Recovery of Productivity of Ontario Soils Disturbed by an Oil Pipeline Installation

Culley, J. L. B.; Dow, B. K.; Presant, E. W.; MacLean, Alair

doi:10.4141/cjss82-031

Cited by 24 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3) However, they were within normal ranges for similar soils under agricultural production in the area. These results are in agreement with those of Culley et al (1982) showing that RoW surface soils have higher D b than those of adjacent undisturbed soils. Naeth et al (1987) also reported that pipeline construction compacted the surface soils of solonetzic rangelands while De Jong and Button (1973) found that the D b of trench areas was not different from or slightly higher than those of undisturbed agricultural soils.…”

Section: Physical Propertiessupporting

confidence: 83%

“…De Jong and Button (1973) reported that pipeline burial increased the permeability of solonetzic soils and slightly reduced those of other soils. Culley et al (1982) also observed decreased saturated hydraulic conductivity of medium-and fine-textured soils across pipeline RoWs. Reduction in IR of RoW areas was considered to be due to loss of macropores and disruption of pore continuity during land clearing and pipeline installation.…”

Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Culley et al (1982) also reported that soil strength (as measured by maximum pressure to push a cone penetrometer to 15 cm depth) was increased by pipeline construction, the trench area being more adversely affected than the road area. In our study, the PR of the road area increased almost linearly with depth to approximately 3.6 MPa at 21 cm depth, while that of the trench area increased rapidly to 2.8 MPa at 9 cm depth and remained at approximately that level to 49 cm depth.…”

Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pipeline installation has resulted in changes in soil properties such as: (i) decreases in soil organic matter concentration due to accelerated decomposition and/or dilution of topsoil with subsoil, (ii) increased bulk density, (iii) reduced porosity and hydraulic conductivity and (iv) increased electrical conductivity (i.e., salt content) and pH of the surface soil (Culley et al 1982;Naeth et al 1987;Landsburg 1989). However, it appears that manifestations of some of these effects depend very much on the soil in which the installation takes place.…”

Section: Mots Clés: Propriétés Chimiques Cations éChangeables Sulfamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Recovery of chemical and physical properties of boreal plain soils impacted by pipeline burial

Soon¹,

Arshad²,

Rice³

et al. 2000

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soon, Y. K., Arshad, M. A., Rice, W. A. and Mills, P. 2000. Recovery of chemical and physical properties of boreal plain soils impacted by pipeline burial. Can. J. Soil Sci. 80: [489][490][491][492][493][494][495][496][497]. Pipeline construction on the Canadian boreal plain occurs on woodland and/or agricultural fields, but soil recovery from its impact is not well documented. Therefore, we quantified changes over 3 yr (1992 to 1994) in the chemical properties of two Grey soils and the physical properties of a Grey soil that were subjected to pipeline burial and cropped to barley. The pipeline right-of-way (RoW) was divided into three zones: a road (or work) area used for vehicular traffic, a trench area for burying pipeline, and a pile (or spoil) area where soil was stockpiled during excavation. Pipeline construction resulted in mixing of subsoil material with topsoil, and the chemical properties most affected were those that varied most with depth. The pH, electrical conductivity, soluble sulphate, and exchangeable Ca and Na were increased in the surface 20 cm of soil, particularly the road and trench areas. The affected properties moderated 2 or 3 yr after pipeline construction as soluble components were dissolved or dispersed and translocated back to lower soil depths. The RoW zones had increased soil strength and compaction, and reduced water retention and infiltration rates. However, the deterioration in soil physical condition was similar across the RoW zones, indicating that it was due mainly to land clearing, a requirement to convert woodland to agricultural land. Improvement in bulk density, and water infiltration and retention in 1993 and 1994 indicated that the RoW was undergoing rehabilitation with time as a result of natural processes and annual cropping. Les oléoducs et gazoducs installés dans la plaine boréale canadienne traversent les forêts aussi bien que les terres agricoles, mais on ne dispose que de peu de données concrètes sur leurs effets. Nous avons quantifié pendant 3 ans (1992 à 1997) les modifications affectant les propriétés chimiques d'un Luvisol gris et d'un Solod gris foncé et les propriétés physiques du Solod, perturbés par la mise en place d'un oléoduc, puis semés en orge. L'emprise de l'oléoduc était divisée en trois zones : une bande de circulation pour les matériels de terrassement et de pose, l'emplacement de la tranchée d'enterrage du pipeline et la bande où avait été empilée la terre d'excavation. La pose de l'oléoduc provoquait le mélange du sous-sol avec la terre de surface et les propriétés chimiques les plus touchées étaient celles qui varient le plus en fonction de la profondeur. Le pH, la conductivité électrique et les teneurs en sulfates solubles et en Ca et Na échange-ables étaient plus élevées dans les 20 cm supérieurs du sol en particulier dans la bande de passage des machines et dans celle de la tranchée. Ces modifications s'atténuaient au bout de deux ou trois ans, les composants solubles étant dissous ou dispersés et retournés aux couches profondes du sol. Le...

