DOCSLIB.ORG

Focus Report Touquoy Gold Project Moose River Gold Mines, Nova Scotia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Focus Report Touquoy Gold Project Moose River Gold Mines, Nova Scotia FOCUS REPORT TOUQUOY GOLD PROJECT MOOSE RIVER GOLD MINES, NOVA SCOTIA Prepared For: DDV Gold Limited REPORT TEXT NOVEMBER 2007 Prepared by: REF. NO. 820933 (8) Conestoga-Rovers This report is printed on recycled paper. & Associates 31 Gloster Court Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Canada, B3B 1X9 Telephone: 902.468.1248 Facsimile: 902.468.2207 Worldwide Engineering, Environmental, Construction, and IT Services TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE.....................................................................1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................1 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION........................................................................................3 1.4 SCOPE OF THE FOCUS REPORT ....................................................................3 1.5 TERMS OF REFERENCE CONCORDANCE ..................................................3 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE FOCUS REPORT.................................................6 2.0 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS ...............................................................................................9 2.1 OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................9 2.2 DESIGN PRINCIPLES........................................................................................9 2.3 MINERAL RESOURCES..................................................................................10 2.4 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT...........................................................................11 2.4.1 Mining Method..................................................................................................11 2.4.2 Processing Method............................................................................................11 2.4.3 Scale Of Operation ............................................................................................12 2.5 ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT............................................................................12 2.5.1 Capital Cost........................................................................................................12 2.5.2 Operating Cost...................................................................................................13 2.5.3 Financial Performance......................................................................................13 2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................14 2.6.1 Assessment Process...........................................................................................14 2.6.2 Impact Management.........................................................................................15 2.7 PROJECT DESIGN REVIEW............................................................................15 2.8 OPEN PIT...........................................................................................................17 2.8.1 Location ..............................................................................................................17 2.8.2 Visual Impact.....................................................................................................17 2.8.3 Noise....................................................................................................................17 2.8.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................18 2.8.5 Water Quality.....................................................................................................18 2.8.6 Recreational Value.............................................................................................18 2.8.7 Wilderness Experience......................................................................................19 2.8.8 Flora & Fauna.....................................................................................................19 2.8.9 Habitat.................................................................................................................19 2.8.10 Landscape...........................................................................................................19 2.8.11 Access..................................................................................................................20 2.8.12 Community ........................................................................................................20 2.9 WASTE ROCK STOCKPILE............................................................................20 2.9.1 Location ..............................................................................................................20 2.9.2 Visual Impact.....................................................................................................21 2.9.3 Noise....................................................................................................................21 2.9.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................22 820933 (8) CONESTOGA-ROVERS &ASSOCIATES 2.9.5 Water Quality.....................................................................................................22 2.9.6 Recreational Value.............................................................................................22 2.9.7 Wilderness Experience......................................................................................22 2.9.8 Flora And Fauna................................................................................................22 2.9.9 Habitat.................................................................................................................23 2.9.10 Landscape...........................................................................................................23 2.9.11 Access..................................................................................................................23 2.9.12 Community ........................................................................................................23 2.10 PROCESS PLANT.............................................................................................23 2.10.1 Location ..............................................................................................................23 2.10.2 Visual Impact.....................................................................................................24 2.10.3 Noise....................................................................................................................25 