Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Impacts of Industrial Disturbances on Plant Communities in the Native Mixedgrass Prairies of Alberta
Rajat Goutam P.Eng., BIT; Dr. Edward Bork PhD
1
2
1. Project Background 2. Study & Findings
• Access Mat Study - Impacts of Access Mat Application • Tower Study - A Comparison of Two Different Powerline
Construction Methods
3. Significance of Findings 4. Next Steps5. Questions
AGENDA
3
Study Background – Significance
3
“Prairies are among the most altered and least protected habitat globally” (Hickmann et al. 2013)
4
Study Background
• Between 2014-2015 ATCO Electric constructed the Eastern Alberta Transmission Line (EATL) across SE Alberta
• 500 kV DC line, nearly 500 km in length from Gibbons-Redwater area ending near the town of Brooks
• Section of line tranverses the University of Alberta’s Mattheis Research Ranch
5
Study Background - Location and Climate
Study Site
Location:University of Alberta’s Mattheis Research Ranch DryMixedgrass PrairieSoil Type:Brown Chernozemic Climate: Continentalclimate354 mm average yearlyprecipitation
7
Study Background
• What sparked the need for this study?
• After mat removal unexpected impacts were noted • Vegetation
• Moisture
• Common industry practice to use the mats and endorsed by regulators• Alberta Energy Regulator and Alberta Environment and Parks
• Limited understanding and a lack of published studies documenting the efficacy of access matting
7
8
Study Background
8
• A significant footprint is created when matting for access• Substantial cost and effort associated with cleaning, hauling,
placing and maintaining mats.
9
The Study – The Application of Access Mats
• 2 Studies
• “Access Mat Study” • Evaluating the specific impact of mats in
mitigating heavy equipment traffic when used in different seasons and durations in a controlled field trial
• “Tower Study”• Assessing grassland recovery at an operation
field scale following different high voltage transmission line construction methods.
11
Impacts of Access Mat Application
11
The main question that arises is whether (and if so, when and how) mats should be used to optimize grassland conservation during industrial activities?
14
Access Mat Study – Experimental Design
14
• Each treatment conducted with and without matting
• Control not matted and had no traffic
15
Access Mat Study – PR & IR
15
• Soil Baseline – Loam sites higher in pH, salinity and soil organic matter compared to sandy loam sites
• No change to soil baseline from treatment application(s)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Co
ntr
ol
Earl
y 6
Earl
y 1
2
Late
6
Late
12
All
24
Co
ntr
ol
Earl
y 6
Earl
y 1
2
Late
6
Late
12
All
24
Loam Sandy Loam
Pe
ne
trat
ion
Re
sist
ance
(Lo
g sc
ale
)
Ecosite x Treatment
Penetration Resistence End of 2016
Mat +Traffic
16
Access Mat Study – Soil Moisture and Bulk Density
16
• Soil moisture increase noted under mat application
ABAB
A
AB
B B
C CC C C
C
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Control EARLY 6 EARLY12
LATE 6 LATE 12 ALL 24 Control EARLY 6 EARLY12
LATE 6 LATE 12 ALL 24
L SL
Soil
Mo
istu
re (
Log
Scal
e)
Ecosite x Treatment
Soil Moisture End of 2016
18
Access Mat Study – Soil Nutrient Summary
• 2015
• N (NO3), P, S release increased under mats (10x, 3x, 1.5x) and N, P increased under direct traffic (1.7, 1.5x)
• No Significant change from control for NH4, K, Ca, Mg
• Fe, Mn, Zn increased under mats (4x, 2.75x, 1.5x) whereas only Mn increased for direct traffic (1.6x)
18
19
Access Mat Study – Soil Nutrient Summary Cont’d
• 2016 - Added late 12 and all 24 mat & traffic
• N increase for later 12 and all 24 but early 12 same as control
• P levels insignificant
• S had a release under all 24 mat plot but early 12 back to control levels
• Note: did see an release of micronutrients under mats in 2015 and 2016
• Some values had recovered to controls levels, indicating quick uptake of these released nutrients
19
20
Access Mat Study – Grass Biomass Results
20
• Average biomass distribution: • Grasses 66% loam, 74% sandy loam• Native forbs 21% loam and 16% sandy loam • Introduced forbs 13% loam and 10% sandy
26
Access Mat Summary
• Bulk Density did not change in almost all treatments
• Infiltration Rates showed decrease in pore sizes and connectivity, sandy loam soil more sensitive
• Penetration Resistance and Soil Moisture Content under matted treatments were equivalent to control levels one year after treatments applied
• Nutrients were released in larger amounts under matted treatment than under traffic only• Nutrients are quickly consumed within a year
27
Access Mat Summary
• Sandy loam sites were more sensitive to matted treatments, shown through reduced grass biomass in most treatments
• Native forbs were released in early and long mat placements• Introduced forbs increased under all treatments except for
the early and short mat placement• Reduced competition from grasses favor forbs
• Longer mat placements did show a change in cover composition
• It is important to consider not just what was lost but what remains, the seedbank and budbank are still intact, soil aggregate structure has been mostly maintained, soil pores are reduced but still function at similar levels to controls
28
Tower Study - Comparison of Powerline Construction Methods
• Assessing grassland recovery at an operation field scale following different high voltage transmission line construction methods.