show abstract

Section: Physical Propertiessupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Physical Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mots Clés: Propriétés Chimiques Cations éChangeables Sulfamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recovery of chemical and physical properties of boreal plain soils impacted by pipeline burial

Soon¹,

Arshad²,

Rice³

et al. 2000

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of pipeline construction on crop yields have been mixed: wheat yields on Chernozemic soils were not affected, but yields were improved on Solonetzic soils (De Jong and Button 1973). Culley et al (1982) reported that in Ontario, soybean and corn yields were lower on pipeline rights-of-way compared to adjacent undisturbed fields. In Quebec, Nielsen et al (1990) found that corn yield responses were mixed depending on the soil type and whether pipeline installation was done in autumn or winter.…”

Section: Mots Clésmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of pipeline installation on crop yield and some biological properties of boreal soils

Soon

Rice²,

Arshad³

et al. 2000

Can. J. Soil. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pipeline construction on the Grey soils of the Canadian boreal plains, which have a thin Ah horizon, could have considerable impact on their properties and productivity. This study was conducted because the effects of pipeline installation on crop yield and biological properties of these soils have not been well-documented. Soil was sampled from a Grey Luvisol and a Dark Grey Solod prior to pipeline construction in 1991, and in each of the following 3 yr. The right-of-way (RoW) was divided into three zones: a road (or work) area used for vehicular traffic; a trench where the pipeline was buried; and a pile (or spoil) area where soil was stockpiled during construction. The RoW was cropped to barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in 1992 through 1994. Barley yield was low in 1992 (830–1120 kg ha−1), and near average (2050–3290 kg ha−1) in 1993 and 1994. Except for low shoot P concentration (1.1–1.3 mg g−1) in 1992, macronutrient concentrations (N, P and K) in barley tissues were within normal ranges. Soil organic carbon was reduced by 12–28% in all RoW areas in 1993 and 1994. Soil total N was reduced by 29–49% in all RoWs in 1992 and increased slightly from those levels in 1993 and 1994. Pipeline construction affected soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in the three RoW areas differently, and the effect was not consistent from year to year. However, the average level of MBC was not adversely impacted. In 1994, soil phosphatase activity in the RoW zones tended to be lower as compared to pre-pipeline installation, particularly in the pile area of the Dark Grey Solod. It is concluded that although some soil biological properties were degraded by pipeline construction, and barley yield was reduced in 1992, crop production in the following 2 yr was not significantly affected. Key words: Barley, carbon, microbial biomass, nitrogen, phosphatase, pipeline

show abstract

Pipeline installation effects on soils and plants: A review and quantitative synthesis

Brehm

Culman

2022

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oil and natural gas pipelines are essential to the transport of energy materials, but construction of these pipelines commonly causes disturbance to ecosystems. Due to variability in pipeline installation practices and environments, drawing consensus about how pipeline installations typically impact ecosystems is challenging. Here, we performed a systematic literature review to compile studies that have evaluated impacts of pipeline installation on soil and plant properties. We found 34 studies reporting pipeline impacts on agricultural and natural ecosystems from eight countries. We quantified and synthesized the magnitude of responses and found that the majority of studies found pipeline installation resulted in soil degradation via increased compaction and soil mixing, paired with decreased aggregate stability and soil carbon (C) relative to adjacent, undisturbed areas. Averaged across all studies, aggregate stability decreased 44.8%, water infiltration was reduced 85.6%, and compaction via penetration resistance increased 40.9% over pipeline areas relative to nondisturbed adjacent areas. This soil degradation led to general declines in plant productivity, with 15 out of 25 studies documenting declines in crop yields (6.2-45.6%) and six out of nine studies reporting decreased biomass from natural ecosystems (1.7-56.8%). We conclude from our quantitative synthesis that pipeline installation typically results in degraded soil and vegetation resources, and this can persist for many years following installation.

show abstract

Recovery of Productivity of Ontario Soils Disturbed by an Oil Pipeline Installation

Cited by 24 publications

References 1 publication

Recovery of chemical and physical properties of boreal plain soils impacted by pipeline burial

Recovery of chemical and physical properties of boreal plain soils impacted by pipeline burial

Effect of pipeline installation on crop yield and some biological properties of boreal soils

Pipeline installation effects on soils and plants: A review and quantitative synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About