Laserfiche WebLink
(:I rhdlea mrlhjoliunp da:hncd from K b% l0 0.8°/q and black malic dochrxd from 5..i°.-6 to 11.2% Cmcr of <br />most grrss species ittc-rcased: western whCalgrdss (.Igru/nrerrr .vnrthrr) from (16°.'o in 199810 K lW/o in 2001, <br />mountain tromc (Rromus margrnurus) Gom 0.2%in 1'P)ft to $.4% in 2001, and Kcntut:ky bluCgrass from <br />0.G% in 19')8 to 3.2°io in 2rw l . Imcresiirtgly. the only grrss spa:ics that did not show an irtcrcasc ++tu <br />srnmth Bronx (liromuslnrrmrs), which doclincd Crom ? ~"co to Ltt"%m+cr <br />\orious spccres dn:lrnc from 1998 10 2001 is clearly illustrated by the drxtsin grrph m Figure i <br />Figure 4 -Sutey Reference #2 Noxious Weed <br />Density Sample Mean <br />12 <br />~ 10 <br />8 <br />0 -N01(IOUS Weeds <br />E 4 __ __ I Der square meter) <br />E 2 <br />i 0 <br />1998 7999 2000 2001 <br />1=mm 19')tt to ?lxr I. noxrous ++exd dcnsrq clcclinod M appro~rnxtteh 75°.w from lo.? plants per syttare <br />rnctcr to :.b plants per 5gwrc mctex The appnn'nt incn7sr hetwan ?rxN) and 21kt1 was not statistically <br />significant. Nosrous spccica rcprcxnlcd in Figure 4 rrx lode +•anous hicnniul thistle spa-is (primarily <br />plumclcss thistle). one pcrcnmal thrstle (Cattada tlustlcl. and hourtdstongtx, Although no attempt ++us <br />made to moot dilTerent thistle spmres scp:trucly unul ?rxr I. rt is appurcnt from the a>\ cr dau :md was <br />+iswlly c+idcm to the samplers that lwlh cu+cr mtd datsity of the hicnnial gxxics tpaniarlrn the rnltially <br />dominant plumclcss thistle) h:u1 been much reduced by the control cifons T'hc perennial Cart:ttirt thrstlc <br />was apparenth less impacted In ?rHl 1. C:urada thrstlc was the visually dununtnt thrstlc spa:te~s, with a <br />density s3mplc mean of 1 8 plants per square meter, erompurud to sample mum of a ?plants per sgtrarc <br />rnctcr for plumclcss thistle Combined lhistlc densih dcclrncd from ti ~~ plains per syttarc nxtcr in 1998 to <br />?.0 pL•mts per square nxKCr m 2tn11~, hormdsttxtguc drnsin from z,7 pltmts per sgturc macr to 0.6 plants <br />per syuarc rnctcr ov~Y the stmc pcrrad <br />2tx) I dcnsrty d:rw 1'or Reference Area q2 is presemcd in Table 7 Table 8 summarves noxious wood <br />cknsrh for u`tch year of the stub Morc detailed inforrnation for cash year is ptt:sentrxl to the rcspectite <br />DMG Annu:d Wind Sampling Rcpon <br />As nxrtuoncd preciously rn this rcpon, trnae of the painted L•tdy butterfly were abundant on thistle plants <br />m +arioas Iotatiorrs in 21N) I They had not boon obscnal in tlx: three prc+ious years l.arvttc ++crc <br />parucvlarly prtw:tlcnt in Reference :>,rca ir2 and adjaccm arcais. wrth most Caretda thialc rtrtd plumcltss <br />dtistle plane cshibiting ttx wx.~btrcd rust .:Itarrcteristrc of the sperus *vt:my plank of both sptx:re~s had boon <br />almost mmplckly defoliatod, mlxr p4ut~s only purually so A ocrtain pmcentage of yartow plants had nlso <br />trccn rnlonired tw the lan;x, tart thistle appeurcd to be the prcfcm~d Nast plant In 2tKxt, portions of the <br />Sutcy File rncludrng Reference Acct q2 had txtn mtensiveh graixd with goats in e;uly Juh. The project <br />marragcr obscn cd that the gnats mnsurtt+d the foliage of both Canada and plumclecs thistle, tart <br />macistcntly twoidcd the (lowering stalks of the plumeless thistle 'Ile herder loppod otf these stalks with a <br />nr:tcFxte llx areas subJeq to 6%tt graving had also txxn stxckd with a perennial suedmix in llte sttmtrter <br />and fall of 2(x)11, tart no eRccts of the sttding were t~•idcnt as of the 2IXl I sampling. <br />