REP45502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vcgcration Smnpffng Fos 199? Table 2 presents a summary of the mean absolute and relative wver for each plot by major life-form. All vegetation field data is contained in Appendix 2. Photographs of the ' sagebrush-wheatgrass reference area and north and south test plots are contained in Appendix 3. Total vegetation cover on the four south test plots varied from 66.9 percent on plot 3 to 72.3 percent on plot 4. Non-vegetation cover was dominated by bare soil which ranged from 24.0 percent on plot 4 to 32.8 percent on plot 3. Rock and litter components represented an insignificant cover percentage. Of the mean relative vegetation cover, annual forbs dominated the plots ranging from 92.4 percent on plot 2 to 95.5 percent on plot 3. The majority of this cover was Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Other life forms contnbuting small portions of cover included annual grasses and perennial grasses. No shrubs were recorded in either of the cover or belt transects. At this point in time, no significant differences were noted in vegetation cover of the various treatments of soil cover on the ' south plots. Total vegetation cover on the four north test plots varied from 57.8 percent on plot 1 to 79.1 ' percent of both plots 2 and 3. Plot 1 cover was notably lower which may be due to somewhat steeper slopes on the eastern edge of the plot. Non-vegetation cover was dominated by bare soil which ranged from 18.5 percent on plot 2 to 36.9 percent on plot 1. ' Rock and litter components represented an insignificant cover percentage. Of the mean relative vegetation cover, annual forbs dominated the plots ranging from 96.8 percent on plot 4 to 99.8 percent on plot 1. As on the south plots, the majority of this cover was Russian ' thistle. Other life forms contributing small portions of cover included annual grasses and perennial grasses. No shrubs were recorded in either of the cover or belt transects. There was a significant decrease in total vegetation cover of plot 1 as compared to the other three ' plots on the north exposure. As previously mentioned, this may be due to steeper slopes or soil cover placement along the eastern edge of the plot. ' There was a notable difference of total vegetation cover between three of the plots on the north exposure as compared to the south exposure. This difference does not seem to be related to the test plot cover treatment, but to the north versus south exposure. The 1993 sampling should exhibit a more mature vegetation stand on all plots from which to analyze differences in cover treatment. 10