Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

hatrack

(64,909 posts)
Fri Mar 14, 2014, 09:05 AM Mar 2014

Interesting! Survey Work Near Chernobyl Shows Dead Trees, Leaf Litter Not Decomposing [View all]

EDIT

However, there are even more fundamental issues going on in the environment. According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers—organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay—have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem.

The team decided to investigate this question in part because of a peculiar field observation. “We have conducted research in Chernobyl since 1991 and have noticed a significant accumulation of litter over time,” the write. Moreover, trees in the infamous Red Forest—an area where all of the pine trees turned a reddish color and then died shortly after the accident—did not seem to be decaying, even 15 to 20 years after the meltdown. “Apart from a few ants, the dead tree trunks were largely unscathed when we first encountered them,” says Timothy Mousseau, a biologist at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and lead author of the study. “It was striking, given that in the forests where I live, a fallen tree is mostly sawdust after a decade of lying on the ground.”

Wondering whether that seeming increase in dead leaves on the forest floor and those petrified-looking pine trees were indicative of something larger, Mousseau and his colleagues decided to run some field tests. When they measured leaf litter in different parts of the exclusion zones, they found that the litter layer itself was two to three times thicker in the “hottest” areas of Chernobyl, where radiation poisoning was most intense. But this wasn’t enough to prove that radiation was responsible for this difference.

To confirm their hunch, they created around 600 small mesh bags and stuffed them each with leaves, collected at an uncontaminated site, from one of four different tree species: oak, maple, birch or pine. They took care to ensure that no insects were in the bags at first, and then lined half of them with women’s pantyhose to keep insects from getting in from the outside, unlike the wider mesh-only versions.

EDIT

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/?no-ist

34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I say we get out there and build a shit pot more of these nuclear power plants madokie Mar 2014 #1
Seems to me that a lack of earthworms would be a factor as well Scootaloo Mar 2014 #2
Wow, I'd never heard that. I just assumed earthworms existed worldwide for eons. Arugula Latte Mar 2014 #9
Since the first settlers brought European plants, I assume NickB79 Mar 2014 #20
That might be why some Native Americans staged controlled burns LiberalEsto Mar 2014 #12
Pretty much, yeah Scootaloo Mar 2014 #21
Very interesting. longship Mar 2014 #3
Well, deliberate irradadiation has been used to keep food from spoiling GliderGuider Mar 2014 #4
This is a false comparison. eggplant Mar 2014 #5
In what way is it a "false" comparison? MNBrewer Mar 2014 #10
Because particle radiation and wave radiation are different beasts. eggplant Mar 2014 #14
What about beta particles? GliderGuider Mar 2014 #16
Ok. So how are the effects on microbes different? MNBrewer Mar 2014 #17
The effect is the same. The cause and duration of the effect is quite different. eggplant Mar 2014 #18
So the effect is the same, therefore is not a false comparison. MNBrewer Mar 2014 #24
Sigh. eggplant Mar 2014 #29
You said it was a false comparison, and you are wrong MNBrewer Mar 2014 #30
To the ignore pile with you. eggplant Mar 2014 #33
The end of the article mentions their next destination: riqster Mar 2014 #6
That makes perfect sense. nt GliderGuider Mar 2014 #7
The more I read, the more I think all the boron they dumped on the burning reactor plays a big part. hunter Mar 2014 #25
Interesting point. I didn't know about boron and decomposition. GliderGuider Mar 2014 #26
Good grief. bananas Mar 2014 #27
How does this relate to what I wrote? hunter Mar 2014 #31
It is a very informative read NickB79 Mar 2014 #34
That is eerie and terrifying. Arugula Latte Mar 2014 #8
Shouldn't This Also Be The Case DallasNE Mar 2014 #11
I think they carted all the soil away. Demeter Mar 2014 #13
some interesting stuff about test sites. littlewolf Mar 2014 #15
Nevada Test site is a fascinating explore on Google Maps satellite view. hunter Mar 2014 #19
On the other hand, Bikini Atoll was bombed 23 times NickB79 Mar 2014 #22
Could as well be all the crap they dumped on the reactor trying to put the fire out... hunter Mar 2014 #23
Your first guess is wrong. bananas Mar 2014 #28
See my post above. hunter Mar 2014 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Interesting! Survey Work...»Reply #0