Groundwater resources at risk in the glaciofluvial formation of Jokkavaara in Rovaniemi area, Northern Finland

The best groundwater resources in Finland are generally situated in glaciofluvial formations with thick sand and gravel deposits. The glaciofluvial formation of Jokkavaara, in northern Finland near the town of Rovaniemi, is important for both its groundwater reserves and its sand and gravel resources. The groundwater and mineral resources of Jokkavaara was studied to define their quantity and quality, and to develop a land-use plan which would help civil servants of the municipality to make the decisions necessary for exploiting sand and gravel. The land-use plan shows the areas where exploiting mineral resources is not allowed or recommended because of the risks of contamination of groundwater, or because of injurious effects on the environment caused by noise and dust from gravel pits, or by spoilt landscape. The size of Jokkavaara is 5 km2, and its mineral resources are about 53 million cubic metres. The sand and gravel deposits are at the most, 50 m thick. Risks of contamination by fallout are small, due to the thick sand and gravel deposits above groundwater level. Exploiting mineral resources have no effect on groundwater quality either. By the land-use plan and legislation, good groundwater can also be protected in the future. Legislation limits the exploitation of mineral resources especially in groundwater areas.     

Direct and interactive effects of enemies and mutualists on plant performance: a meta-analysis

Plants engage in multiple, simultaneous interactions with other species; some (enemies) reduce and others (mutualists) enhance plant performance. Moreover, effects of different species may not be independent of one another; for example, enemies may compete, reducing their negative impact on a plant. The magnitudes of positive and negative effects, as well as the frequency of interactive effects and whether they tend to enhance or depress plant performance, have never been comprehensively assessed across the many published studies on plant-enemy and plant-mutualist interactions. We performed a meta-analysis of experiments in which two enemies, two mutualists, or an enemy and a mutualist were manipulated factorially. Specifically, we performed a factorial meta-analysis using the log response ratio. We found that the magnitude of (negative) enemy effects was greater than that of (positive) mutualist effects in isolation, but in the presence of other species, the two effects were of comparable magnitude. Hence studies evaluating single-species effects of mutualists may underestimate the true effects found in natural settings, where multiple interactions are the norm and indirect effects are possible. Enemies did not on average influence the effects on plant performance of other enemies, nor did mutualists influence the effects of mutualists. However, these averages mask significant and large, but positive or negative, interactions in individual studies. In contrast, mutualists ameliorated the negative effects of enemies in a manner that benefited plants; this overall effect was driven by interactions between pathogens and belowground mutualists (bacteria and mycorrhizal fungi). The high frequency of significant interactive effects suggests a widespread potential for diffuse rather than pairwise coevolutionary interactions between plants and their enemies and mutualists. Pollinators and mycorrhizal fungi enhanced plant performance more than did bacterial mutualists. In the greenhouse (but not the field), pathogens reduced plant performance more than did herbivores, pathogens were more damaging to herbaceous than to woody plants, and herbivores were more damaging to crop than to non-crop plants (suggesting evolutionary change in plants or herbivores following crop domestication). We discuss how observed differences in effect size might be confounded with methodological differences among studies.