Growth and elemental accumulation by canola on soil amended with coal fly ash

To explore the agronomic potential of an Australian coal fly ash, we conducted two glasshouse experiments in which we measured chlorophyll fluorescence, CO2 assimilation (A), transpiration, stomatal conductance, biomass accumulation, seed yield, and elemental uptake for canola (Brassica napus) grown on soil amended with an alkaline fly ash. In Experiment 1, application of up to 25 Mg/ha of fly ash increased A and plant weight early in the season before flowering and seed yield by up to 21%. However, at larger rates of ash application A, plant growth, chlorophyll concentration, and yield were all reduced. Increases in early vigor and seed yield were associated with enhanced uptake of phosphorus (P) by the plants treated with fly ash. Fly ash application did not influence accumulation of B, Cu, Mo, or Zn in the stems at any stage of plant growth or in the seed at harvest, except Mo concentration, which was elevated in the seed. Accumulation of these elements was mostly in the leaves, where concentrations of Cu and Mo increased with any amount of ash applied while that of B occurred only with ash applied at 625 Mg/ha. In Experiment 2, fly ash applied at 500 Mg/ha and mixed into the whole 30 cm soil core was detrimental to growth and yield of canola, compared with restricting mixing to 5 or 15 cm depth. In contrast, application of ash at 250 Mg/ha with increasing depth of mixing increased A and seed yield. We concluded that fly ash applied at not more than 25 Mg/ha and mixed into the top 10 to 15 cm of soil is sufficient to obtain yield benefits.     

Advancing the Integration of History and Ecology for Conservation

Abstract: The important role of humans in the development of current ecosystems was recognized decades ago; however, the integration of history and ecology in order to inform conservation has been difficult. We identified four issues that hinder historical ecological research and considered possible solutions. First, differences in concepts and methods between the fields of ecology and history are thought to be large. However, most differences stem from miscommunication between ecologists and historians and are less substantial than is usually assumed. Cooperation can be achieved by focusing on the features ecology and history have in common and through understanding and acceptance of differing points of view. Second, historical ecological research is often hampered by differences in spatial and temporal scales between ecology and history. We argue that historical ecological research can only be conducted at extents for which sources in both disciplines have comparable resolutions. Researchers must begin by clearly defining the relevant scales for the given purpose. Third, periods for which quantitative historical sources are not easily accessible (before AD 1800) have been neglected in historical ecological research. Because data from periods before 1800 are as relevant to the current state of ecosystems as more recent data, we suggest that historical ecologists actively seek out data from before 1800 and apply analytic methods commonly used in ecology to these data. Fourth, humans are not usually considered an intrinsic ecological factor in current ecological research. In our view, human societies should be acknowledged as integral parts of ecosystems and societal processes should be recognized as driving forces of ecosystem change.