My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP34971
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP34971
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:11:59 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 6:59:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
7/17/1996
Doc Name
MICROBIAL STATUS STUDY FINAL REPORT
Permit Index Doc Type
REVEG MONITORING 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.
/
13
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
1 <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />C~ <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />LJ <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />LJ <br />Microbial Status Study -Final Report <br />number of segments analyzed (15) to get a percentage of mycorrhizal colonization. There were <br />three samples taken for each species and area. <br />RESULTS <br />Results from the mycorrhizal fungal survey aze presented in Tables 1 and 2 and Figure I . Not <br />all sites were sampled but the ones that were aze considered under typical management schemes <br />for these respective areas at the Seneca 1[ Mine. The oaks transplanted in 94 were 33 percent <br />colonized (except for one group of samples). Those oaks transplanted in 95 were 67 percent <br />colonized (Table 1). <br />The results varied widely within the two endomycorrhizal associated species. Probably the most <br />notable observation made about the chokecherry and serviceberry was the decrease in <br />colonization observed between years 93 and 94 at the Ml site and for the chokecherry at the M2 <br />site (Table 2 and Figure 1). The other striking observation was the 60 percent colonization in <br />chokecherry at the M2 site and the general increase in colonization at the M2 site when <br />compazed to the other sites analyzed (Table 2 and Figure 1). <br />DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS <br />We did not sample from a1195 sites for feaz of disturbing what was essentially newly treated <br />soil. In addition the sites were experiencing some erosion and we felt we would compound this <br />problem by walking all over them. In retrospective after having analyzed the data 1 feel that <br />samples may need to be taken from the 95 M2 and M3 sites to compare against the 93 and 94 <br />samplings. <br />We attempted to sample the 93-M3 site but the conditions (snow cover, along with grass about <br />chest high) on this particular site made it extremely difficult to find any plants. The decrease in <br />ectomycorrhizal colonization with time as observed in the oaks can be due to a number of <br /> <br />f"' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.