My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP48833
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP48833
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:52:38 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:24:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977210
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
10/9/1984
Doc Name
REPORT ON REVEGATION OF SNYDER BERM JUNE 1984 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
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.
/
7
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
• ` ~ page 2 • <br />Not much growth has occurred, but during the first year or two most <br />trees and shrubs do not grow very much as they are becoming established. <br />Table 2 is more important with respect to the future of these plants. <br />This table shows the conditions of the plants. It is readily evident <br />that the deciduous plants have much better conditions than the Junipers. <br />It is not known why this is, but it may have to do with an incompatibility <br />with the growth medium. The very poor condition of the cottonwoods was not <br />unexpected. The site is fairly dry and at the upper elevation limit for <br />the species. Actually, it was rather surprising to find 2/3 of them still <br />alive in the second year. <br />QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE VEGETATION: In sampling the vegetation 100 <br />20 X 20 cm. quadrats were taken over the entire berm area. The samples <br />were not taken in a strictly random fashion, but when that many samples are <br />taken the variances between random and other methods is not seriously <br />different except when particular patterns are being examined or very precise <br />comparisons are being made. Because the various species of wheatgrasses <br />were lumped into one "species" it was determined that theoretically precise <br />sampling me[hods were not needed and if used would greatly increase the <br />amount of time spent sampling the vegetation. The primary information sought <br />was an estimate of density, frequency, and cover. Strictly speaking what <br />was most important was an assessment of vegetation uniformity over the <br />entire area (frequency), the density of plants overall, and an average cover <br />estimate. <br />Although a few numerically minor species were encountered most of these <br />had frequencies of less than 5%. To acquire an accurate estimate of these <br />species, at least 500 samples would have been needed. Ecologically, anything <br />that uncommon is probably not important from the standpoint of assessing <br />overall revegetation success, 99~ of which is dependent upon the species <br />planted plus the heavy invaders. <br />Table 3 shows the results of the analysis of sampling data. Although <br />Mountain Mahogany had a marginally significant frequency for 100 samples, <br />it is included because of its importance and because the seedlings are rather <br />abundant on the area, for a shrub. Cover was not assessed by species, but <br />only as a total for the entire sample. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.