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

Table 10. Seeded native 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 0* 0 0
Unfertilized
Seed Mix
0 0 0
DOH 0 0 0
DOH-Native 0 0 1
½ DOH-Native 0 0 0
Native 0 0 0
Control
Interactions
0 0 0
DOH Fertilized 0 0 0
DOH Unfertilized 0 0 0
DOH-Native Fertilized 0 0 0
DOH-Native Unfertilized 0 0 2
½ DOH-Native Fertilized 0 0 0
½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 0 0 0
Native Fertilized 0 0 0
Native Unfertilized 0 0 0
Control Fertilized 0 0 0
Control Unfertilized 0 0 0
*There were no significant differences found.
Summary
Site had a significant effect on total plant cover, with Parkersburg having the highest
coverages and Baker the lowest. It did not have an effect on seeded native cover, however. The
Parkersburg site had very similar total cover averages across all treatments, especially in the Fall
2002 sampling. This is due to Department of Highway crews inadvertently hydro-seeding over
the plots in the summer of 2002. The hydro-seeded mixture included fertilizer and a mixture of
Annual ryegrass, Tall fescue, and Red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). The Baker site, on the
other hand, was the newest of the sites and had very little vegetation established prior to seeding,
thus resulting in low coverages, particularly on the Native and Control plots.
24