2.1 Sampling design

We designed the sampling effort to cover a broad range of mining contexts. We sampled top-layer stockpiled and undisturbed reference soil samples from seven mines with differing soil types, climates, vegetation assemblages, and commodity. At each of the seven mine sites, three plots were established in undisturbed native vegetation (hereafter referred to as “reference plots”) and four in topsoil stockpiles (i.e. salvaged natural topsoil stockpiled for later re-spreading) of varying age (ages range from 3 months to 29 years) in summer 2018/2019. Five 5 m × 5 m subplots were established at each reference and stockpile plot, with five replicate soil samples collected at random from the top 0–20 cm soil layer in each subplot using a 5 cm diameter soil auger. At the youngest stockpile at each mine, five additional samples were taken from the 50–70 cm depth, which correspond roughly to the top layer of the original soil before stockpiling. The five soil samples were bulked and homogenised to produce one composite sample per subplot. Sterile nitrile gloves were worn when collecting soils, sampling equipment was sterilised with a bleach solution between all samples, and gloves were changed between plots to prevent cross-contamination. Subsamples were taken from each composite sample and stored at −20 ^∘C until DNA could be extracted (see below), while the remainder of the composites were dried in an oven at 40 ^∘C for 48 h before being sieved (2 mm gauge). Subsamples of the dried, composite soil were reserved for chemical analysis, assessment of carbon dioxide production, and analyses of soil microbial community composition. In total, 280 soil samples were collected from the seven mine sites. (i.e. At each mine there were three reference plots, four stockpile plots, and one young stockpile plot. Each plot consisted of five subplots, and one composite sample was collected from each subplot.)

2.2 Conventional soil analyses

To provide comparison data for the 29 soil chemical, physical, and biological soil properties to be assessed using spectroscopic methods, soil organic carbon content (Walkley and Black, 1934), potassium and phosphorus content (Colwell, 1965), pH (in a 1:5 soil to 0.01 M CaCl₂ and H₂O), electrical conductivity, sulfur, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, boron, trace elements (DTPA; copper, zinc, manganese, iron), and exchangeable cations (calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, aluminium) were determined for all composite samples using analytical chemistry methods sensu (Rayment and Lyons, 2010). Soil particle size (percentage sand, silt, clay) and bulk density (BD) were also assessed for each soil sample (Rai et al., 2017). Microbial activity of each soil sample was assessed using the Solvita 1-day CO₂ test (Haney et al., 2008; Munoz-Rojas et al., 2016). The test was conducted as per the manufacturer’s instructions (2019 SOP; Woods End Laboratories Inc., 2018–2019); briefly, 30 cm³ of dried soil was re-wet with 9 mL of water and placed in a sealed container with a Solvita CO₂ probe for 24 h, after which a digital colour reader (for use with the CO₂ test; Solvita, Woods End Laboratories, USA) was used to measure the volume of carbon dioxide produced.

Soil microbial community composition was determined by extracting DNA from 250 mg of homogenised soil samples (DNeasy PowerSoil HTP 96 Kit; Qiagen, Germany). DNA quality and level of inhibition were checked through quantitative PCR (qPCR), with negative PCR controls included (Murray et al., 2015). Primer sets used targeted the V4 16S rRNA region for bacteria (Turner et al., 1999; Caporaso et al., 2011) and the Internal Transcribed Spacer 2 for fungi (Ihrmark et al., 2012; White et al., 1990). Single fusion sequencing (see the Supplement “DNA Sequencing and Bioinformatics Methodology”) was performed at the Trace and Environmental DNA laboratory, Curtin University (Bentley, WA) on the MiSeq platform (Illumina, USA) as per van der Heyde et al. (2021). Sequences were de-multiplexed and quality-filtered, and error rates were estimated and de-replicated to leave amplicon sequence variants. Taxonomy was assigned based on reference databases (SILVA (Quast et al., 2013) for bacteria and UNITE8.2 (Nilsson et al., 2019) for fungi). Alpha diversity and richness of fungal and bacterial taxa were calculated from sequence data using the Shannon index (Wagner et al., 2018).

