ArticleScientific reports2026
Replacing soil with waste gangue for the ecological remediation of mining areas facilitated by plant-promoting microorganisms and porous materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Coal-mining byproducts like coal gangue (CG), green mudstone (GC), and oil shale (OS) pose significant risks to the ecological environment and social safety. In this study, waste gangue was treated in situ without supplementary soil addition. Moreover, the effects of plant growth substrates prepared by incorporating chicken manure (+), plant growth-promoting microorganisms (+M), and porous materials (+MM) on soil nutrients, plant growth, and microbial communities were investigated. Compared with untreated gangue, organic matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, available nitrogen, and available phosphorus in the CG + MM, OS + MM, and GC + MM groups increased by 170%, 14%, 93%, 174%, 1951%; 51%, 15%, 262%, 147%, 480%; and 230%, 23%, 85%, 78%, 1,186%, respectively. Regarding plant growth, CG had no significant effect on Lolium growth, whereas GC and OS drastically decreased Lolium biomass. However, the addition of exogenous substances promoted Lolium growth. Microbial community network analysis confirmed the presence of Bdellovibrio, Halomonas, Nocardioides, Sphingobacterium, Streptomyces, and WD2101 soil groups in the CG group; Bdellovibrio, Chloroplast, Lysobacter, Methylophaga, and WD2101 soil groups in the GC group; and Antarcticibacterium, Chloroplast, Methylophaga, Paracoccus, Pontibacter, and Rhodonellum in the OS group. All microbes played key roles in maintaining the microbial community structure. These findings provide novel insights into the ecological restoration of gangue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.