31
Tower Study – Experimental Design
• 2015 –
• Cage placement
• Soil Sampling (texture, bulk density, pH, salinity, macronutrients)
• Soil moisture
• Vegetation sampling (biomass, cover)
31
33
Tower Study – Experimental Design
• 2016 Sampling (part 1)
• PRS™ probes incorporated
• Seedling count
• First cover assessment
33
• 2016 Sampling (part 2)• Soil Sampling• Soil moisture
and compaction • Vegetation
sampling • Lichen cover • Second cover
assessment
34
Tower Study Results – Biomass
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Disturbed Control Disturbed Control
Low Disturbance High Disturbance
Dry
Bio
mas
s (g
/m2
)
Treatments and Intensity type
Grass Native Forb Introduce Forb
ANS
B
35
Tower Study Results – Soil Properties
35
• High disturbance towers display greater increase in bulk density and decrease in organic matter
36
Significance of Study Findings
• What are the implications of the findings?
• What are the combined conclusions ?
37
Implications (Access Mat Study)
• Sandy Soils are more sensitive to access mat impacts
• Longer duration of access mat placement increases the risk of introduced forb biomass, had negative impacts on all plant biomass and resulted in changes to community composition
• Long placements require longer vegetation recovery times; placement on actively growing vegetation may impact vegetation recovery and resilience
37
38
Considerations (Access Mat Study)
• While direct heavy equipment traffic in this study primarily impacted physical characteristics over vegetation, keep in mind that direct traffic was limited to 8 passes • What would be the physical/vegetation impacts for multiple passes?
• Though vegetation had shortest recovery time with limited mat placement (<6 weeks best), depending on construction this may not always be possible • Likely still favorable to place mats if expecting to have multiple passes of
heavy equipment • If limited passes, but long construction season and willing to live with soil
impacts there could be a situation where direct traffic is favorable over matting.
38
39
Implications (Tower Study)
• High disturbance methods increased introduced forb biomass, bulk density and decreased soil organic matter
• Low disturbance methods had less influence on plant biomass or soil characteristics generally, but still had some impacts
• Use of access mats are a better choice compared to soil removal for mixedgrass prairie recovery
39
40
Next Steps
• The University is currently compiling field data from 2017 assessments
• Soil microbial community analyses underway, results expected to be available later this year • Suspected implication is that soil texture should be determined
before access mat placement to assess whether access mat use may positively or negatively impact soil microbial communities and therefore ecosystem functioning.
• Work with University of Alberta around potential Best Management Practices to reduce impacts to vegetation, which would potential translate into reduced reclamation costs
40
41
Acknowledgements
University of Alberta
• K.A. Thompson, K. James, F. Najafi, • Dr. C.N. Carlyle, S. Quideau, and E.W. Bork
• Dr. Irving (University of Alberta) and numerous field assistants:• Christian Kentz, Megan O’Neill, Leah Rodvang, Lysandra Pyle
ATCO Electric
• Erin Donovan
• EATL Project Staff
• Executive Support
NSERC
• Funding support