Access Matting Reduces Mixedgrass Prairie Soil and Vegetation Responses to Industrial Disturbance

  • F. Najafi
  • K. A. Thompson
  • C. N. Carlyle
  • S. A. Quideau
  • E. W. BorkEmail author


Substantial interest exists in understanding the role of low-disturbance construction methods in mitigating industrial impacts to native grassland soils and vegetation. We assessed soil and vegetation responses to conventional high-disturbance sod-stripping and revegetation on sandy soils, and the alternative practice of low-disturbance access matting to provide a temporary work surface on sandy and loamy soils. Treatments were associated with high-voltage transmission tower construction during 2014 within the Mixedgrass Prairie. High-disturbance sites were hydroseeded in May of 2015, while low-disturbance sites recovered naturally. We assessed soil physical (bulk density, water infiltration) and chemical properties (organic matter, pH, and electrical conductivity) after construction and herbage biomass for three growing seasons. Sod-stripping led to 53% greater soil bulk density and 51% less organic matter than nondisturbed controls, while water infiltration increased by 32% in these high-sand (>80%) soils. In contrast, access matting led to minimal soil property changes regardless of the texture. While total herbage biomass was unaffected by all construction treatments, sod-stripping reduced grass biomass by 80% during the first growing season, which coincided with a 119% increase in forb mass. Root biomass (0–15 cm) also declined 77% with sod-stripping. Vegetation biomass on sites with access matting remained largely unaffected by the disturbance. Overall, low-disturbance construction methods using access matting were more effective than sod-stripping in mitigating the negative impacts of industrial development on Mixedgrass soil properties, as well as vegetation biomass, and are recommended as a best management practice during industrial disturbance.


Access mats Herbage biomass Organic matter Sod-stripping Water infiltration 



This study was made possible because of the generous land donation of Edwin and Ruth Mattheis, whose passion for rangeland conservation has inspired many students and scientists. Funding for this study was provided by ATCO Ltd. and a Collaborative Research and Development Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. In-kind support was provided by the University of Alberta, including the Rangeland Research Institute. We thank Leah Rodvang, Erica Schell, Christian Kentz, Megan O’Neill, Hanna Schoenberg, Danielle Mai and Kara Doerksen for field assistance, Dr. Dean Spaner for providing input on an earlier version of this manuscript, and Rajat Goutam from ATCO Ltd. for his assistance in many different phases of the project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Adams BA, Richman J, Poulin-Klein L, France K, Moisey D, McNeil RL (2013) Rangeland plant communities of the Mixedgrass Prairie Natural Subregion of Alberta. 2nd approximation. Rangeland Management Branch, Policy Division, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development, Lethbridge, Alberta. Pub. No. T/039, p 103Google Scholar
  2. Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP) (2016) Principles for minimizing surface disturbances in native grassland: Principles, guidelines, and tools for all industrial activity in native grassland in the prairie and parkland landscapes of Alberta. Alberta Environment and Parks Dept., Land Policy Branch, Edmonton, Alberta, p 34Google Scholar
  3. Allred BW, Smith WK, Twidwell D, Haggerty JH, Running SW, Naugle DE, Fuhlendorf SD (2015) Ecosystem services lost to oil and gas in North America. Science 348:401–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Althoff DP, Althoff PS, Lambrecht ND, Gipson PS, Pontius JS, Woodford PB (2007) Soil properties and perceived disturbance of grasslands subjected to mechanized military training: evaluation of an index. Land Degrad Dev 18:269–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Althoff PS, Thien SJ (2005) Impact of M1A1 main battle tank disturbance on soil quality, invertebrates, and vegetation characteristics. J Terramechanics 42:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Althoff PS, Thien SJ, Todd TC (2010) Primary and residual effects of Abrams tank traffic on prairie soil properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:2151–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson AB, Ayers PD, Howard H, Newlin KD (2007) Vehicle impacts on vegetation cover at Camp Atterbury, Indiana: Part 1. Initial impacts and vegetation recovery. Proc Indian Acad Sci 116:126–138Google Scholar
  8. Andrade BO, Koch C, Boldrini II, Vélez-Martin E, Hasenack H, Hermann JM, Kollman J, Pillar VD, Overbeck GE (2015) Grassland degradation and restoration: a conceptual framework of stages and thresholds illustrated by southern Brazilian grasslands. Nat Conservção 13:95–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Balesdent J, Chenu C, Baladane M (2000) Relationship of soil organic matter dynamics to physical protection and tillage. Soil Tillage Res 53:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Balachowski L, Kurek N (2014) Deep compaction control of sandy soils. Stud Geotech Mech 36(2):3–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blake GR, Hartge KH (1986) Bulk density. In: Klute A (Ed.) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1: Physical and mineralogical methods, 2nd Edition. Agronomy Monograph 9. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA, pp 363–382Google Scholar
