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

Table 7. Total plant cover of Spring plantings at Hazelton with
and without fertilizer, seeded with various mixtures, and
treatment combinations.
Treatment
Hazelton
Sep-02
Hazelton
Sep-03
Hazelton
Sep-04
Fertilizer -------------%-------------
Fertilized 67 a* 78 a 88 a
Unfertilized
Seed Mix
60 a 76 a 90 a
DOH 65 a 82 a 86 a
DOH-Native 71 a 86 a 82 a
½ DOH-Native 65 a 72 a 92 a
Native 59 a 71 a 91 a
Control
Interactions
56 a 75 a 92 a
DOH Fertilized 68 ab 80 ab 76 bc
DOH Unfertilized 63 bc 83 ab 96 a
DOH-Native Fertilized 79 a 88 a 92 ab
DOH-Native Unfertilized 63 bc 84 a 73 c
½ DOH-Native Fertilized 74 ab 68 bc 91 ab
½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 56 c 75 abc 93 ab
Native Fertilized 63 bc 78 abc 88 abc
Native Unfertilized 56 c 64 c 94 a
Control Fertilized 50 c 78 abc 93 ab
Control Unfertilized 63 bc 71 abc 92 ab
*Treatments within main effects (fertilizer, seed mix, or
interactions) and within columns (sites) with the same letter are
not significantly different (p=0.05).
Unfertilized DOH plots had significantly less total cover when compared to all other plots.
Most significant effects disappeared by the Summer 2004 sampling, with unfertilized Control
plots having less total cover than all others.
Parkersburg. The Parkersburg site had very similar total cover averages across all
treatments, especially in the October 2002 sampling (Table 9). This is due to Department of
Highway crews inadvertently hydro-seeding over the plots in the summer of 2002. Because of
this, the vegetation in all plots was nearly 100% and composed of DOH seeded species. As a
result, no significant differences were found for Fall surveys and few were found for Summer
21