Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Native Species for Reclaiming Sandy Soils
Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Native Species for Reclaiming Sandy Soils Jay Woosaree 2006 Ecological Issues Forum and Resource Access Technology Workshop Delta Lodge Kananaskis, AB October 10-11, 2006 Outline • Challenges • Plant development and revegetation in the sandy soils describing the project objectives, methodology and results • Natural recovery • Conclusions Challenges to Reclaiming Disturbed Sites in the Sandy Soils • Highly erodible soils, low nutrient status and low water holding capacity • Sandy soils can be difficult to reclaim and only specific native plant ecotypes may be able to thrive • Seed sourcing is a limiting factor in meeting reclamation and conservation goals (distance requirements Less than 330 km north or south and 160 km east and west Project’s Objectives 1. Management practices used to minimize disturbances 2. Test our ability to "jump start" natural successional processes and thereby accelerate recovery of both ecological structure and function on well site disturbances 3. Determine if the resemblance of native plant assemblages to the undisturbed native prairie (i.e. species diversity and composition of the reclamation seed mix) has an effect on recovery processes over time 4. To address the lack of commercially available local seeds Methodology Assist the recovery of an ecosystem based on these: • Similar diversity • Presence of indigenous species • Presence of functional groups for long-term stability of the plant community; and • Sustained productivity Self supporting system that is comparable to the area prior to disturbance Species Selection • Identify early colonizers species (their role in the ecosystem and when used in a reclamation seed mix, they can provide adequate cover and initiate a successional trajectory pathway). Species targeted included: Elymus canadensis, Agropyron subsecundum, Bromus anomalus, Bouteloua gracilis, Oryzopsis hymenoides,Sporobolus cryptandrus and various forbs • Ease of commercial production of these species Study Site: Ribstone Creek Ecological Area (near Edgerton Important wetland/riparian habitat Specialised plant community: Lichen, juniper and bearberry Seed Collection and Testing Seeding Seeding, using a zero-till Fabro plot seeder Designing Seed Mixes Industry Seed Mix 25% 25% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Prairie sand reed Indian rice grass Canadian wildrye Sheep fescue Slender wheatgrass Awned wheatgrass June grass Western porcupine grass Plains rough fescue Blue grama grass Note: 500 PLS/m2 used = 16 kg/ha Percent of Seed Mix Based on Pure Live Seeds/m2 (ARC*) 10% 5% 10% 10% 10% 10% 5% 10% 10% Blue grama Sand nut grass Sand grass Canada wildrye Indian rice grass Sand drop seed Purple oat grass Rocky Mt. fescue June grass *Alberta Research Council 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Yarrow Gaillardia Hairy golden aster Blue flax Lilac-flowered beardtongue Slender blue beardtongue White prairie clover Low golden rod Stiff golden rod Note: 500 PLS/m2 used = 10 kg/ha Parameters Measured Vegetation Parameters • Emergence • Species Cover • Species Richness • Species Density • Percent Litter • Above-Ground Biomass • Community Diversity Soil Parameters • Reaction (pH) • Salinity (EC) • Texture • Bulk Density • Organic Carbon • Organic Nitrogen • Extractable N, P, & K • Soil Respiration Results Provenance Testing Days to Seed Yield Harvest (kg/ha) Emergence Plant Number Plants Per Height of Metre (cm) Heads/m 101-1 6a 107a 45a 148a 178.2a Elymus 101-2 8a 104a 38a 148a 177.4a canadensis ‘North 1b Species Line/Variety - - (as of April 15) - - Dakota’ Agropyron subsecundum 102-1 4a ‘AEC 6a Hillcrest’ Bromus 79a 35a 118a 71a 17b 141a 100.9a 32.6a 103-1 9a 66 33 118a 92.5a anomalous ‘Tannas’ 1b - 1 118a 0.1a Oryzopsis 104-1 2a 77a 3 128a 1.4a ‘Nezpar’ 3a 87a 1 118a 0.4a 105-1 3b 34 39a 148 7.1a Bouteloua 105-2 4b 28 32.7a 148 2.3b gracilis 105-3 7ab 16.3 35.7a 148 1.5b ‘Bad River’ 12a 15 46.9a 148 0.7c hymenoides Percent Cover by Plant Group 90 80 3 8 4 70 32 % Cover 60 50 31 2 10 1 10 14 9 2 11 1 24 23 2 30 2 10 14 14 1 40 20 24 8 9 17 72 7 4 54 45 41 42 2004-T 2005 38 30 23 0 2002 2003 2003-T 2004 Seeded Native Grasses Seeded Native Forbs Other Native Forbs Weedy Species 2005-T 2006 2006-T Other Native Grasses Species Richness Number of Species 25 5 20 15 10 5 1 3 5 7 4 4 1 4 6 5 4 3 1 4 4 1 3 1 2 2 3 3 1 5 5 4 5 0 2002 2003 2003-T 2004 2004-T Seeded Native Grasses Seeded Native Forbs Other Native Forbs Weedy Species 2005 2005-T 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 5 2006 2006-T Other Native Grasses Biomass by Plant Group 8000 7000 Biomass (kg/ha) 1031 6000 58 0 2 1086 0 1726 5000 4000 798 3000 1371 2395 24 699 5948 5183 4670 2000 1000 3102 3071 2005-T 2006 2252 0 2004 2004-T 2005 Grasses Forbs 2006-T Weeds SRD benchmark data show a 15 year average forage yield of 1490 kg/ha (H. Loonen, 2004). Forb species alone contribute to 50 kg/ha. Litter amounts to 941 kg/ha Test Plot in Year 1, Following Seeding (2002) 2003 (Year 2) Inside test plot, 2005 (year 4) Variety of forbs growing under the grass canopy Average litter cover was 11% in 2003,12% in 2004 and 32.5% in 2005. Average bare ground showing decreased from 48% to 31% in 2004 and to 11% in 2005 Test Plots in 2006 (Year 5) “Hillbilly” Nodding brome grass Natural Recovery Year 3 (2004) Year 4 (2005) Conclusions Successful installation of a stand is ensured when proven, reliable plant varieties, developed through years of testing, are incorporated into reclamation seed mixes. The locally collected species continue to outperform the commercially available seed mix. Difference among the locally collected seeds and the check varieties may be due to genetics as the checks were from different regions Within the 5-year period, the reclaimed plant community does not closely resemble the undisturbed plant community (should remove the fence and let animals graze) • A low seeding rate seems preferable in facilitating the recruitment of other indigenous species into the revegetated area • Amendments such as the use of straw mulches increase stability of the soil and provide safe niches for the seed • Natural recovery can work on small-scale disturbances, but it may take a much longer time to reach the climax plant community • Choice of plant materials is important in balancing reclamation goals and biodiversity issues in a native plant community Reduced Impact to the Landscapes Thank You Financial Contributors: Alberta Environment Alberta Sustainable Resources Development Alberta Agricultural Research Institute Alberta Research Council Canadian Petroleum Producers Association Husky Energy Ltd Talisman Energy Ltd Prairie Seeds Inc. For Information contact: Jay Woosaree Native Plant Program Alberta Research Council Inc. Bag 4000 Vegreville, AB T9C 1T4 Tel: (780) 632-8209 email: [email protected]
