Laserfiche WebLink
<br />' not exceed 75%, and that any one species not have greater than 40% relative <br />' cover. Computer calculations of the diversity are included in Appendix A. <br />2.3 SHRUB DENSITY <br />Shrub densities were determined by counting the number of shrubs in a 2 x 20 <br />meter plot. A total of fifty plots were sampled throughout the reclaimed <br />area. Data sheets from the sampling are included in Appendix B. <br />2.4 PRODUCTIVITY <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />t <br />1 <br />Productivity was determined by clipping a total of 35 meter square plots, 25 <br />of which were in areas in the third growing season or older. Perennial <br />grasses and fortis found within the plot were clipped to the ground and oven <br />dried. Dry matter weights were then calculated on a per acre basis. <br />3.0 RESULTS <br />3.1 CANOPY COVER <br />A weighted average of reclaimed areas indicates a canopy cover of 77% for <br />all reclaimed areas. Areas in the third growing season or older- had a <br />weighted average cover of 84% while areas in the second growing season had a <br />cover value of 56% Sampling conducted during 1984 found cover values <br />ranging from 7696% with a weighted cover value of 92%. Sampling con- <br />ducted in 1984 was completed only on areas in the third growing season or <br />older. The lack of moisture during the summer of 1985 may be responsible <br />for the decrease in total cover from 1984 to 1985; however, the general <br />trend indicates that cover increases as the age of the stand increases. <br />Computer generated calculations of each transect are included in Appendix A, <br />and the total cover for the reclaimed areas is listed in Table 4. <br />I .. , ,- <br />1G`li b ,~j, C.t' . r. .~' ~ .,r f <br />v ~, <br />~' j.,i <br />~ Y~ <br />v ~ <br />,.; <br /> <br />~ •~ <br /> <br />~~ <br />-5- <br />~n, ~ v 7 ~ <br />1 <br />