Revegetation studies on oil shale related disturbances in Colorado

Redente, E. F.; Cook, C. Wayne

doi:10.2172/5113190

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Power et al (1981) found that 20 cm of topsoil was necessary for maximum production for all plant species used, but that crested wheatgrass and native grasses needed only 50 cm of subsoil (70 cm of soil), while alfalfa and spring wheat required 70 cm of subsoil (90 cm of soil) to achieve maximum production. Additional research supported that 90 cm of soil may be required (Power et al, 1976;Power et al, 1982;Redente et al, 1982a;Redente et al, 1982b Two other papers focused on the effects of four soil respread depths: 25, 50, 75, and 100 cm (Power et al, 1985;Merrill et al, 1985). Maximum productivity and root function were not achieved until 100 cm of soil was respread over spoil.…”

Section: Sodic Spoil (Sar > 20)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Respread depth has an effect on all four native grassland standards (diversity, seasonality, production and cover). Diversity is often higher at shallower soil respread depths (Bowen et al, 2005;Redente and Hargis, 1985;Redente et al, 1982a;Redente et al, 1982b;Redente et al, 1997;Stark and Redente, 1985;Schladweiler et al, 2005;Wick et al, 2005). This is because cool season grass species (C 3 ) have a competitive advantage over warm season grass species (C 4 ), forbs, and shrubs (Bowen et al, 2005;DePuit and Coenenberg, 1979;Redente et al, 1997).…”

Section: Land Use Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soil Respread Depths: Do We Know Enough to Implement Change?

Flath¹

2009

JASMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current North Dakota soil respread regulations are based on research conducted in the mid 1980's. Regulations include a buffer that was added to the respread depths suggested by research to account for the unknown behavior of reclaimed sites over time as spoil weathers and plant communities mature. These unknowns have since been largely addressed by long-term studies of reclaimed sites. Studies have also shown that season of growth (C 3 vs. C 4) and origin (native vs. introduced) do not change the response of perennial grasses to soil respread depth. Therefore, respread recommendations may now be based on the results of research that include introduced species, and possibly without the addition of a buffer. After a review of literature it appears that respread depths may be reduced. A reduction in soil respread depths would result in less soil salvaged, stockpiled and respread, thus reducing reclamation costs for the mine without negatively effecting reclamation success. However, before changes to respread requirements are made, we must be confident this will not have a negative impact on the revegetation success of a site or of its capability to support other land uses in the future. Therefore, before ND mines can put into practice the recommendations of past research, issues regarding the effects on annual cropland, woody species and the behavior of sodium in the reclaimed soil profile must be resolved.

show abstract

Section: Sodic Spoil (Sar > 20)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Land Use Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil Respread Depths: Do We Know Enough to Implement Change?

Flath¹

2009

JASMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Medin and Ferguson (1980) obtained 94 per cent survival of bitterbrush seedlings six years after seeding a local seed source. Redente (1974) and Taylor (1977) both reported excellent to good establishment from seeded antelope bitterbrush on surface disturbed sites in Colorado. Similarly, Sindelar et al (1973) had success with fall broadcast seeding of bitterbrush on untreated coal mine spoils in Montana (1Á44 seedlings m À2 the following July).…”

Section: Antelope Bitterbrushmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Long-term survival of these shrubs was 3Á2 and 6Á3 per cent after 10 years. Redente (1974) and Taylor (1977) both reported excellent to good establishment from seeded black chokecherry on surface disturbed sites in Colorado.…”

Section: Black Chokecherrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Biology and establishment of mountain shrubs on mining disturbances in the Rocky Mountains, USA

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Rocky Mountains of the western United States contain many economically important natural resources. Increasing development of these resources has lead to land degradation, which often requires restoration efforts. A common type of disturbance in this region is mineral extraction and these activities often occur in zones of vegetation dominated by shrubs. These mined lands have proven to be particularly challenging to restore to native shrub cover. Mountain shrubland species such as big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Saskatoon serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia), black chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.) are crucial species for wildlife in this region due to the seasonal dependence of many wildlife species on the mountain shrubland zones. The development of successful restoration techniques for these key shrub species is therefore important for the continued and sustainable utilization of natural resources in the Rocky Mountains.The purpose of this literature review is to provide a reference to land managers working on woody plant establishment on mining disturbances in mountain shrublands in the Rocky Mountains. This review covers the biology, ecology, and propagation of six shrub species that are of primary importance for meeting regulatory compliance in this region. Based upon this survey of the published literature, we conclude that successful establishment of these species has most often involved: (1) utilization of local shrub ecotypes, varieties or subspecies in reclamation efforts, (2) protection from browsing during the establishment phase, (3) strategies for avoiding herbaceous competition, and (4) providing a source of mutualistic soil organisms. Additional specific recommendations for each of these species are discussed.

show abstract