The statistical distributions of electrical conductivity, organic C, total N, K (Colwell), B, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, exchangeable Mg and Na, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and CO₂ exhibited strong positive skews and were thus transformed using logarithms to approximate normal distributions prior to use in spectroscopic modelling.

2.3 Soil spectroscopy

For spectroscopic analysis, the ≤2 mm sieved composite subsamples were each mixed and then placed in a Petri dish. Diffuse reflectance spectra were recorded using five spectrometers with different spectral ranges, resolutions, dimensions, and costs (Table 2). We measured the soils following protocols described in Viscarra Rossel et al. (2016) (Appendix B). The spectrometers were switched on an hour before measurements, and the control software of each instrument was set up to record (and average) 30 readings per soil sample measurement and 50 readings per calibration measurement. Calibration was performed with a Halon white reference (Spectralon^®) and dark internal reference. The spectrometers were recalibrated every 10 measures. We performed the spectroscopic measurements of the soil samples in two separate rounds (i.e. in replicate), by the same analyst and under the same laboratory conditions.

Table 2Spectral range, resolution, price, weight, and dimensions of miniaturised and portable spectrometers used in this study.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

The reflectance (R) spectra of the soil samples recorded with each instrument were transformed to apparent absorbance using log${}_{\mathrm{10}}(\mathrm{1}/R)$ and interpolated to 10 nm intervals to attain a consistent wavelength interval. Since some of the miniaturised spectrometers measured narrow and specific spectral ranges, we combined spectrometers A_350−830 with B_1750−2150, A_350−830 with C_1450−2450, and A_350−830 with D_1300−2600 to cover more of the vis–NIR range.

2.4 Spectroscopic modelling

Given the large number of soil properties, spectrometers, and algorithms and the assessment of both spectrometer repeatability and model accuracy, the experiments became extremely complex and computationally intensive. To improve the computational efficiency of the study, we aggregated the data from the 280 subplots into 56 plots by averaging the spectra and soil properties (Fig. 2). Subplot samples were similar, and we assumed that aggregating them would not seriously affect the variability in the data and the modelling. Conclusions drawn from the results of the 56 plot data were compared to results from the 280 subplot data but using only the best spectrometers and algorithm (see below, Sect. 2.4.4 “Assessment on data from subplots”).

Figure 2Study design for data collection and spectroscopic modelling. Data collection describes the measurement of soil properties and collection of spectra. Assessment on plots shows the spectroscopic modelling for the assessment of algorithms and spectrometers. Assessment on subplots validates the modelling with the best algorithm and spectrometers on subplot data.

Download

3.1 Assessment of the algorithms on data from plots

PLSR, GPRP, Cubist, and GPRL consistently produced more accurate estimates (mean ρ_c of 0.74, 0.74, 0.71, and 0.69 respectively) of the soil physical, chemical, and biological properties and with less variability (narrower minimum, maximum intervals) between spectrometers than SVM, RF, and XGBoost (mean ρ_c of 0.51, 0.54, and 0.58 respectively) (Fig. 4).

Figure 4Assessment of the accuracy from different algorithms. The mean ρ_c (points) and range (lines) extend the minimum and maximum values of ρ_c from the five spectrometers and three combinations. The three shaded grey bands indicate the accuracy level, which we classified as poor (ρ_c<0.65), moderate ($\mathrm{0.65}\le {\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathrm{c}}<\mathrm{0.8}$), substantial ($\mathrm{0.8}\le {\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathrm{c}}<\mathrm{0.9}$), and near-perfect ($\mathrm{0.9}\le {\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathrm{c}}\le \mathrm{1.0}$).

