Laserfiche WebLink
~ 81 <br />' samples were collected in August in an attempt to explain biomass <br />• differences measured between the various soil-shale profiees. Composite <br />samoles were taken from each replicate of the five panels that contain <br /> surface soil and sent to the Colorado State University Soil Test <br /> Laboratory for analysis of total nitrogen, nitrate, and ammonium <br /> concentration. The results (Appendix B, Table 1) showed that the biomass <br /> differences between soil-shale profiles could not adequately be explained <br /> <br /> by differences in nitrogen availability to the plants. <br /> Soil and shale samples were taken at various depths from the <br /> artificial profiles in "Jovember 1978 (Appendix B, Table 2). This <br /> sampling is a part of our monitoring program to determine chemical and <br /> physical changes that occur in the soil-shale profiles through time. <br /> Subsurface sail moisture readings in the artificial soil-shale <br /> profiles were taken biweekly throughout the growing season using a <br /> nuclear probe. Readings were taken at each of the study's 18 stations <br />_ (one station per replicate per panel) at depths of 15, 30, and 45 cm. <br /> The results of this work show several interesting trends (Appendix B, <br /> Figures 1 and 2). <br /> Higher subsurface moisture readings were maintained in the retorted <br /> shale material than in the soil material as the growing season progressed. <br /> At the end of the growing season moisture readings in the shale (all <br /> readings in Panel 1 and the 30 cm and 45 cm readings in Panel 2) were <br /> much higher than in the soil material of the other profiles. Moisture <br /> readings in the soil material were lower because the water was being used <br /> by the actively growino plants. Since little vegetation growth took place <br /> in the shale the ~~later was not used and, therefore, accumulated. <br />