My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP07058
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP07058
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:37:21 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 11:31:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1982057
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
5/5/2006
Doc Name
2005 Annual Reclamation Report
From
Seneca Coal Company
To
DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
Annual Reclamation Report
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• of measurements depended on the time necessary for each measurement, so that <br />all measurements fall within the dawn-time window. Each day of measurements <br />included the full cycle of irrigation treatments. Size of sampled leaf was recorded as <br />length from tip to petiole (mm), and maximum width (mm). An empirical equation <br />was developed to relate width and length to actual leaf area. <br />Quality assurance/quality control procedures: Measurements were made and <br />recorded at intervals specked above. Field staff that conducted growth and pressure <br />measurements were trained on correct measuring protocols by R. Musselman, using <br />instrumentation and measurement tools provided by the project. Field staff were <br />instructed to contact R. Musselman by phone should questions arise regarding <br />sampling measurements or protocols. <br />Results <br />Although the study was primarily conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of <br />• supplemental irrigation on growth and survival of transplanted cuttings, several <br />conditions were actually examined: irrigation (four levels of watering), soil type <br />(fresh, stored, or undisturbed), plant type (transplanted rooted sprouts, natural <br />sprouts, potted plants) and fencing (fenced or not fenced). Since not all treatment <br />combinations existed and none of the treatments were replicated, statistical <br />analyses and inferences are limited. For example, differences in growth or survival <br />between Yoast, 2W fresh soil sprouts, and 2W irrigated treatments may be due to <br />differences in soil disturbance, genetic stock of aspen, transplant type, fencing, or <br />microclimatic differences between sites, treatments not independently replicated for <br />this study. This study is considered a case study relevant only for this one location. <br />Nevertheless, several observations are evident from the study that might be helpful <br />for future aspen management and to identify areas for additional research. <br />Irrigation treatment.• <br />Unfortunately for this experiment, rainfall was heavy during the study (Figure 2) and <br />• soil moisture was relatively high even in un-irrigated plots, as indicated by low soil <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.