HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in JEQ Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Redfield, E. Articles by Qualizza, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Redfield, E. Articles by Qualizza, C. Agricola Articles by Redfield, E. Articles by Qualizza, C. Related Collections Ecosystem Restoration Plant and Soil Interactions Plant Analysis Plant and Environment Interactions Soil Pollution

Responses of Red-Osier Dogwood to Oil Sands Tailings Treated with Gypsum or Alum

^a Dep. of Renewable Resources, 442 Earth Sciences Bldg., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E3
^b Syncrude Canada Ltd., Edmonton Research Centre, 9421 17 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6N 1H4
^c Environment Dep., Syncrude Canada Ltd., P.O. Bag 4009, M.D. 0078, Fort McMurray, AB, Canada T9H 3L1

View larger version (33K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Ion concentrations in saturated paste extracts after 3 mo of treatment. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences at P 0.05. Means (n = 5) ± standard errors are shown. RH, reclamation material supplied Hoagland solution with deionized water; RA, reclamation material supplied Hoagland solution with alum consolidated tailings (CT) water; RG, reclamation material supplied Hoagland solution with gypsum CT water; AH, alum CT supplied Hoagland solution with deionized water; AA, alum CT supplied Hoagland solution with alum CT water; GH, gypsum CT supplied Hoagland solution with deionized water; GG, gypsum CT supplied Hoagland solution with gypsum CT water.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Survival (a) and shoot height (b) in dogwood seedlings subjected to different treatments as explained below. Means (n = 12) are shown. Survival was significantly lower (P 0.001) for all consolidated tailings (CT) substrate treatments. Treatment designations are explained in Fig. 1.

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Shoot, root, and total dry weight (in grams per plant) of dogwood seedlings after three months of treatments. Means (n = 12) are shown. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences at P 0.05. Treatment designations are explained in Fig. 1.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Ion contents (on dry weight basis) in shoots and roots at the end of the experiment. Letters a, b, and c indicate differences among shoot tissue, while x, y, and z indicate differences among root tissues (P 0.05). Means (n = 5) ± standard errors are shown. Treatment designations are explained in Fig. 1.