  12. Biligetu B, Coulman B (2011) Etiolated regrowth of three brome grass (Bromus) species after defoliation at different developmental stages. Grassl Sci 57:198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bork EW, Irving BD (2015) Seasonal availability of cool- and warm-season herbage in the Northern Mixed Prairie. Rangelands 37:178–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantón Y, Solé-Benet A, Domingo F (2004) Temporal and spatial patterns of soil moisture in semiarid badlands of SE Spain. J Hydrol 285:199–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Culley JLB, Dow BK, Presant EW, MacLean AJ (1982) Recovery of productivity of Ontario soils disturbed by an oil pipeline installation. Can J Soil Sci 62:267–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Defossez P, Richard G (2002) Models of soil compaction due to traffic and their evaluation. Soil Tillage Res 67:41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desserud P, Gates CC, Adams B, Revel RD (2010) Restoration of foothills rough fescue grassland following disturbance in southwestern Alberta. J Environ Manag 91:2763–2770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dollhopf DJ, Mitchem MD, McWilliams CS, Gundlach SJ (2007) Effects of oak matted drill pads on plant and soil resources. KC Harvey, Soil and water Resources Consulting. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale, WY, USA, p 82Google Scholar
  19. Dormaar JF, Willms WD (1993) Decomposition of blue grama and rough fescue roots in prairie soils. J Range Manag 46:207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elsinger ME (2009) Reclamation status of plains rough fescue grasslands at Rumsey block in central Alberta, Canada after oil and gas well site and pipeline disturbance. MSc Thesis in land reclamation and remediation, Dept. of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, p 232Google Scholar
  21. Epstein HE, Lauenroth WK, Burke IC (1997) Effects of temperature and soil texture on ANPP in the U.S. Great Plains. J Ecol 78:2628–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao W, Watts CW, Ren T, Whalley WR (2012) The effects of compaction and soil drying on penetrometer resistance. Soil Tillage Res 125:14–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gartrell CA, Newman JK, Anderton GL (2009) Performance measurements of pavement matting systems by full-scale testing over differing soil strengths. J Mater Civ Eng 21:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gee GW, Bauder JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In: Page L (Ed.) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1: Physical and mineralogical methods. 2nd edition. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, pp 383–411Google Scholar
  25. Gerard C, Sexton P, Shaw G (1982) Physical factors influencing soil strength and root growth. Agron J 74:875–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gifford GF, Faust RH, Coltharp GB (1977) Measuring soil compaction on rangeland. J Range Manag 30:457–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammermeister AM, Naeth MA, Schoenau JJ, Biederbeck VO (2003) Soil and plant response to wellsite rehabilitation on native prairie in southeastern Alberta. Can J Soil Sci 83:507–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hammermeister AM, Astatkie T, Jeliazkova EA, Warman PR, Martin RC (2006) Nutrient supply from organic amendments applied to unvegetated soil, lettuce and orchardgrass. J Can Soil Sci 86:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heck N (2007) A landscape-scale model to predict the risk of bird collisions with electric power transmission lines in Alberta. MSc. Thesis in environmental design, Dept. of Environmental Science, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. p 160Google Scholar
  30. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Laborel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid BH, Setälä LA, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle D (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hulett GK, Coupland RT, Dix RL (1966) The vegetation of dune sand areas within the grassland region of Saskatchewan. Can J Bot 44:1307–1331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jong ED, Button RG (1973) Effects of pipeline installation on soil properties and productivity. Can J Soil Sci 53:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kline VM (1997) Orchards of oak and a sea of grass. In: Packard S, Mutel CF (eds) The tallgrass prairie restoration Handbook: for prairie, savannas and woodlands. Society for Ecological Restoration International. Island Press, Washington, D.C., p 3–21Google Scholar
