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

Table 12. Seeded native 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 0* 0 6 a 1
Unfertilized
Seed Mix
0 0 4 a
DOH 0 0 0 b
DOH-Native 0 0 0 b
½ DOH-Native 0 0 1 b
Native 0 1 24 a
Control
Interactions
0 0 0 b
DOH Fertilized 0 0 0 c
DOH Unfertilized 0 0 0 c
DOH-Native Fertilized 0 0 0 c
DOH-Native Unfertilized 1 0 0 c
½ DOH-Native Fertilized 0 0 2 c
½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 0 0 0 c
Native Fertilized 1 2 29 a
Native Unfertilized 0 0 19 b
Control Fertilized 0 0 0 c
Control Unfertilized 0 0 0 c
*No significant differences were found for the September 2002
and 2003 surveys.
1
Treatments within main effects (fertilizer, seed mix, or
interactions) and within columns (sites) with the same letter
are not significantly different (p=0.05).
(72%) when compared to the Control and Native plots. However, it is believed that this
significance is largely due to the Baker site. When looking at each sampling on each site,
differences among the ½ DOH-Native plots and Control and Native plots were only apparent on
that site. The Baker site was a newer site that did not have any vegetation established prior to
this experiment, resulting in a smaller seed bank from which revegetation could occur. It is
highly compacted and contains 40% rock fragments (compared to 10% for Parkersburg and 25%
for Hazelton). More individual seeded native plants were observed at this site when compared to
26