Laserfiche WebLink
• may have been concentrated in survival and root growth. <br />Response of aspen to irrigation was less than the response to landscape fabric. <br />Rainfall during the growing season was light, but relatively frequent (Fig 2). It is <br />expected that there was sufficient ambient rainfall to provide adequate soil moisture for <br />aspen to survive and grow. However, the amount of survival and growth was dependent <br />on the amount of soil moisture remaining after removal by competing vegetation. <br />r1 <br />I? <br />Seneca IIW Precipitation 2008 <br />0.8- cumulative total 3.05 inches <br />0.7 <br />s o.s <br />Y <br />Y° w 0.5 <br />0.4 <br />$D Q <br />c 0.3 • <br />CL <br />21 • 0.2 • <br />0.1 • • T• • i H?- <br />• • <br />0 <br />170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 <br />Day of Year <br />Figure 2. Ambient rainfall at the IIW study site. <br />Survival was related to biomass of competing vegetation for aspen, but not for <br />serviceberry (Fig. 3). Mortality averaged about 20% for serviceberry, regardless of <br />treatment. Mortality of aspen varied from about 8% to 45% for aspen, and was related to <br />biomass of competing vegetation. The response varied greatly by site (Fig. 4), and was <br />apparently related to surrounding vegetation that competed with aspen for water and this <br />affected survival. Yoast plots had the highest biomass of competing vegetation, with the <br />highest biomass and aspen mortality in Yoast Blocks 1 and 2 that were in the same <br />fenced area. Serviceberry plants were smaller, suggesting it took less water for them to <br />survive. <br />•