2.10.4 Air Quality..........................................................................................................25 2.10.5 Water Quality.....................................................................................................25 2.10.6 Recreational Value.............................................................................................26 2.10.7 Wilderness Experience......................................................................................26 2.10.8 Flora And Fauna................................................................................................26 2.10.9 Habitat.................................................................................................................26 2.10.10 Landscape...........................................................................................................26 2.10.11 Access..................................................................................................................27 2.10.12 Community ........................................................................................................27 2.11 TAILINGS MANAGEMENT FACILITY........................................................27 2.11.1 Tmf Risk Management......................................................................................27 2.11.2 Location ..............................................................................................................29 2.11.3 Visual Impact.....................................................................................................30 2.11.4 Noise....................................................................................................................30 2.11.5 Air Quality..........................................................................................................30 2.11.6 Water Quality.....................................................................................................31 2.11.7 Discharge ............................................................................................................31 2.11.8 Recreational Value.............................................................................................32 2.11.9 Wilderness Experience......................................................................................32 2.11.10 Flora And Fauna................................................................................................32 2.11.11 Habitat.................................................................................................................32 2.11.12 Landscape...........................................................................................................32 2.11.13 Community ........................................................................................................33
Load more

Recommended publications
  • St Kilda Lichen Survey April 2014
    A REPORT TO NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND St Kilda Lichen Survey April 2014 Andy Acton, Brian Coppins, John Douglass & Steve Price Looking down to Village Bay, St. Kilda from Glacan Conachair Andy Acton [email protected] Brian Coppins [email protected] St. Kilda Lichen Survey Andy Acton, Brian Coppins, John Douglass, Steve Price Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Study areas............................................................................................................. 4 2 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Field survey ............................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Data collation, laboratory work ................................................................................ 6 2.3 Ecological importance ............................................................................................. 7 2.4 Constraints ............................................................................................................. 7 3 RESULTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 8 4 MARITIME GRASSLAND (INCLUDING SWARDS DOMINATED BY PLANTAGO MARITIMA AND ARMERIA
    [Show full text]
  • Pannariaceae Generic Taxonomy LL Ver. 27.9.2013.Docx
    http://www.diva-portal.org Preprint This is the submitted version of a paper published in The Lichenologist. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Ekman, S. (2014) Extended phylogeny and a revised generic classification of the Pannariaceae (Peltigerales, Ascomycota). The Lichenologist, 46: 627-656 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S002428291400019X Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:nrm:diva-943 Extended phylogeny and a revised generic classification of the Pannariaceae (Peltigerales, Ascomycota) Stefan EKMAN, Mats WEDIN, Louise LINDBLOM & Per M. JØRGENSEN S. Ekman (corresponding author): Museum of Evolution, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 16, SE –75236 Uppsala, Sweden. Email: [email protected] M. Wedin: Dept. of Botany, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE –10405 Stockholm, Sweden. L. Lindblom and P. M. Jørgensen: Dept. of Natural History, University Museum of Bergen, Box 7800, NO –5020 Bergen, Norway. Abstract: We estimated phylogeny in the lichen-forming ascomycete family Pannariaceae. We specifically modelled spatial (across-site) heterogeneity in nucleotide frequencies, as models not incorporating this heterogeneity were found to be inadequate for our data. Model adequacy was measured here as the ability of the model to reconstruct nucleotide diversity per site in the original sequence data. A potential non-orthologue in the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of Degelia plumbea was observed. We propose a revised generic classification for the Pannariaceae, accepting 30 genera, based on our phylogeny, previously published phylogenies, as well as morphological and chemical data available.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisions of British and Irish Lichens
