Laserfiche WebLink
• Initial shrub establishment appears to be favored by fencing to exclude big game. However, the long- <br />term potential of shrubs that have established outside the fence is unknown. <br />• Timing of seeding and post-seeding climatic conditions appear to greatly effect shrub establishment <br />in this region. However, seeds may remain viable for several years during unfavorable conditions <br />resulting in delayed establishment of seeded species. <br />• The use of shrub transplants may increase initial success, but the success of seeding several shrub <br />species such as sagebrush and bitterbrush at Colowyo mine relative to Seneca mine illustrate the <br />potential utility of this less-costly approach. The establishment of tall shrub species such as <br />serviceberry and chokecherry may require the use of transplants and protection from browsing as <br />evidenced by results from the Seneca demonstration plots. <br />• Lesser amounts of topsoil (15 cm) appear to be better for initial shrub establishment relative to <br />deeper topsoil treatments (50 cm) although these observations vary by site and may not persist in the <br />long-term. <br />• Continued monitoring of the demonstration plots will be critical to make meaningful evaluations of <br />these treatments since many effects may not become apparent for several more years as plant <br />communities progress from an early-seral to mid- or late-seral conditions. Subsequent monitoring <br />should be conducted every two or three years, and should include more intensive shrub measures <br />such as the use of belt transects for counting shrub density. <br />Overall, it seems that successful shrub establishment is possible in these habitats so long as important factors <br />that reduce shrub establishment are considered in reclamation planning. These factors include reducing <br />competition from aggressive grass species, minimizing shrub damage by wildlife, and reducing competition <br />from weedy invasive or seeded grass species by using lesser depths of topsoil. <br />27 <br />LITERATURE CITED <br />Alexander, R. R. 1985. Major habitat types, community types, and plant communities in the Rocky <br />Mountains. General Technical Report No. RM-123, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain <br />Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. <br />Alexander, R. R. 1987. Classification of the forest vegetation of Colorado by habitat type and community <br />type. Research Note No. RM-478, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA <br />Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO. <br />Banner, R. E. 1992. Vegetation types of Utah. Rangelands 14:109-114. <br />Colorado Natural Areas Program. 1998. Native plant revegetation guide for Colorado. Colorado <br />Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO. <br />Hess, K, and R. R. Alexander. 1986. Forest vegetation of the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in <br />central Colorado: a habitat type classification. Research Paper No. RM-266, USDA Forest <br />Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,CO. <br />Hess, K., C.H. Wasser. 1982. Grassland, Shrubland, and Forested Habitat types of the White River- <br />Arapaho National Forest. Final Report, cooperative agreement No. 53-82FT-1-19, USDA Forest <br />Service, Lakewood, CO. <br />Hoffman, G. R., and R. R. Alexander. 1980. Forest vegetation of the Routt National Forest in <br />northwestern Colorado: a habitat type classification. Research Paper No. RM-221, USDA Forest <br />Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.