Abstract
Two current problems facing forest industries are effluent disposal and wood supply. One possible common solution is to use mill effluent to irrigate intensively culture plantations. It was found that large amounts of effluents could be disposed of and that good growth of Populus could be maintained by flood-irrigating a plantation with the effluent. Irrigation rates averaging 11 inches/week (297 mm) resulted in the equivalent of a 10 foot (3.0 m) depth of effluent applied during each of two growing seasons. Both Populus and Salix had good survival and Populus growth averaged more than 3 foot/year (0.9 metres) with these high irrigation rates. During the third year, application of 36 foot (11 metres) of effluent resulted in Populus growth of 6-7 foot (1.8-2.1 metres). Renovation of the secondary-treated effluent percolating to the groundwater table during the first 2 years (no data was collected the third year) was better than the quality of the tertiary-treated effluent normally discharged to a nearby river. Essentially all N and P were removed. However, most Na, Cl, and SO/sub 4/ reached the water table; this poses a potential for serious aquifer contamination. Nevertheless, by locating such disposal areas near natural aquifer drains, the impact onmore » aquifer contamination may be reduced. In this way the effluent renovation and disposal problem may be at least partially solved, while at the same time substantial tonnages of fiber are produced.« less
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Large amounts of effluent could be disposed of through plantation flood irrigation.
- Outcome
- large amounts of effluents could be disposed ofe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“large amounts of effluents could be disposed of”
Claim · model-written summary
Populus maintained good growth under effluent flood irrigation.
PopulusNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“good growth of Populus could be maintained by flood-irrigating a plantation with the effluent.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both Populus and Salix survived well at high effluent irrigation rates.
- Outcome
- good survivale0
SalixOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both Populus and Salix had good survival”
Claim · model-written summary
Populus grew more than 3 foot/year at high irrigation rates.
- Outcome
- Populus growthe0
- Direction
- more thane0
- Value
- more than 3 foot/yeare0
- Qualifier
- these high irrigation ratese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Populus growth averaged more than 3 foot/year (0.9 metres) with these high irrigation rates.”
Claim · model-written summary
With 36 foot of effluent in year three, Populus grew 6-7 foot.
- Treatment
- application of 36 foot (11 metres) of effluente0
- Outcome
- Populus growthe0
- Value
- 6-7 foote0
- Qualifier
- During the third yeare0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the third year, application of 36 foot (11 metres) of effluent resulted in Populus growth of 6-7 foot (1.8-2.1 metres).”
Claim · model-written summary
Percolating effluent had better quality than tertiary-treated effluent discharged nearby.
- Outcome
- Renovation of the secondary-treated effluente0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- during the first 2 yearse0
- Comparator
- tertiary-treated effluente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Renovation of the secondary-treated effluent percolating to the groundwater table during the first 2 years (no data was collected the third year) was better than the quality of the tertiary-treated effluent normally discharged to a nearby river.”
Claim · model-written summary
Essentially all nitrogen and phosphorus were removed from the effluent.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Essentially all N and P were removed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Most sodium, chloride and sulfate reached the water table.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“most Na, Cl, and SO/sub 4/ reached the water table”
The same questions in other papers
flooding · growth · Populus (poplar)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.