Download

Of the soil physical properties, bulk density was most poorly estimated (ρ_c<0.65) (Fig. 4). All of the algorithms performed well for the rest of the physical properties (ρ_c≥0.65). The accuracy of the estimates of the biological properties varied. CO₂ flux with PLSR, Cubist, GPRL, and GPRP produced ρ_c values between 0.65–0.8 (Fig. 4). Estimates of fungal diversity and richness with these algorithms varied, and only PLSR and GPRP produced mean values of ρ_c in the range between 0.65–0.8. All algorithms poorly estimated bacterial richness and diversity (ρ_c<0.65), although the Cubist estimates were markedly better (Fig. 4). The algorithms inaccurately estimated the chemical properties P, Zn, and ammonium nitrogen (ρ_c<0.65). The chemical properties, pH_Ca, pH_W, organic C, K, B, Cu, Fe, exchangeable Ca, Mg, and K, were predicted with substantial accuracy (ρ_c≥0.8) by PLSR, Cubist, GPRP, and GPRL. The variability in the estimates of the exchangeable Ca, Mg, and Al was large compared to other chemical properties, arising from the performance of the different spectrometers (Fig. 4).

3.2 Assessment of spectrometers' accuracy on data from plots

In this section, we assess the different spectrometers and combinations, considering only the best algorithms: PLSR, Cubist, GPRL, and GPRP (see above and Fig. 4). Generally, combining visible and NIR spectrometers produced more accurate estimates of the soil's physical, biological, and chemical properties than only visible or NIR spectrometers (Fig. 5).The visible range spectrometer, A_350−830, accurately estimated soil texture (sand, silt, and clay), but it was the least accurate for estimating chemical properties. The NIR spectrometers estimated most of the soil physical, chemical, and biological properties with moderate or greater accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65). The B_1750−2150 spectrometer, with the narrowest spectral range, produced the least accurate estimates of the soil physical and biological properties (Fig. 5).

Figure 5Photographs of the miniaturised and portable spectrometers indicating their size (cm). The spectrometer names, spectral ranges, and combinations are colour-coded and correspond with colours of the symbols on the plots. Accuracy of the spectrometers and combinations. The discs show the mean ρ_c, and the range lines are the minimum and maximum values of ρ_c from the best four algorithms (PLSR, Cubist, GPRL, and GPRP). The grey bands indicate the level of accuracy (moderate, substantial, and near-perfect – see caption of Fig. 4).

Download

The A_350−830 spectrometer produced the best estimates of silt content, and its estimates of sand and clay were comparably accurate to those made using instruments that cover the NIR and vis–NIR ranges (Fig. 5). Estimates of sand and silt content using only the NIR range, with the B_1750−2150, C_1450−2450, and D_1300−2600 spectrometers, were the least accurate. Estimates of soil electrical conductivity with the NIR and vis–NIR ranges were similar ($\mathrm{0.8}\le {\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathrm{c}}<\mathrm{0.9}$, Fig. 5) and remarkably better than the visible range. The spectrometers that combine the visible and NIR ranges estimated the soil biological properties better. For instance, the combined $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ spectrometers produced the most accurate estimate of CO₂; $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+B_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2150}}$ and the portable E_350−2500 spectrometer produced better estimates of fungal richness and diversity, respectively (Fig. 5). Of the soil chemical properties that were estimated with at least moderate accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65), the NIR and vis–NIR range spectrometers, C_1450−2450, D_1300−2600, $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+B_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2150}}$, $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$, $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$, and E_350−2500, produced estimates with similar accuracy (Fig. 5), whereas the visible range spectrometer, A_350−830, produced inaccurate results.

3.3 Assessment of the spectrometers' repeatability on data from plots

For all of the soil physical, chemical, and biological properties, the E_350−2500 full-range vis–NIR portable spectrometer produced estimates that were generally the most repeatable (lowest mean Δρ_c; Fig. 6). The miniaturised NIR spectrometer (B_1750−2150, C_1450−2450, and D_1300−2600) and combined vis–NIR ($A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+B_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2150}}$, $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$, and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$) produced similar and repeatable estimates of the soil properties.

