Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.L.; methodology, J.W. and J.L.; software, J.W. and Y.R.; validation, J.W., Y.R. and H.G.; formal analysis, J.W.; investigation, J.W. and Y.R.; resources, J.L.; data curation, J.L. and Y.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.W. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, J.W., J.L., Y.R., H.G. and Y.Y.; visualization, J.W. and Y.R.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Study area map of the Nannihu molybdenum mine, Luanchuan County, Henan Province, China. (a) Regional location within China, with the mine marked by a star symbol; (b) Landsat true-color composite showing the mine footprint boundary (red outline) and the approximately 5 km buffer zone (dashed line) used for stable-vegetation reference pixel selection; (c) high-resolution satellite imagery (Esri WorldImagery, ∼1 m) of the mine area.
Figure 1.
Study area map of the Nannihu molybdenum mine, Luanchuan County, Henan Province, China. (a) Regional location within China, with the mine marked by a star symbol; (b) Landsat true-color composite showing the mine footprint boundary (red outline) and the approximately 5 km buffer zone (dashed line) used for stable-vegetation reference pixel selection; (c) high-resolution satellite imagery (Esri WorldImagery, ∼1 m) of the mine area.
Figure 2.
LandTrendr disturbance detection for the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2003–2024). (a) Spatial distribution of disturbance years; (b) spatial distribution of disturbance magnitude (ΔNBR); (c) histogram of disturbance years; (d) histogram of disturbance magnitude distribution.
Figure 2.
LandTrendr disturbance detection for the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2003–2024). (a) Spatial distribution of disturbance years; (b) spatial distribution of disturbance magnitude (ΔNBR); (c) histogram of disturbance years; (d) histogram of disturbance magnitude distribution.
Figure 3.
Annual mean (a) NDVI, (b) NBR, and (c) BSI by land-surface class at the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2003–2024). Lines are class means; shaded ribbons show ±0.5 SD. The dashed line at 2016 marks the active-mining/post-2016 phase boundary (LandTrendr). Stable surrounding vegetation serves as the spectral reference for RSRI.
Figure 3.
Annual mean (a) NDVI, (b) NBR, and (c) BSI by land-surface class at the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2003–2024). Lines are class means; shaded ribbons show ±0.5 SD. The dashed line at 2016 marks the active-mining/post-2016 phase boundary (LandTrendr). Stable surrounding vegetation serves as the spectral reference for RSRI.
Figure 4.
Five-epoch land-surface classification maps (four-class scheme) for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) 2003; (b) 2008; (c) 2013; (d) 2018; (e) 2024. C1: Active/Bare Mining; C2: Vegetated Surface; C3: Water/Tailings; C4: Other Non-Forest. Historical classifications are based on a model trained on 2024 samples and transferred to earlier epochs without independent validation at each epoch; these maps should therefore be interpreted as approximate contextual support rather than validated historical reconstructions.
Figure 4.
Five-epoch land-surface classification maps (four-class scheme) for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) 2003; (b) 2008; (c) 2013; (d) 2018; (e) 2024. C1: Active/Bare Mining; C2: Vegetated Surface; C3: Water/Tailings; C4: Other Non-Forest. Historical classifications are based on a model trained on 2024 samples and transferred to earlier epochs without independent validation at each epoch; these maps should therefore be interpreted as approximate contextual support rather than validated historical reconstructions.
Figure 5.
Zone-level annual spectral trajectories (2003–2024) with growing season climate covariates for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) Annual mean NDVI; (b) standardized growing-season precipitation anomaly (z-score) and growing-season precipitation (ERA5); (c) annual mean NBR. In all panels, lines show the zone-level mean and shaded ribbons the 95% confidence interval. Three surface zones are shown: Vegetated Dump Surface (revegetation treatment), Bare/Sparse Dump Surface (bare control), and Stable Surrounding Vegetation (reference). Phase 1 (pre-expansion), Phase 2 (active mining), and Phase 3 (post-2016) shading correspond to the periods identified by LandTrendr; dashed and dotted vertical lines mark 2016 and 2007, respectively.
Figure 5.
Zone-level annual spectral trajectories (2003–2024) with growing season climate covariates for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) Annual mean NDVI; (b) standardized growing-season precipitation anomaly (z-score) and growing-season precipitation (ERA5); (c) annual mean NBR. In all panels, lines show the zone-level mean and shaded ribbons the 95% confidence interval. Three surface zones are shown: Vegetated Dump Surface (revegetation treatment), Bare/Sparse Dump Surface (bare control), and Stable Surrounding Vegetation (reference). Phase 1 (pre-expansion), Phase 2 (active mining), and Phase 3 (post-2016) shading correspond to the periods identified by LandTrendr; dashed and dotted vertical lines mark 2016 and 2007, respectively.
Figure 6.
Recovery pathway typology and RSRI spatial patterns for the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2024). (a) Recovery pathway typology map (types I–V); (b) RSRI 2024 spatial distribution; (c) proportional area share by recovery type; (d) RSRI violin plots by merged typology. Dashed horizontal lines denote RSRI class breaks (0.35 and 0.65).
