My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-01-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980005
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1980005
>
2009-01-30_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:43:16 PM
Creation date
2/13/2009 3:11:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
1/30/2009
Doc Name
Nomination for 2009 Excellence in Surface Coal Mining National Reclamation Award
From
Seneca Coal Company
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
SB1
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.
/
76
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
The growth data suggest that roto-cleared soil could have provided additional nutrients or other <br />benefits, perhaps mycorhizae, for tree growth. Weed growth appeared greater on roto-cleared <br />soil than dozer-cleared soil (data not shown). <br />IV. Fencing -Fencing is necessary to obtain an adequate stand of aspen, regardless of the sources <br />of the trees. The unfenced Yoast site had severe damage from ungulates, including breakage of <br />stems, browsing, and rubbing damage. Most trees at this site had some form of injury. Yet, <br />growth and survival of these trees was good, suggesting that the undisturbed soil presence of an <br />extensive parent root system is ideal for growth of aspen. Nevertheless, fencing of these trees is <br />recommended to produce an adequate stand of mature aspen. <br />CONCLUSIONS (2005-2006): <br />1. Growth and survival did not appear to be related to irrigation treatment, likely a consequence <br />of the high rainfall during the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons. <br />II. Best growth appeared to be on natural root segment sprouts on roto-cleared soil for the first <br />year. Transplanted trees grew well after the first year's transplant shock. <br />III. Transplanted sprouts showed considerable transplant injury their first year, regardless of <br />irrigation treatment in this relatively wet. Growth and survival was relatively low and diseases <br />were higher in transplant cutting plots compared to natural sprouts and potted plants. Recovery <br />of surviving transplant trees was good and growth was good the second year. <br />IV. Potted aspen from nursery stock planted on dozer-cleared soil grew well and had high <br />survival the first year. <br />V. Fencing is necessary to protect small aspen trees from browsing injury. <br />EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES/METHODOLOGIES FOR 2007 <br />Study Design: <br />Based on the important finding for 2005-2006 summarized above, several new questions <br />regarding aspen growth and survival on reclaimed lands arose, and follow-up research was <br />conducted using the same II-W Mine plots where the 2005-2006 study was conduced. Our <br />intention was to utilize the existing study design and sampling regime to collect third year <br />survival and growth data from trees sampled in 2005-2006. OSM funding was used for data <br />collection during 2007 and for data analysis and preparation of the final report. Details of <br />operation of the irrigation system, types of planted aspen studied and sampling procedures <br />remained as previously described. Deviations and additions to the original study design are <br />described below.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.