    Revisions of British and Irish Lichens Volume 9 February 2021 Peltigerales: Pannariaceae Cover image: Pectenia atlantica, on bark of Fraxinus excelsior, Strath Croe, Kintail, Wester Ross. Revisions of British and Irish Lichens is a free-to-access serial publication under the auspices of the British Lichen Society, that charts changes in our understanding of the lichens and lichenicolous fungi of Great Britain and Ireland. Each volume will be devoted to a particular family (or group of families), and will include descriptions, keys, habitat and distribution data for all the species included. The maps are based on information from the BLS Lichen Database, that also includes data from the historical Mapping Scheme and the Lichen Ireland database. The choice of subject for each volume will depend on the extent of changes in classification for the families concerned, and the number of newly recognized species since previous treatments. To date, accounts of lichens from our region have been published in book form. However, the time taken to compile new printed editions of the entire lichen biota of Britain and Ireland is extensive, and many parts are out-of-date even as they are published. Issuing updates as a serial electronic publication means that important changes in understanding of our lichens can be made available with a shorter delay. The accounts may also be compiled at intervals into complete printed accounts, as new editions of the Lichens of Great Britain and Ireland. Editorial Board Dr P.F. Cannon (Department of Taxonomy & Biodiversity, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Surrey TW9 3AB, UK). Dr A. Aptroot (Laboratório de Botânica/Liquenologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Avenida Costa e Silva s/n, Bairro Universitário, CEP 79070-900, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil) Dr B.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R
    Ecography ECOG-02578 Pinkert, S., Brandl, R. and Zeuss, D. 2016. Colour lightness of dragonfly assemblages across North America and Europe. – Ecography doi: 10.1111/ecog.02578 Supplementary material Appendix 1 Figures A1–A12, Table A1 and A2 1 Figure A1. Scatterplots between female and male colour lightness of 44 North American (Needham et al. 2000) and 19 European (Askew 1988) dragonfly species. Note that colour lightness of females and males is highly correlated. 2 Figure A2. Correlation of the average colour lightness of European dragonfly species illustrated in both Askew (1988) and Dijkstra and Lewington (2006). Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Note that the extracted colour values of dorsal dragonfly drawings from both sources are highly correlated. 3 Figure A3. Frequency distribution of the average colour lightness of 152 North American and 74 European dragonfly species. Average colour lightness ranges from 0 (absolute black) to 255 (pure white). Rugs at the abscissa indicate the value of each species. Note that colour values are from different sources (North America: Needham et al. 2000, Europe: Askew 1988), and hence absolute values are not directly comparable. 4 Figure A4. Scatterplots of single ordinary least-squares regressions between average colour lightness of 8,127 North American dragonfly assemblages and mean temperature of the warmest quarter. Red dots represent assemblages that were excluded from the analysis because they contained less than five species. Note that those assemblages that were excluded scatter more than those with more than five species (c.f. the coefficients of determination) due to the inherent effect of very low sampling sizes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of North American Odonata
    A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) A Checklist of North American Odonata Including English Name, Etymology, Type Locality, and Distribution 2009 Edition (updated 14 April 2009) Dennis R. Paulson1 and Sidney W. Dunkle2 Originally published as Occasional Paper No. 56, Slater Museum of Natural History, University of Puget Sound, June 1999; completely revised March 2009. Copyright © 2009 Dennis R. Paulson and Sidney W. Dunkle 2009 edition published by Jim Johnson Cover photo: Tramea carolina (Carolina Saddlebags), Cabin Lake, Aiken Co., South Carolina, 13 May 2008, Dennis Paulson. 1 1724 NE 98 Street, Seattle, WA 98115 2 8030 Lakeside Parkway, Apt. 8208, Tucson, AZ 85730 ABSTRACT The checklist includes all 457 species of North American Odonata considered valid at this time. For each species the original citation, English name, type locality, etymology of both scientific and English names, and approxi- mate distribution are given. Literature citations for original descriptions of all species are given in the appended list of references. INTRODUCTION Before the first edition of this checklist there was no re- Table 1. The families of North American Odonata, cent checklist of North American Odonata. Muttkows- with number of species. ki (1910) and Needham and Heywood (1929) are long out of date. The Zygoptera and Anisoptera were cov- Family Genera Species ered by Westfall and May (2006) and Needham, West- fall, and May (2000), respectively, but some changes Calopterygidae 2 8 in nomenclature have been made subsequently. Davies Lestidae 2 19 and Tobin (1984, 1985) listed the world odonate fauna Coenagrionidae 15 103 but did not include type localities or details of distri- Platystictidae 1 1 bution.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Diversity and Traits of Lichen Propagules Across the United States Erin A
    Journal of Biogeography (J. Biogeogr.) (2016) 43, 1667–1678 ORIGINAL Biodiversity gradients in obligate ARTICLE symbiotic organisms: exploring the diversity and traits of lichen propagules across the United States Erin A. Tripp1,2,*, James C. Lendemer3, Albert Barberan4, Robert R. Dunn5,6 and Noah Fierer1,4 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary ABSTRACT Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Aim Large-scale distributions of plants and animals have been studied exten- 80309, USA, 2Museum of Natural History, sively and form the foundation for core concepts and paradigms in biogeogra- University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA, 3The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, phy and macroecology. Much less attention has been given to other groups of NY 10458-5126, USA, 4Cooperative Institute organisms, particularly obligate symbiotic organisms. We present the first for Research in Environmental Sciences, quantitative assessment of how spatial and environmental variables shape the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, abundance and distribution of obligate symbiotic organisms across nearly an USA, 5Department of Applied Ecology, North entire subcontinent, using lichen propagules as an example. Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, Location The contiguous United States (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). USA, 6Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Methods We use DNA sequence-based analyses of lichen reproductive Denmark, University of Copenhagen, propagules from settled dust samples collected from nearly 1300 home exteri- Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, ors to reconstruct biogeographical correlates of lichen taxonomic and func- Denmark tional diversity. Results Contrary to expectations, we found a weak but significant reverse lati- tudinal gradient in lichen propagule diversity.