Figure 6.
Recovery pathway typology and RSRI spatial patterns for the Nannihu molybdenum mine (2024). (a) Recovery pathway typology map (types I–V); (b) RSRI 2024 spatial distribution; (c) proportional area share by recovery type; (d) RSRI violin plots by merged typology. Dashed horizontal lines denote RSRI class breaks (0.35 and 0.65).
Figure 7.
Integration of disturbance timing, land-surface state, and RSRI for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) Scatter plot: disturbance year (X-axis) × RSRI (Y-axis), colored by land-surface class, showing how earlier disturbance associates with higher RSRI values; (b) contingency heatmap of land-surface class and disturbance era versus RSRI category (low/mid/high); (c) area share (%) of each land-surface class in 2003, 2013 and 2024; bars are coloured by year (light-to-dark blue); (d) RSRI boxplots by merged recovery typology, showing the distribution of benchmark-relative spectral proximity within each pathway type; (e) disturbance year frequency histogram by land-surface class; (f) pixel count and proportional area summary by merged typology.
Figure 7.
Integration of disturbance timing, land-surface state, and RSRI for the Nannihu molybdenum mine. (a) Scatter plot: disturbance year (X-axis) × RSRI (Y-axis), colored by land-surface class, showing how earlier disturbance associates with higher RSRI values; (b) contingency heatmap of land-surface class and disturbance era versus RSRI category (low/mid/high); (c) area share (%) of each land-surface class in 2003, 2013 and 2024; bars are coloured by year (light-to-dark blue); (d) RSRI boxplots by merged recovery typology, showing the distribution of benchmark-relative spectral proximity within each pathway type; (e) disturbance year frequency histogram by land-surface class; (f) pixel count and proportional area summary by merged typology.
Figure 8.
Disturbance year versus RSRI 2024 scatter plot, colored by recovery pathway typology. Pixels with earlier disturbance tend to exhibit higher RSRI values, but pathway type substantially modulates this relationship, indicating that disturbance timing alone does not determine spectral recovery outcome.
Figure 8.
Disturbance year versus RSRI 2024 scatter plot, colored by recovery pathway typology. Pixels with earlier disturbance tend to exhibit higher RSRI values, but pathway type substantially modulates this relationship, indicating that disturbance timing alone does not determine spectral recovery outcome.
Figure 9.
XGBoost SHAP analysis for RSRI prediction. (a) SHAP beeswarm summary plot for the top-8 features, showing the magnitude and direction of each feature’s association with RSRI; (b) spatial block cross-validation performance (observed versus predicted RSRI, 5-fold out-of-fold, density-colored); (c–e) SHAP dependence plots for the three most important features: disturbance magnitude (ΔNBR), years since disturbance, and elevation. Points are colored by land-surface class (Excavation, Veg Dump, Bare Dump, Stable Veg; shared legend); in (e) the solid black line denotes the binned mean SHAP value across feature bins.
Figure 9.
XGBoost SHAP analysis for RSRI prediction. (a) SHAP beeswarm summary plot for the top-8 features, showing the magnitude and direction of each feature’s association with RSRI; (b) spatial block cross-validation performance (observed versus predicted RSRI, 5-fold out-of-fold, density-colored); (c–e) SHAP dependence plots for the three most important features: disturbance magnitude (ΔNBR), years since disturbance, and elevation. Points are colored by land-surface class (Excavation, Veg Dump, Bare Dump, Stable Veg; shared legend); in (e) the solid black line denotes the binned mean SHAP value across feature bins.
Figure 10.
Terrain associations with RSRI (contextual analysis). (a) RSRI versus elevation, colored by land-surface class; (b) RSRI versus slope, colored by land-surface class; (c) Random Forest feature importance for RSRI prediction using terrain variables; (d) mean RSRI by surface class and disturbance era, showing heterogeneity in spectral recovery across terrain-class combinations. Dashed horizontal lines in (a,b) denote the RSRI class breaks (0.35 and 0.65). Correlations were consistently weak (|r| < 0.12), indicating that RSRI captures mine-disturbance signals rather than natural topographic vegetation gradients.
Figure 10.
Terrain associations with RSRI (contextual analysis). (a) RSRI versus elevation, colored by land-surface class; (b) RSRI versus slope, colored by land-surface class; (c) Random Forest feature importance for RSRI prediction using terrain variables; (d) mean RSRI by surface class and disturbance era, showing heterogeneity in spectral recovery across terrain-class combinations. Dashed horizontal lines in (a,b) denote the RSRI class breaks (0.35 and 0.65). Correlations were consistently weak (|r| < 0.12), indicating that RSRI captures mine-disturbance signals rather than natural topographic vegetation gradients.
Table 1.
LandTrendr parameter settings and sensitivity analysis.
Table 1.
