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

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