    [Show full text]
  • British Lichen Society Bulletin No
    1 BRITISH LICHEN SOCIETY OFFICERS AND CONTACTS 2010 PRESIDENT S.D. Ward, 14 Green Road, Ballyvaghan, Co. Clare, Ireland, email [email protected]. VICE-PRESIDENT B.P. Hilton, Beauregard, 5 Alscott Gardens, Alverdiscott, Barnstaple, Devon EX31 3QJ; e-mail [email protected] SECRETARY C. Ellis, Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh EH3 5LR; email [email protected] TREASURER J.F. Skinner, 28 Parkanaur Avenue, Southend-on-Sea, Essex SS1 3HY, email [email protected] ASSISTANT TREASURER AND MEMBERSHIP SECRETARY H. Döring, Mycology Section, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, email [email protected] REGIONAL TREASURER (Americas) J.W. Hinds, 254 Forest Avenue, Orono, Maine 04473-3202, USA; email [email protected]. CHAIR OF THE DATA COMMITTEE D.J. Hill, Yew Tree Cottage, Yew Tree Lane, Compton Martin, Bristol BS40 6JS, email [email protected] MAPPING RECORDER AND ARCHIVIST M.R.D. Seaward, Department of Archaeological, Geographical & Environmental Sciences, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, email [email protected] DATA MANAGER J. Simkin, 41 North Road, Ponteland, Newcastle upon Tyne NE20 9UN, email [email protected] SENIOR EDITOR (LICHENOLOGIST) P.D. Crittenden, School of Life Science, The University, Nottingham NG7 2RD, email [email protected] BULLETIN EDITOR P.F. Cannon, CABI and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew; postal address Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, email [email protected] CHAIR OF CONSERVATION COMMITTEE & CONSERVATION OFFICER B.W. Edwards, DERC, Library Headquarters, Colliton Park, Dorchester, Dorset DT1 1XJ, email [email protected] CHAIR OF THE EDUCATION AND PROMOTION COMMITTEE: position currently vacant.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Phylogeny and a Revised Generic Classification of The
    The Lichenologist 46(5): 627–656 (2014) 6 British Lichen Society, 2014 doi:10.1017/S002428291400019X Extended phylogeny and a revised generic classification of the Pannariaceae (Peltigerales, Ascomycota) Stefan EKMAN, Mats WEDIN, Louise LINDBLOM and Per M. JØRGENSEN Abstract: We estimated phylogeny in the lichen-forming ascomycete family Pannariaceae. We specif- ically modelled spatial (across-site) heterogeneity in nucleotide frequencies, as models not incorpo- rating this heterogeneity were found to be inadequate for our data. Model adequacy was measured here as the ability of the model to reconstruct nucleotide diversity per site in the original sequence data. A potential non-orthologue in the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of Degelia plumbea was observed. We propose a revised generic classification for the Pannariaceae, accepting 30 genera, based on our phylogeny, previously published phylogenies, as well as available morphological and chemical data. Four genera are established as new: Austroparmeliella (for the ‘Parmeliella’ lacerata group), Nebularia (for the ‘Parmeliella’ incrassata group), Nevesia (for ‘Fuscopannaria’ sampaiana), and Pectenia (for the ‘Degelia’ plumbea group). Two genera are reduced to synonymy, Moelleropsis (included in Fuscopannaria) and Santessoniella (non-monophyletic; type included in Psoroma). Lepido- collema, described as monotypic, is expanded to include 23 species, most of which have been treated in the ‘Parmeliella’ mariana group. Homothecium and Leightoniella, previously treated in the Collemataceae, are here referred to the Pannariaceae. We propose 41 new species-level combinations in the newly described and re-circumscribed genera mentioned above, as well as in Leciophysma and Psoroma. Key words: Collemataceae, lichen taxonomy, model adequacy, model selection Accepted for publication 13 March 2014 Introduction which include c.
    [Show full text]
  • Naturally Kentucky
    KENTUCKY STATE NATURE PRESERVES COMMISSION NaturallyNaturally KentuckyKentucky Winter 2002 Number 37 It is the mission of the Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission to protect Kentucky’s natural heritage by: (1) identifying, acquiring and managing natural areas that represent the best known occurrences of rare native species, natural communities and significant natural features in a statewide nature preserves system; (2) working with others to protect biological diversity; and (3) educating Kentuckians as to the value and purpose of nature preserves and biodiversity. Kentucky’s Stream Dragons with sand and gravel substrates, and has been found in the By Ellis L. Laudermilk Rockcastle and Kentucky river drainages. Adult pygmy snaketails It is no secret that dragonflies inhabiting rivers and are most active in late morning and early afternoon, however, they streams are among my favorites, and clubtail dragonflies love are notoriously difficult to find because they are very secretive. flowing water. In fact, if I were a dragonfly, I would surely be a Females generally are observed over the stream only when they are clubtail. Okay, you can stop laughing now. Dragonflies laying eggs, and both genders spend much of the day in trees along belonging to the family Gomphidae (gomphids) are called the river. “clubtails” because most species have an enlarged abdominal The Maine snaketail (Ophiogomphus mainensis) is tip (usually the last three or four segments), that is especially considered an endangered species in Kentucky. Adults and larvae noticeable in males. There are a large number of clubtail have been found at one location each in the Rockcastle and Green species in Kentucky, in part because of an abundance of rivers’ drainage, respectively, but adults have not been seen since streams and rivers.