LandTrendr parameter settings and sensitivity analysis.
| Parameter | Value | Description |
|---|
| maxSegments | 4 | Maximum number of trajectory segments; disturbance year stable (±1 yr for >93% of pixels when varied between 4 and 8) |
| spikeThreshold | 0.9 | Threshold for removing spectral spikes prior to fitting |
| vertexCountOvershoot | 3 | Allowed vertex count overshoot for best-model selection |
| recoveryThreshold | 0.25 | Minimum spectral recovery fraction required for detection |
| bestModelProportion | 0.75 | Minimum proportion of best model fit for segment acceptance |
| pValueThreshold | 0.1 | Significance level for disturbance detection; ΔNBR magnitude varied by <5% when threshold ranged from 0.01 to 0.10 |
Table 2.
LandTrendr trajectory fit quality metrics (representative sample, n = 100 pixels).
Table 2.
LandTrendr trajectory fit quality metrics (representative sample, n = 100 pixels).
| Metric | Mean | SD | Range |
|---|
| RMSE | 0.042 | 0.018 | 0.012–0.097 |
| 0.84 | 0.09 | 0.61–0.96 |
| Number of vertices | 3.2 | 1.1 | 2–5 |
Table 3.
Classification accuracy for the 2024 epoch (5-fold stratified cross-validation).
Table 3.
Classification accuracy for the 2024 epoch (5-fold stratified cross-validation).
| Scheme | OA (%) | Macro F1 | C1 F1 | C2 F1 | C3 F1 | C4 F1 |
|---|
| Six-class (fine) | 69.3 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 0.68 |
| Four-class (coarse) | 75.8 | 0.72 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.69 | 0.70 |
Table 4.
RSRI sensitivity to the choice of reference target and to benchmark-pixel selection.
Table 4.
RSRI sensitivity to the choice of reference target and to benchmark-pixel selection.
|
Reference Target
|
Mean RSRI
| Pearson r vs. Adopted |
|---|
|
Stratified (adopted)
|
0.189
|
1.000
|
|
Global median
|
0.188
|
0.998
|
|
Global mean
|
0.193
|
0.998
|
|
Global p75
|
0.182
|
0.998
|
Table 5.
Top-10 five-epoch land-surface transitions by pixel count (four-class scheme). Counts are approximate and are provided as qualitative context only, because the historical classifications were not independently validated per epoch.
Table 5.
Top-10 five-epoch land-surface transitions by pixel count (four-class scheme). Counts are approximate and are provided as qualitative context only, because the historical classifications were not independently validated per epoch.
| Transition Path | Pixel Count | Fraction (%) |
|---|
| C1 → C2 | 1847 | 17.2 |
| C2 → C1 | 1623 | 15.1 |
| C2 (persistent) | 1412 | 13.1 |
| C1 (persistent) | 1098 | 10.2 |
| C1 → C1 → C2 | 876 | 8.1 |
| C2 → C1 → C2 | 654 | 6.1 |
| C1 → C4 | 521 | 4.8 |
| C4 → C2 | 489 | 4.5 |
| C2 → C4 | 468 | 4.4 |
| C3 (persistent) | 387 | 3.6 |
Table 6.
Per-epoch internal consistency of the 2024-trained classifier (agreement with the 2024 signature space; not historical classification accuracy).
Table 6.
Per-epoch internal consistency of the 2024-trained classifier (agreement with the 2024 signature space; not historical classification accuracy).
| Epoch |
Signature-Space Agreement (%)
|
Signature-Space Macro F1
|
|---|
| 2003 | 61.2 | 0.58 |
| 2008 | 64.5 | 0.61 |
| 2013 | 66.8 | 0.63 |
| 2018 | 68.1 | 0.64 |
| 2024 | 69.3 | 0.65 |
Table 7.
RSRI statistics by merged recovery typology (2024).
Table 7.
RSRI statistics by merged recovery typology (2024).
| Typology | Pixel Count | Mean RSRI | SD | Range |
|---|
| Combined Veg. Recovery (I+II) | 4493 (41.8%) | 0.309 | 0.143 | 0.028–0.740 |
| —Type I (closed) | 55 (0.5%) | 0.684 | 0.026 | 0.651–0.740 |
| —Type II (partial) | 4438 (41.3%) | 0.305 | 0.141 | 0.028–0.598 |
| Stabilized (type III) | 3038 (28.2%) | 0.085 | 0.067 | 0.005–0.306 |
| Persistent Disturbance (type IV) | 2686 (25.0%) | 0.093 | 0.119 | 0.001–0.523 |
| Non-Forest/Water (type V) | 539 (5.0%) | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Table 8.
Comparison of normalization schemes for the recovery index.
Table 8.
Comparison of normalization schemes for the recovery index.
| Variant | Bounded [0, 1] | Saturated/Out of Range | Discriminates Types |
|---|
| Gap-closure (adopted) | Yes | 0 | Yes |
| Percentile | Yes | ∼100% saturated at 0 | No |
| z-score | No | ∼100% outside [0, 1] | Partial |