Due to the poor repeatability of the A_350−830 measurements (see Fig. 3), the estimates of the soil properties with the spectra from this instrument were the most uncertain, particularly the chemical properties (Fig. 6). For a number of properties that were not precisely estimated with the A_350−830 instrument (e.g. bulk density, S, and Exchangeable Na and Al), combining it with a NIR spectrometer reduced the precision of the estimates from the spectrometer combinations (larger mean Δρ_c). For the soil properties that could not be estimated well with any spectrometer (e.g. bacterial richness and diversity, P, Zn, and ammonium nitrogen with ρ_c<0.65), the precision of the estimates was also poor.

Figure 6Effect of the repeatability of the spectrometers on the spectroscopic modelling. Δρ_c represents the difference in ρ_c between the algorithms (with PSLR, Cubist, GPRL, and GPRP) of the replicates. The discs show the mean difference, and the lines represent the minimum and maximum of the difference. A small Δρ_c indicates good repeatability.

Download

3.4 Overall assessment of the spectrometers

Spectrometers that cover the visible and NIR ranges were the most accurate and stable as shown by the higher accuracy and accuracy range scores, respectively (Table 4). The $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2450}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ spectrometers were as accurate as the full-range portable E_350−2500 spectrometer. Spectrometers C_1450−2450 and E_350−2500 were the most repeatable, while A_350−830 was the least repeatable (Table 4). The precision of the vis–NIR combinations $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+B_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2150}}$, $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$, and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ was affected by the poor repeatability of A_350−830. Overall, the full-range vis–NIR spectrometer (E_350−2500) had the highest e score (Table 4), followed by NIR spectrometers with wider spectral ranges (C_1450−2450, D_1300−2600) and vis-NIR combinations ($A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$).

Table 4Overall assessment of the spectrometers and combinations. Columns show the accuracy and the stability (represented by the range of the accuracy) of the spectrometers when modelling with the different algorithms (PSLR, Cubist, GPRL, and GPRP) as well as the effect of the spectrometers' repeatability on the modelling and its stability. They correspond to the first, second, third, and fourth term in Eq. (2), respectively.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

For each soil property, we derived the performance score, e, for all the spectrometers and combinations. The evaluation statistics of the spectrometer or combination with the largest e are shown in Table 5. The miniaturised spectrometers and combinations estimated 24 of the 29 soil properties with moderate or better accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65), except for P, Zn, ammonium nitrogen, and bacterial properties. The inaccuracy of the soil property estimates, quantified with the RMSE, was largely due to imprecision (SDE) and not bias (ME).

The visible range spectrometer A_350−830 had the largest e for sand and silt, with ρ_c≥0.90 and $\mathrm{0.80}\le {\mathit{\rho }}_{\mathrm{c}}\le \mathrm{0.90}$, respectively (Table 5). The individual NIR spectrometers performed well on many chemical and some of the biological properties. The C_1450−2450 spectrometer alone predicted one soil physical property, six chemical properties, and one biological property with moderate or better accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65). Some soil properties (e.g. clay, electrical conductivity, pH_Ca, K, Mn, exchangeable Na, K, and Al, and fungal diversity) were accurately estimated when the visible spectrometer was combined with a NIR spectrometer, for instance, the combined $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ spectrometers.

Table 5Evaluation statistics for the miniaturised spectrometers and combinations showing the highest e score for individual soil properties.

Download Print Version | Download XLSX

3.5 Spectroscopic modelling with PLSR and 10-fold plot-out cross-validation on data from subplots

Compared to the other algorithms tested, PLSR generally produced more accurate estimates of the soil properties tested (see Fig. 4), so we used it for modelling the 280 data from the subplots (see Methods section, “Validation on data from subplots”). Since the A_350−830 and B_1750−2150 spectrometers generally produced the least accurate estimates (Fig. 5) and had the smallest e score (Table 4), we did not use them in this modelling. The 10-fold plot-out cross-validations of the soil properties from subplots (Fig. 7) were similar or slightly more conservative compared to those of the 10-fold cross-validation of the data from plots (Fig. 5), suggesting that our evaluation of the spectrometers is reliable.