  34. Kuncoro PH, Koga K, Satta N, Muto Y (2014) A study on the effect of compaction on transport properties of soil gas and water I: relative gas diffusivity, air permeability, and saturated hydraulic conductivity. Soil Tillage Res 143:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lardner HA, Wright SBM, Cohen RDH (2003) Assessing eight grass species for pasture by measuring etiolated spring regrowth. Can J Plant Sci 83:551–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lichner L, Holko L, Zhukova N, Schacht K, Rajkai K, Fodor N, Sandor R (2012) Plants and biological soil crust influence the hydrophysical parameters and water flow in an Aeolian sand. J Hydrol Hydromech 60:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lichner L, Eldridge DJ, Schacht K, Zhukova N, Holko L, Sir M, Pecho J (2011) Grass cover influences hydrophysical parameters and heterogeneity of water flow in a sandy soil. Pedosphere 21:719–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mitchem MD, Dollhopf DJ, Harvey KC (2009) Reduced-impact land disturbance techniques for natural gas production. In: Barnhisel RI (Ed.) Revitalizing the environment: proven solutions and innovative approaches, Proceedings of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation Conference, Billings, MT, USA. 30 May to 5 June 2009, p 816–831Google Scholar
  39. Najafi F (2018) Evaluating impacts of high-voltage transmission line construction on Dry Mixedgrass prairie in Alberta. MSc. in Rangeland and Wildlife Resources, Dept. of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, p 100Google Scholar
  40. Naeth MA, Bailey AW, Pluth DJ, Chanasyk D, Hardin RT (1991) Grazing impacts on litter and soil organic matter in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. J Range Manag 44:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Naeth MA, Bailey AW, McGill WB (1987) Persistence of changes in selected soil chemical and physical properties after pipeline installation in solonetzic native rangeland. Can J Soil Sci 67:747–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noel RJ, Hableton LG (1976) Collaborative study of semi-automated method for determination of crude protein in animal feeds. Assoc J Func Anal 59:134–140Google Scholar
  43. Palazzo AJ, Jensen KB, Waldron BL, Cary TJ (2005) Effects of tank tracking on range grasses. J Terramechanics 42:177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raper RL (2005) Agricultural traffic impacts on soil. J Terramechanics 42:259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Retta A, Wagner LE, Tatarko J, Todd TC (2013) Evaluation of bulk density and vegetation as affected by military vehicle traffic at Fort Riley, Kansas. Trans Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 56:653–665Google Scholar
  46. Samson F, Knopf F (1994) Prairie conservation in North America. BioScience 44:418–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sims PL, Singh JS, Lauenroth WK (1978) The structure and function of ten western North American grasslands: I. Abiotic and vegetation characteristics. J Ecol 66:251–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sheoran V, Sheoran AS, Poonia P (2010) Soil reclamation of abandoned mine land by revegetation: a review. Int J Soil Sediment Water 1(2):13Google Scholar
  49. Soest PJ, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Storer DA (1984) A simple high sample volume ashing procedure for determination of soil organic matter. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 15:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strohmayer P (1999) Soil stockpiling for reclamation and restoration activities after mining and construction. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Horticultural Science. p 4. Accessed 12 Nov 2018
  52. Thurow TL, Warren SD, Carlson DH (1993) Tracked vehicle traffic effects on the hydrologic characteristics of central Texas rangeland. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 36:1645–1650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Unger PW, Kaspar TC (1994) Soil compaction and root growth: a review. Agron J 86:759–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. USDA (2014) Soil infiltration: Soil health—guidelines for educators. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States, Department of Agriculture. p 7. http://www.nrcs/usda/gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051576.pdf
  55. Van Soest P, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74:3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Voorhees WB, Farrell DA, Larson WE (1975) Soil strength and aeration effects on root elongation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 39:948–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yunusa IAM, Newton PJ (2003) Plants for amelioration of subsoil constraints and hydrological control: the primer-plant concept. Plant Soil 257:261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wilson SD (1988) The effects of military tank traffic on prairie: a management model. Environ Manag 12:397–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Trent School of Environment, Trent UniversityPeterboroughCanada
  3. 3.University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations