Laserfiche WebLink
MW*MM <br /> w= in-L"gRnouncxn.%oiL% <br /> Interpretation of these observations must be made with caution. In the first place, <br /> it appears that the 1980 terrace was seeded with a different seed mix than the <br /> other terraces, with greater emphasis on native species. The natives will, in <br /> general, be more difficult to establish and somewhat less productive than the <br /> improved pasture species. Differences in cover and production between years are <br /> therefore attributable to factors other than time alone. <br /> The communities and reference areas described in the vegetation baseline inven- <br /> tory represent mature stands of trees and shrubs. The reclaimed waste dump area <br /> is relatively young and almost completely herbaceous. Shrubs and trees have been <br /> planted and are present on the reclaimed area, but are still relatively <br /> inconspicuous. <br /> In a few areas on the reclaimed terraces, it appears that plant stands have been <br /> affected by variable mulch cover. Several patchy areas were noticed where <br /> application of straw mulch was quite heavy. In other areas, mulch cover was not <br /> apparent. <br /> The vigor of seeded plants is good except on the 1980 terrace. Orchardgrass on the <br /> 1980 terrace appears somewhat nitrogen deficient in comparison to stands on the <br /> other terraces. <br /> IV. Conclusion and Recommendations <br /> 1. Overall, vegetation establishment on the waste dump terraces appears <br /> relatively successful. Since the 1980 terrace is only in its second growing <br /> season, its appearance is not quite as good. <br /> 2. Vegetative cover and production are enhanced by greater depth of soil cover <br /> within the ranges encountered in this study. All other things being equal— <br /> such as slope, aspect and species seeded—soil cover of not less than 30 cm <br /> (12 inches) should not jeopardize efforts to revegetate this waste dump site <br /> successfully. <br /> 6 <br />