Regenerating conifers on rough mounded waste rock
Regenerating conifers on rough mounded waste rock
This reclamation is 10 years old and no soil was placed - these are going directly into waste rock. This is high elevation, so the trees grow slowly
I'm not disparaging the project in any way but for us, when we come back to a site, usually we get excited about how much they've grown etc.
When you come back to a site after 10 years and they are 80cm high (not 20m high like here), are you excited about survival rates or does 70cm in 10 years get you hooting and hollering?
Loving the rock (structural soil) mounds. I'm interested in the answer to the other comment, why mounds like that.
This area, as I mentioned, is high elevation in the Rockies; close to the tree line. They get maybe a 5 month growing season at best (June to end of Sept). Undistrubed soils are thin (30 cm profiles tops) and rocky.
In comparison, in good soils around here, I'd expect 10 year old trees to be 2-3 m tall; thus, given the challenging growing conditions and the complete lack of soil, I think this is pretty good. Should their reclamation prescription use not use soil? No. I say, if it's there, use it. However, mines are almost always short on material due to their inherent changes in topography (which creates more surface area to reclaim) so I think in areas you're short, this is viable and comparable, given that across the valley, on an undisturbed mountain the trees probably look similar at the same age.
why mound like that
Rough mounding is used for three reasons:
- Slow water movement, and reduce erosion
- improve water retention on the slope for the plants
- Create a divers micro-topography that results in more microsites for a wide variety of plants to grow. Some do good on the tops of hummocks, while the the more shade and thirstier spp. do well in the hollows.
How high? Previous forest cover? The mounds look suspiciously like it. The pinus spec. In front is likely around five to six years old, judging by its twigs. How high is the herbivorous population? This is extremely unspecific.
Trees are about 80 cm to 150 cm in height. Elevation is somewhere close to 2000 MASL. Upper portions of the site are about 2250 MASL.
Mounds look suspiciously like it
Yes, the area was forested, cleared, mined, and then they recreated the area by recontouring the landscape to about 26°, and then rough mounded (created the mounds you see) using equipment and planting into it.
Herbivorous population
While I get what you're getting at, as in they can decimate early rec, I don't think it's a factor here.
Unspecific
Layeth thy questions upon me
Thank you for your detailed answer.
Why don’t you think that big game plays a role here? Why recreate the mounds? The literature I’ve read concerning reforestation claims that the mounds of previous trees are beneficial because of their stumps degrading on top and better water retention trough the root system. This information might be old though.