The Use of Native Plants for Revegetation along West Virginia ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Bulk density was determined using the frame excavation method and was adjusted for rock fragments (Grossman and Reinsch, 2002). Rock fragment percentages were determined from bulk density data, assuming a particle density of 2.65 g/cm 3 . Texture was determined on the
Table 5. Total plant cover of Spring plantings at Baker with and without fertilizer, seeded with various mixtures, and treatment combinations. Treatment Baker Sep-02 Baker Sep-03 Baker Sep-04 Fertilizer -------------%------------- Fertilized 30 a* 69 a 73 a Unfertilized Seed Mix 26 a 67 a 63 a DOH 38 a 86 a 83 a DOH-Native 35 a 89 a 81 a ½ DOH-Native 29 ab 81 a 82 a Native 23 ab 43 b 48 b Control Interactions 15 b 42 b 44 b DOH Fertilized 38 a 88 a 81 a DOH Unfertilized 38 a 85 a 85 a DOH-Native Fertilized 38 a 86 a 85 a DOH-Native Unfertilized 32 ab 91 a 77 a ½ DOH-Native Fertilized 32 ab 87 a 88 a ½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 26 abc 74 a 76 a Native Fertilized 26 abc 43 b 59 b Native Unfertilized 21 bc 43 b 37 c Control Fertilized 15 c 40 b 50 bc Control Unfertilized 15 c 44 b 38 c *Treatments within main effects (fertilizer, seed mix, or interactions) and within columns (sites) with the same letter are not significantly different (p=0.05). the unseeded Control. However, after two growing seasons Native cover declined from 61% to 40%, and was no longer significantly different from the Control. Also, DOH and Control plots were the only ones to respond significantly to fertilizer. Hazelton. Trends were also similar for all three years at the Hazelton site (Table 7). Total cover increased significantly each year (63% in Fall 2002, 77% in Fall 2003, and 89% in Fall 2004). Fertilizer only significantly increased total cover the first year of growth. After one growing season (Fall 2002), DOH, DOH-Native, and ½ DOH-Native plots had higher total covers compared to Native and Control plots, but after two growing seasons, the DOH and 19
Page 1 and 2: The Use of Native Plants for Revege
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………
Page 5 and 6: Table 15. Total plant cover of Spri
Page 7 and 8: 1. Introduction Due to the mountain
Page 9 and 10: Table 1. Species, mixtures and rate
Page 11 and 12: cost more than $5.00 per pound of p
Page 13 and 14: (1987) found good stands of Switchg
Page 15 and 16: Brown-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia triloba
Page 17 and 18: high temperatures, drought, or poor
Page 19 and 20: Figure 1. Map of research sites inc
Page 21 and 22: Table 2. Seeded species and seeding
Page 23: Table 4. Seeded species and seeding
Page 27 and 28: Table 7. Total plant cover of Sprin
Page 29 and 30: Table 9. Total plant cover of Sprin
Page 31 and 32: Table 11. Seeded native cover of Fa
Page 33 and 34: Table 13. Seeded native cover of Fa
Page 35 and 36: Results indicate that one cannot se
Page 39 and 40: Table 18. Total plant cover and see
Page 41 and 42: Table 20. Seeded native cover of Sp
Page 43 and 44: Table 22. Individual species respon
Page 45 and 46: cover prior to plot establishment c
Page 47 and 48: Table 23. Chemical properties of th
Page 49 and 50: native cover. Some of the younger s
Page 51 and 52: program. The disturbance of a strip
Page 53 and 54: Hsu, F.H., C.J. Nelson, and A.G. Ma
Page 55 and 56: Vassey, T.L., J.R. George, and R.E.
Page 57 and 58: Table 27. Total plant cover of Fall
Page 59 and 60: Table 29. Total plant cover of Fall
Page 71: Table 41. Seeded native cover of Sp

The Use of Native Plants for Revegetation along West Virginia ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?