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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 8. Total plant cover of Fall plantings at Hazelton with and without fertilizer, seeded with various mixtures, and treatment combinations. Treatment Hazelton Sep-03 Hazelton Sep-04 Fertilizer ---------%--------- Fertilized 89* 96 Unfertilized Seed Mix 83 97 DOH 87 96 DOH-Native 84 97 ½ DOH-Native 85 98 Native 86 96 Control Interactions 88 97 DOH Fertilized 90 95 DOH Unfertilized 83 98 DOH-Native Fertilized 90 97 DOH-Native Unfertilized 78 97 ½ DOH-Native Fertilized 83 98 ½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 88 98 Native Fertilized 90 95 Native Unfertilized 82 97 Control Fertilized 91 97 Control Unfertilized 84 97 *There were no significant differences found. surveys (Table 30, Appendix). The Summer 2003 survey found total cover to be significantly decreased in plots seeded with a pure DOH seed mix. By Summer 2004 (beginning of the third growing season), significant interactions had been reduced to unfertilized DOH plots having less total cover than fertilized DOH plots. Seeded Native Plant Cover The ground cover contributed by the seeded natives was minimal at all sites until 2004. The Native plots had the highest seeded native coverages. The Parkersburg site had the highest seeded native coverages in spite of the hydro-seeding, and Hazelton had the lowest. Fertilizer was not found to be significant across sites, treatments and years. No significant differences 22
Table 9. Total plant cover of Spring plantings at Parkersburg with and without fertilizer, seeded with various mixtures, and treatment combinations. Treatment Parkersburg Sep-02 Parkersburg Sep-03 Parkersburg Sep-04 Fertilizer -------------%------------- Fertilized 98* 96 96 Unfertilized Seed Mix 98 96 96 DOH 98 95 94 DOH-Native 98 96 96 ½ DOH-Native 98 97 97 Native 98 98 98 Control Interactions 98 96 98 DOH Fertilized 98 98 96 DOH Unfertilized 98 93 93 DOH-Native Fertilized 98 95 94 DOH-Native Unfertilized 98 96 98 ½ DOH-Native Fertilized 98 98 98 ½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 98 97 97 Native Fertilized 98 98 98 Native Unfertilized 98 98 98 Control Fertilized 98 95 98 Control Unfertilized 98 97 98 *There were no significant differences found. were found for either the Spring or Fall established plots at the Hazelton site (Tables 10 and 11), nor were there any significant differences at the other sites until 2004. For the Spring established plots at Baker, the Native plots had significantly higher seeded native cover when compared to the other seed mixtures and fertilized Native plots had significantly higher cover than unfertilized (Table 12). Native and ½ DOH-Native plots were found to have significantly higher seeded native covers for Fall established plots (Table 13). At Parkersburg, Native and ½ DOH-Native plots had the highest seeded native covers, and the unfertilized ½ DOH-Native plots had significantly higher cover than the fertilized (Table 14). 23
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 and 24: Table 4. Seeded species and seeding
Page 25 and 26: Table 5. Total plant cover of Sprin
Page 27: Table 7. 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?