Figure 7The 10-fold plot-out cross-validation using PLSR with data from subplots.

Download

The accuracy of the estimates with the combined $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ spectrometers was similar to the full-range portable E_350−2500 spectrometer and better than the combined $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+B_{\mathrm{1750}-\mathrm{2150}}$ spectrometer (Fig. 7). The C_1450−2450 and D_1300−2600 spectrometers produced estimates with similar accuracy, but their estimates were less accurate than those from the $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+C_{\mathrm{1450}-\mathrm{2450}}$ and $A_{\mathrm{350}-\mathrm{830}}+D_{\mathrm{1300}-\mathrm{2600}}$ spectrometers, respectively.

4.1 Mine site soil rehabilitation requires cost-effective soil property measurements

Mining is vital to economic development in many countries. In Australia, for example, mining and energy exports are forecast to be worth around AU 288 billion in 2020/21, and over 184 billion of this from WA alone (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2021). However, the economic benefits of mining come at an environmental cost, and the collective footprint of mining in Australia is expected to exceed 4000 km² by 2050 (EPA, 2014), and globally, it is currently 57 000 km² and has been increasing at an unparalleled rate in the last decade. There is little historical evidence of capacity to effectively restore land at this scale (EPA, 2013), and regulatory bodies have urged the mining industry to engage in restoration science (EPA, 2014).

To rehabilitate and restore biodiverse, resilient ecosystems post-mining, we must first measure and diagnose, then reinstate and monitor the health of the soils. However, a lack of rapid, quantitative methods for assessing and monitoring soil properties that are indicators of soil health may at least partially underpin the continuing failure to deliver effective and cost-efficient restoration outcomes following mining. In this context, our results are encouraging because they present an opportunity for establishing a science-based diagnostic capacity to rapidly and cost-effectively estimate soil properties that are key for diagnosing soil health.

4.2 Miniaturised visible and NIR spectrometers can estimate key soil health indicators

We used miniaturised spectrometers to estimate 29 soil physical, chemical, and biological soil properties. Amongst these, soil organic carbon, K, P, pH, EC, B, Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe, Ca, Mg, Na, Al, sand, silt, clay, soil respiration (CO₂ ), available N (ammonium and nitrate), and BD are tier 1 soil health indicators in routine soil testing programs (Karlen et al., 2019; Bünemann et al., 2018). Although less commonly included in soil health assessment frameworks, microbial community composition is an under-utilised yet valuable metric for soil health assessment (Fierer et al., 2021). Changes in soil microbial communities are associated with processes that are important for soil health, such as changes in P availability (Hermans et al., 2017), soil pH (Delgado-Baquerizo et al., 2018), labile organic carbon pools (Ramírez et al., 2020), and soil moisture levels (Isobe et al., 2020). Our aim was not to derive detailed interpretations of the soil health indicators or an overall soil health index or score. Instead, we tested 29 soil properties commonly used as key indicators of soil health and used the spectra from a range of miniaturised and portable spectrometers to model them. The spectroscopic models accurately estimated 24 out of 29 soil properties (Table 5). Therefore, the spectra from the miniaturised spectrometers can accurately estimate soil properties that are key indicators of soil health. These estimates can could then inform the assessment and diagnosis of soil health. These findings suggest using miniaturised spectrometers to develop a cost-effective soil health diagnostic capacity for mine site soil rehabilitation. In a future study, we might investigate the derivation of a soil health index based on the spectra or the estimated soil properties.

Some soil properties (bacterial richness and diversity, P, Zn, and ammonium nitrogen) could not be estimated well with any of the spectrometers or combinations (Fig. 5). Therefore, it might be necessary to investigate other methods to measure them. Although we could estimate 24 soil properties with moderate or greater accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65), the estimates are outcomes from empirical models that possess error (Table 5). However, the advantage of the spectroscopic method, compared to the more accurate conventional analytical measurements, is that spectroscopy is rapid and cost-effective (Li et al., 2022), allowing for many more (spatial and temporal) measurements, which on the whole might serve to better assess and monitor soil health. Another advantage of spectroscopy is that a single spectrum can be used to estimate many soil properties. These make soil spectroscopy well suited for large-scale soil rehabilitation where many data are needed but are too expensive and time-consuming to obtain using conventional soil analysis.

