next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Hi Dave P. & all Apr 15, 2013
Thanks for this but we have got off on a tangent that is not especially
relevant to the original question which is-- What fuel, given a choice of
biofuel, coal, natural gas and oil, is potentially most desirable from a
net carbon emissions per unit energy released viewpoint ?
If we can agree that the answer to the above is biomass then the second
level question emerges-- As a source of biomass energy, which is preferable,
wild wood, grown wood, grown grass, cultured algae, peat...?
And clearly, no one of these will consistently be preferable but any could
be depending upon circumstances. Given idle farmland suited for Miscanthus
why not grow Miscanthus for biomass ? Given a biosolid 'disposal problem'
and idle farmland why not grow Hybrid Poplar for biofuel ? Given Hybrid
Poplar windbreaks in need of renewal why not route the wood to biofuel ?
Given overstocked stands of wild wood why not thin them for biofuel ?
Leaving stands to self thin can generate a fire hazard and what is gained if
dead trees, living trees, litter and the organic layer goes up in smoke ?
Given waste heat why not culture algae for biofuel ? ...
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Patriquin" <patriqui@dal.ca>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>; "David & Alison Webster" <dwebster@glinx.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] tree biomass fuel ... calcium loss x Red Spruce &
Sugar Maple
> Hi David & Alison Webster:
>
> I am not aware of effects of calcium addition on growth per se, but there
> is experimental evidence for positive effects of calcium addition on
> stress resistance, germination, mycorrhizae etc., e.g., for two
> important species in our Acadian Forest, sugar maple and red spruce:
>
> --Tree Physiology 28, 855-862
> Calcium addition at the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest increases
> sugar storage, antioxidant activity and cold tolerance in native red
> spruce (Picea rubens). JOSHUA M. HALMAN,ET AL.
> "...Our results suggest that low foliar sugar concentrations and APX
> activity, and reduced cold tolerance in trees in the reference watershed
> contributed to their high vulnerability to winter injury in 2003."
>
> ---Ecology, 87(5), 2006, pp. 1267-1280 2006
> RESPONSE OF SUGAR MAPLE TO CALCIUM ADDITION TO NORTHERN HARDWOOD FOREST
> STEPHANIE M. JUICE, ET AL.
> "...These results reinforce and extend other regional observations that
> sugar maple decline in the northeastern United States and southern Canada
> is caused in part by anthropogenic effects on soil calcium status..."
>
>
>
>
> Quoting David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>:
>
>> Hi Dave P. & All, Apr 14, 2013
>> The usgs article reflects an astonishing detachment from reality by
>> starting the first line of the Abstract with "Since the discovery of
>> acid rain in the 1970's..". Acidic precipitation was documented at least
>> as early as 1852 when it was described by Robert Angus Smith.
>>
>> The question remains, has anyone demonstrated increased growth of
>> forest trees in response to application of Gypsum ? Or limestone for
>> that matter.
>>
>> Soil chemistry in natural profiles can be quite baffling because it
>> can resemble a 4-dimensional marble cake. About 1975 I was preparing to
>> set up a Ca orchard trial and sampled leaves of 40 or so trees in three
>> orchards. In one orchard, leaf Ca was all over the map, making it
>> useless for a Ca trial but conceivably informative for leaf Ca to soil
>> Ca correlations. So the following year I sampled soil from 0-100 cm in
>> 10 cm increments and again sampled leaves. For starters, the soil Ca of
>> few adjacent layers was correlated and the leaf Ca of years 1 & 2 were
>> poorly correlated !
>>
>> Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Patriquin" <patriqui@dal.ca>
>> To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>; "David & Alison Webster"
>> <dwebster@glinx.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 12:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [NatureNS] tree biomass fuel ... calcium loss also critical
>> in NS
>>
>>
>>> Hi David & Alison,
>>>
>>> For an excellent overview of the forest calcium issue, see:
>>>
>>> Soil-Calcium Depletion Linked to Acid Rain and Forest Growth in the
>>> Eastern United States
>>>
>>> By Gregory B. Lawrence and T. G. Huntington
>>>
>>> available at
>>> http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri984267/
>>>
>>>
>>> Related studies have been done in Nova Scotia by Paul Arp & Co.
>>> See 2010 poster presentation
>>> Quantifying the impacts of biomass harvesting on nutrient budgets
>>> across Nova Scotia
>>> (Search x Google to bring up PDF)
>>>
>>> The current government/DNR appears to be sitting on the details which
>>> may contain some inconvenient truths related to possible use of SW
>>> Nova Scotia forests as chemical feedstocks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting David & Alison Webster <dwebster@glinx.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi Dave P. & All, Apr 13, 2013
>>>> Was this effect of Ca on tree productivity established by
>>>> experiment, e.g. application of Gypsum, or by association ? Genuine
>>>> Ca deficiency is, as I recall, just about unknown apart from extreme
>>>> conditions such as Serpentine soils or solution culture.
>>>>
>>>> In an interesting experiment reported by Reich et al. (Ecology
>>>> Letters (2005) 8:811-818),14 tree species were grown for 30 years in
>>>> replicated plots of 'uniform' initial soil and a converse effect was
>>>> demonstrated; species with high Ca in their leaf litter significantly
>>>> increased soil Ca and soil pH.
>>>>
>>>> [BTW, soil pH usually increases as soil Ca increases (there is only
>>>> so much exchange capacity to go around) but the two can be
>>>> manipulated independently, e.g. Gypsum will increase soil Ca while
>>>> having almost no effect on pH.]
>>>>
>>>> Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Patriquin" <patriqui@DAL.CA>
>>>> To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>; "Mary Macaulay"
>>>> <marymacaulay@hotmail.com>
>>>> Cc: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
>>