Clara Qualizza

LFH - Shallow Soil Salvage/Placement Study: 

LFH - Shallow Soil Salvage/Placement Study

LFH????: 

LFH???? Forest Floor organic materials in various stages of decomposition Litter = leaves, twigs etc Fibric = partially decomposed Humic= well decomposed- may be intermixed with mineral grains L F H

LFH-Shallow Soil: 

LFH-Shallow Soil Near surface (top 25 cm) organic and mineral layers are rich sources of native plant propagules (seeds, rhizomes, roots) LFH Ae AB

Slide4: 

Also a source of microbially active organic matter in varying stages of decay to contribute to and promote nutrient cycling

Objectives: 

Objectives to evaluate soil and plant community composition changes over time in LFH treated areas vs conventional reclamation to evaluate timing of materials placement on performance to provide a cost benefit analyses of the use of LFH materials to enhance species diversity and revegetation success relative to standard practice

Slide6: 

Methods: Material Salvage STRIPPING (1998) salvaged from an aspen dominated area which had been cleared as part of pre-mining operations soil stripped to an average of 7.8cm, then windrowed (included the forest LFH horizons and a portion of the underlying Ae horizon)

Slide7: 

Methods: Material Placement SUMMER PLACEMENT - August 1998 (LFH-S): Some of the windrowed material was immediately hauled and placed on Cell 18 toeberm on top of conventional reclamation material (peat and mineral reclamation horizons). The remainder of the material was left in stockpile.

Slide8: 

Methods: Material Placement WINTER PLACEMENT January 1999 The stockpile was placed the following winter : (LFH-W) Some was placed adjacent to the LFH-S treatment on cell 18 toeberm on top of conventional reclamation material (peat and mineral reclamation horizons). (O2) Some was placed on Cell 16-19 beach on top of the mineral reclamation horizon only.

Slide10: 

LFH-W-1 LFH-W-2 LFH-W-3 LFH-W-C 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 50m x 50m Sample Layout of Vegetation Assessment Plots 10m x 10 m 0.6 m2

Assessments: 

Assessments Soils (capability) Species list percent cover by species total # of each species Also % cover for bare ground litter animal feces surface stones

Analyses: 

Analyses T-tests for over secondary and control (no replicates) Analysis of Variance for summer winter and controls (replicates) species richness % veg cover final soil ratings Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community to determine community similarity using richness data used data from the long term Soil/Veg Monitoring Plots established by AMEC/CanAg + source area

Slide13: 

What we saw: 67 different species

Species of Concern : 

Species of Concern Balsalm poplar common blueberry red-osier dogwood saskatoon wild red raspberry dewberry purple peavine tall lungwort wild strawberry * and a sharp tailed grouse!

Results: Cover: 

Results: Cover Higher percent cover of grass species, woody species , other species and total cover in LFH treatments compared to controls

Results: Species Richness: 

Results: Species Richness Summer placed > winter placed > controls Sorensen’s Coefficient of Community shows that LFH treatments have more native species similar to natural areas (source and Soil and Veg plots) than the associated controls

Results: Over time: 

Results: Over time Significant increase in cover in all treatments increase in species richness over time in all treatments

Conclusions: 

Conclusions Specialized soil salvage and placement techniques for near surface soils: significantly accelerates the establishment of native species in reclaimed areas * in the first two years

Direction: 

Direction Continued monitoring of existing plots complete cost benefit analyses evaluate the use of islands/tailored placement

Thanks!: 

Thanks! Audrey Lanoue and Jacqueline Pollard Suncor Energy