The accuracy of the estimates of electrical conductivity and most of the soil chemical properties from the A_350−830 spectrometer was markedly poorer than the NIR spectrometers (Fig. 5), indicating that the 350–830 nm range does not hold sufficient chemical information to produce suitable models for estimating those soil properties. The poor repeatability of the A_350−830 spectrometer’s measurements in the 350–500 nm range (Fig. 3) also affected the precision of the spectrometer combinations (reduced repeatability of the combinations in Table 4). With a more repeatable visible spectrometer, the spectrometer performance of the combined spectrometers would improve.

4.3 Soil assessment with the miniaturised spectrometers

Some studies have evaluated miniaturised NIR spectrometers for characterising soil properties (Tang et al., 2020; Ng et al., 2020; Sharififar et al., 2019) in agricultural and natural environments. However, our study presents a comprehensive assessment. We tested a diverse range of soil properties considered key indicators of soil health using many spectrometers (one visible, three NIR, three combinations, and a portable spectrometer) and seven statistical and machine learning algorithms; we evaluated the repeatability of the measurements and their effect on the models' estimates and the accuracy of the models. Our study also extends the application of miniaturise spectrometers in mine site soil rehabilitation.

How can the miniaturised spectrometers with coarser resolutions and narrower spectral ranges produce nearly as good or better results as the full-range, higher-resolution sensor? For different reasons. First, soil vis–NIR spectra are non-specific and highly collinear (Stenberg et al., 2010). Although the small spectrometers have restricted wavelength ranges, a well-selected spectral range can hold information on overtones and combination bands of important organic and mineral constituents that enable the development of accurate models. For example, spectrometer B_1750−2150, with a very narrow range, could estimate many soil properties with moderate or greater accuracy (ρ_c≥0.65, Fig. 5). Table 5 shows the spectrometers with varying spectral ranges that could adequately estimate each soil property. Second, absorptions due to soil constituents in the vis–NIR range are broad (Viscarra Rossel and Behrens, 2010), and coarse spectral resolutions, like those of the miniature spectrometers (Table 2), are unlikely to affect the modelling, compared to the portable vis–NIR spectrometer with a finer spectral resolution.

4.4 Miniaturised soil spectroscopy can support soil rehabilitation

The portability and affordability (see Table 2) of the miniaturised spectrometers enable the cost-effective acquisition of soil information at greater temporal and spatial resolutions than conventional laboratory-based methods. Although spectroscopy produces less precise measures of soil properties than conventional laboratory analyses, it enables many more rapid and cost-effective measurements at the appropriate spatial and temporal resolution for rehabilitation and ecological restoration. Practitioners can then effectively identify the need for early interventions to establish positive soil health trajectories. Spectroscopy could also facilitate the evaluation of soil degradation, more timely identification and remediation of ecologically hostile conditions, and more effective monitoring of the change in soil properties in response to restoration activities. An additional significance of the miniaturised visible and NIR spectrometers is that they are, even in combination, much cheaper than the full-range portable instrument (Table 2). Because they are cost-effective, compact, and lightweight, they are being used in many diverse applications (Giussani et al., 2022; Pu et al., 2021).

Together with other sensors and environmental data, development and further testing of the miniaturised visible and NIR spectrometers could provide the mining industry and restoration practitioners with a rapid and cost-efficient methodology for diagnosing, assessing, and monitoring soil health. The information gained would ensure that soil management, whether in rehabilitation and restoration, is underpinned by quantitative information for evidence-based decision-making. In addition, the ability to reliably assess a wide range of soil properties that are key indicators of soil health enables rapid identification of when intervention is required, which could help deliver significant economic and environmental outcomes.