    [Show full text]
  • Three New State Records of Odonata from Ohio, with Additional County Records Ohio Historical Society, 1985 Velma Avenue, Columbu
    Ohio Biological Survey Notes 2: 25-33, 1999. © Ohio Biological Survey Three New State Records of Odonata from Ohio, with Additional County Records ROBERT C. GLOTZHOBER Ohio Historical Society, 1985 Velma Avenue, Columbus, Oh 43211 Abstract. Since 1995 the members of the Ohio Odonata Survey have newly recorded three dragonfly species to the state list: Lanthus vernalis, Neurocordulia molesta, and Somatochlora incurvata. In addition, survey workers have collected a total of 712 new county records. The total Odonata species and subspecies in Ohio now numbers 159. History and Acknowledgements The Ohio Odonata Survey was initiated in 1991 and supported in part with funds from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife’s income tax check-off funds with additional assistance from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ohio Biological Survey, and the Crane Hollow Foundation. The mostly volunteer members of the survey donated substantial amounts of time and expertise. Many of the volunteers who have found new county records appear in Table 1 along with other individuals whose records were shared. A complete list of survey volunteers will appear in the appendix to a future publication. Several members of the Ohio Odonata Survey deserve special mention here. Thirteen members helped found the survey and/ or later joined the steering committee. These individuals made major contributions in helping to identify potential survey locations, summarizing characteristics of “targeted species” to assist survey volunteers, and identifying specimens collected by non-professional volunteers. These members include: Robert W. Alrutz, John Bater, Eric G. Chapman, Stephen W. Chordas III, Bernie Counts, Susan Heady, David McShaffrey, Dwight L.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended Phylogeny and a Revised Generic Classification of The
    The Lichenologist 46(5): 627–656 (2014) 6 British Lichen Society, 2014 doi:10.1017/S002428291400019X Extended phylogeny and a revised generic classification of the Pannariaceae (Peltigerales, Ascomycota) Stefan EKMAN, Mats WEDIN, Louise LINDBLOM and Per M. JØRGENSEN Abstract: We estimated phylogeny in the lichen-forming ascomycete family Pannariaceae. We specif- ically modelled spatial (across-site) heterogeneity in nucleotide frequencies, as models not incorpo- rating this heterogeneity were found to be inadequate for our data. Model adequacy was measured here as the ability of the model to reconstruct nucleotide diversity per site in the original sequence data. A potential non-orthologue in the internal transcribed spacer region (ITS) of Degelia plumbea was observed. We propose a revised generic classification for the Pannariaceae, accepting 30 genera, based on our phylogeny, previously published phylogenies, as well as available morphological and chemical data. Four genera are established as new: Austroparmeliella (for the ‘Parmeliella’ lacerata group), Nebularia (for the ‘Parmeliella’ incrassata group), Nevesia (for ‘Fuscopannaria’ sampaiana), and Pectenia (for the ‘Degelia’ plumbea group). Two genera are reduced to synonymy, Moelleropsis (included in Fuscopannaria) and Santessoniella (non-monophyletic; type included in Psoroma). Lepido- collema, described as monotypic, is expanded to include 23 species, most of which have been treated in the ‘Parmeliella’ mariana group. Homothecium and Leightoniella, previously treated in the Collemataceae, are here referred to the Pannariaceae. We propose 41 new species-level combinations in the newly described and re-circumscribed genera mentioned above, as well as in Leciophysma and Psoroma. Key words: Collemataceae, lichen taxonomy, model adequacy, model selection Accepted for publication 13 March 2014 Introduction which include c.
    [Show full text]
  • Durham E-Theses
    Durham E-Theses The Physiological Response of sub-Arctic Lichens to Their Abiotic Environment HENRI, DOMINIC,CHARLES How to cite: HENRI, DOMINIC,CHARLES (2011) The Physiological Response of sub-Arctic Lichens to Their Abiotic Environment , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/623/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 The Physiological Response of sub-Arctic Lichens to Their Abiotic Environment Abstract The effect of environmental factors on metabolic processes of sample thalli, of four sub-Arctic lichen species from Abisko, Sweden (68.37˚N, 18.69˚E). Nephroma arcticum , Cladina mitis , C. stellaris and C. rangiferina , which are found in contrasting niche habitats within the same ecosystem, have been studied. An oxygen electrode apparatus has been used to study the effects of air temperature, thallus irradiance intensity and climatic regime during thallus storage, on the rate of net photosynthesis and dark respiration of sample thalli, in a series of studies on the four lichen species named above.
    [Show full text]