My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP01889
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP01889
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:32:37 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 10:06:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980005
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
2/27/1998
Doc Name
1997 Reclamation Studies & Shrub Establishment Monitoring at Seneca II & IIW Mines
Permit Index Doc Type
Reveg Monitoring Report
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• InitialObscnations <br />shrub Sun ival. :111 shrubs present within each transect were counted by species. (herall. <br />sunical was higher on the no-topsoil treatment (8>%) than the topsoil treatment 16740). \4'Ixn <br />the riot clu"[nge kxtween tl>L first and xectnd year survival rates is compared, mortality on the <br />topkiilcJ trcautxnt is almost three tines higher than the no-topsoil treatment (I aMe 21). 'fife <br />substantial di(lcrerxe in nwnality could relate to uveml factors such as increaxd plattt <br />competition with weedy herbaceous vegetation present on the topsoil trcatmcnt or better <br />adaptation of sfuuf>s to arils with shallow rocky prolilcs. 7~he toputil treatnxnt is developing <br />substantial weed coverage 111.5 •%) which consists mainly of Canada Thistle (('iraiunr un•en.~•r). <br />'this compares to the no-u~psuil treatment which has a mere 3.4% coverage ol'hcrhaceous wads. <br />In addition. shrub species ttuty he better able to utiliie habitat with rocky substrates h}' albwing <br />fife dapcr root pertctratian and the heater use of lower nx>uture levels. Rooting depth ..-ill he <br />as•.vessed during the linal year ollhe study to investigate this possibility. <br />l able 21. \et decrease in shrub sun ival. <br />Firs) 1'cur 4% tiers ival ~ecnnd fear % Sun ival % Net Chan ~c <br />Vn- f~~ sail l rc;unxttt N~ KS -,°~~ <br />I nii:oil l rr;nnxnt K7 67 -'i~"„ <br />tiurvival ufshrul>vs by species varies between the two trtrtmxents (Figure 3. Table 221. <br />• t hukcchcm and Gamhcl's Uuk tend to survive at higher rates than Scrviccbcm on both <br />trrutmcnts. (iamhel's Uak survival escadcd I(w% in the no-topxtil treatment which is likely the <br />result of resprouting of individual plants previously noted as dead or missed an the initial survey. <br />~ervialtem~ had the lowest rate otsurvival in both treatments. Servicehem has coruistcnth high <br />browse damage and demonstrates little resprouting which inay account liir its law survival. <br />Figure 4 : Shrub Survival by Treatment <br />t 00 . <br />t30 <br />'> 60 . <br />~ q0 .. 1 <br />20 - ~ <br />0 - I- <br />No Topsol Topsoil <br />] Average ~ Chokecherry <br />Gambel's Oak ~ Servlceberry <br />• <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.