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

Table 13. Seeded native cover of Fall plantings at
Baker with and without fertilizer, seeded with
various mixtures, and treatment combinations.
Treatment
Baker
Sep-03
Baker
Sep-04
Fertilizer ---------%---------
Fertilized 0* 1 a 1
Unfertilized
Seed Mix
0 3 a
DOH 0 0 b
DOH-Native 0 1 ab
½ DOH-Native 0 6 a
Native 0 4 ab
Control
Interactions
0 0 b
DOH Fertilized 0 0 b
DOH Unfertilized 0 0 b
DOH-Native Fertilized 0 0 b
DOH-Native Unfertilized 0 3 ab
½ DOH-Native Fertilized 0 2 b
½ DOH-Native Unfertilized 0 9 a
Native Fertilized 0 4 ab
Native Unfertilized 0 3 ab
Control Fertilized 0 0 b
Control Unfertilized 0 0 b
*No significant differences were found for the
September 2003 survey.
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).
the other sites. However, probably as a result of compaction, their size was small so they did not
contribute much ground cover. Both Hazelton and Parkersburg had pre-existing vegetation. It is
believed that this difference between the sites is the reason why there were many more
significant differences found at the Baker site.
The Hazelton site had been hydro-seeded two years prior to plot establishment, resulting in a
large seed bank remaining in the soil. The tilling used in plot establishment may have brought
much of that seed to the surface for germination and as a result may have competed and
27