, Morari F, Carletti P. Influence of tillage and crop rotations in organic and conventional farming systems on soil organic matter, bulk density and enzymatic activities in a short-term field experiment. Agronomy. 2021 Apr 1; 11(4).
[16]	Gajda AM, Czyz EA, Dexter AR. Effects of long-term use of different farming systems on some physical, chemical and microbiological parameters of soil quality. Int Agrophysics. 2016 Apr 1; 30(2): 165–72.
[17]	Nabayi A, Girei AH, Garba Hayatu N, Garba J, Santuraki HA. Effect of Soil Organic Matter (SOM) Content on True Particle Density and other Physical Properties of Sudan Savannah Entisols [Internet]. 2021. Available from: www.bsss.bg
[18]	Enang RK, Yerima BPK, Kome GK, Van Ranst E. Effects of Forest Clearance and Cultivation on Bulk Density Variations and Relationships with Texture and Organic Matter in Tephra Soils of Mount Kupe (Cameroon). Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2017 Oct 28; 48(19): 2231–45.
[19]	Sudhakaran M, Ramamoorthy D, Savitha V, Kirubakaran N. Soil Enzyme Activities and Their Relationship with Soil Physico-Chemical Properties and Oxide Minerals in Coastal Agroecosystem of Puducherry. Geomicrobiol J. 2019 May 28; 36(5): 452–9.
[20]	Qu B, Liu Y, Sun X, Li S, Wang X, Xiong K, et al. Effect of various mulches on soil physico—Chemical properties and tree growth (Sophora japonica) in urban tree pits. PLoS One. 2019 Feb 1; 14(2).
[21]	Ding W, Wang F, Jin K. Effects of Rainfall and Plant Characteristics on the Spatiotemporal Variation of Soil Moisture in a Black Locust Plantation (Robinia pseudoacacia) on the Chinese Loess Plateau. Water (Switzerland). 2023 May 1; 15(10).
[22]	You F, Dalal RC, Huang L. Biochemical properties of highly mineralised and infertile soil modified by acacia and spinifex plants in northwest Queensland, Australia. Soil Res. 2016; 54(3): 265–75.
[23]	Brown GMC, Grant CD. Nutrient status of pasture ecosystems established on rehabilitated overburden and topsoil sites in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Aust J Soil Res. 2000; 38(2): 479–91.
[24]	Xu C, Xiang W, Gou M, Chen L, Lei P, Fang X, et al. Effects of forest restoration on soil carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and their stoichiometry in Hunan, Southern China. Sustain. 2018 Jun 4; 10(6).
[25]	Liu D, Huang Y, Yan H, Jiang Y, Zhao T, An S. Dynamics of soil nitrogen fractions and their relationship with soil microbial communities in two forest species of northern China. PLoS One. 2018 May 1; 13(5).
[26]	Wang Y, Liu L, Yue F, Li D. Dynamics of carbon and nitrogen storage in two typical plantation ecosystems of different stand ages on the Loess Plateau of China. PeerJ. 2019; 2019(9).
[27]	Menyailo O V., Sobachkin RS, Makarov MI, Cheng CH. Tree Species and Stand Density: The Effects on Soil Organic Matter Contents, Decomposability and Susceptibility to Microbial Priming. Forests. 2022 Feb 1; 13(2).
[28]	Harada Y, Inoko A. Cation exchange properties of soil organic matter. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 1975; 21(4): 361–9.
[29]	Solly EF, Weber V, Zimmermann S, Walthert L, Hagedorn F, Schmidt MWI. A Critical Evaluation of the Relationship Between the Effective Cation Exchange Capacity and Soil Organic Carbon Content in Swiss Forest Soils. Front For Glob Chang. 2020 Sep 4; 3.
[30]	An J, Chang H, Han SH, Khamzina A, Son Y. Changes in basic soil properties and enzyme activities along an afforestation series on the dry Aral Sea Bed, Kazakhstan. Forest Sci Technol. 2020 Jan 2; 16(1): 26–31.
[31]	De Melo WJ, Marques MO, Ferreira ME, De Melo GMP, De Melo VP. Chemical properties and enzyme activity in a sewage sludge-treated soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2002; 33(9–10): 1643–59.
[32]	Dignam BEA, O’Callaghan M, Condron LM, Kowalchuk GA, Van Nostrand JD, Zhou J, et al. Effect of land use and soil organic matter quality on the structure and function of microbial communities in pastoral soils: Implications for disease suppression. PLoS One. 2018 May 1; 13(5).
[33]	Schnecker J, Wild B, Hofhansl F, Alves RJE, Bárta J, Čapek P, et al. Effects of soil organic matter properties and microbial community composition on enzyme activities in cryoturbated arctic soils. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 4; 9(4).
[34]	Zhao Q, Tang J, Li Z, Yang W, Duan Y. The influence of soil physico-chemical properties and enzyme activities on soil quality of saline-alkali agroecosystems in western Jilin Province, China. Sustain. 2018 May 11; 10(5).
[35]	Fan L, Tarin MWK, Zhang Y, Han Y, Rong J, Cai X, et al. Patterns of soil microorganisms and enzymatic activities of various forest types in coastal sandy land. Glob Ecol Conserv [Internet]. 2021; 28: e01625.
[36]	Wang P, Xie W, Ding L, Zhuo Y, Gao Y, Li J, et al. Effects of Maize–Crop Rotation on Soil Physicochemical Properties, Enzyme Activities, Microbial Biomass and Microbial Community Structure in Southwest China. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(11).
[37]	An J, Chang H, Han SH, Khamzina A, Son Y, Zhang LL, et al. Improving the Key Enzyme Activity, Conversion Intensity, and Nitrogen Supply Capacity of Soil through Optimization of Long-Term Oilseed Flax Rotation Planting Patterns in Dry Areas of the Loess Plateau of China. Agronomy [Internet]. 2024; 14(2): 1–13.
[38]	Wu J, Wang H, Li G, Chen N. Effects of nitrogen deposition on soil nitrogen fractions and enzyme activities in wet meadow of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1): 1–12.