Forest ecosystem development in post-mining landscapes: a case study of the Lusatian lignite district

The restoration of surface mining landscapes requires the (re)creation of ecosystems. In Lusatia (eastern Germany), large-scale open-cast lignite mining operations generated spoil dumps widely consisting of acidified, phytotoxic substrates. Amelioration and rehabilitation measures have been developed and applied to these substrates since the 1950s. However, it is still not clear whether these approaches are sustainable. This paper reports on collaborative research work into the ecological potential of forest ecosystem development on typical minesites in the Lusatian lignite district. At first sight, pine stands on minesites along a chronosequence comprising about 35 years did not show differences when compared with stands on non-mined sites of the general region. Furthermore, with some modification, conceptual models for flora and fauna succession in forest stands on non-mined sites seem to be applicable, at least for the early stages of forest ecosystem development. For example, soil organism abundance and activity at minesites had already reached levels typical of non-mined sites after about 20-30 years. In contrast, mine soils are very different from non-mined soils of the test region. Chemically, mine soil development is dominated by processes originating from pyrite oxidation. Geogenic, i.e. lignitic, soil organic carbon was shown to substitute for some functions of pedogenic soil organic matter. Rooting was hampered but not completely impeded in strongly acidified soil compartments. Roots and mycorrhizae are apparently able to make use of the characteristic heterogeneity of young mine soils. Considering these recent results and the knowledge accumulated during more than 30 years of research on minesite rehabilitation internationally, it can be stated that minesite restoration might be used as an ideal case study for forest ecosystem development starting at "point zero" on "terra nova".     

The selection of management strategies for controlling nematodes in cereals

Several genera and species of plant-parasitic nematodes cause losses in grain yield in cereals; some are of relatively minor importance (e.g. Anguina tritici (Steinbuch) Chitwood, the cause of “ear cockle” in wheat), while others such as the cereal cyst nematode (CCN) (Heterodera avenae Woll.) have a wide geographic distribution, infest extensive areas, and may cause losses valued at millions of dollars. Some of these nematodes are difficult to control because the measures that might be used are uneconomic to apply or are impractical. The control of CCN, however, can be achieved, and several successful strategies have been developed in parts of Europe and in Australia. The various measures available to Australian cereal growers include: crop rotation, resistant cultivars, manipulation of sowing dates, use of nematicides, and reduced cultivation. The selection of an appropriate management strategy for the control of CCN is influenced by factors such as: climate, cereal species grown, yield potential, rotations practised and the availability of alternative crops, pathotype present, farm size, availability of resistant cultivars, nematicides registered, and the availability of suitable equipment for their application.     

Mitigation and adaptation synergy in forest sector

Mitigation and adaptation are the two main strategies to address climate change. Mitigation and adaptation have been considered separately in the global negotiations as well as literature. There is a realization on the need to explore and promote synergy between mitigation and adaptation while addressing climate change. In this paper, an attempt is made to explore the synergy between mitigation and adaptation by considering forest sector, which on the one hand is projected to be adversely impacted under the projected climate change scenarios and on the other provide opportunities to mitigate climate change. Thus, the potential and need for incorporating adaptation strategies and practices in mitigation projects is presented with a few examples. Firstly, there is a need to ensure that mitigation programs or projects do not increase the vulnerability of forest ecosystems and plantations. Secondly, several adaptation practices could be incorporated into mitigation projects to reduce vulnerability. Further, many of the mitigation projects indeed reduce vulnerability and promote adaptation, for example; forest and biodiversity conservation, protected area management and sustainable forestry. Also, many adaptation options such as urban forestry, soil and water conservation and drought resistant varieties also contribute to mitigation of climate change. Thus, there is need for research and field demonstration of synergy between mitigation and adaptation, so that the cost of addressing climate change impacts can be reduced and co-benefits increased.