Factors affecting the native species invasion of a reclaimed subalpine minesite near Grande Cache,
Alberta
by Sylvia Frances Van Zalingen
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land
Rehabilitation
Montana State University
© Copyright by Sylvia Frances Van Zalingen (1987)
Abstract:
Reclamation specialists in Canada and the United States have debated the utility of agronomic versus
native species in mined land reclamation. Agronomic species are generally • readily available, easily
established and inexpensive, while native species may be more viable on particularly harsh sites.
Agronomic species are frequently heavily dependent on agricultural treatments, while native species
are often slow, difficult, and expensive to establish.
Smoky River Coal Ltd., in cooperation with the Alberta Research Council, decided in the early
seventies to use agronomic species in the revegetation of their Number 8 Mine site located north of
Grande Cache, Alberta. Good coverage of the subalpine site by agronomic species was achieved. Since
that time, researchers from the Alberta Research Council have noticed a gradual increase, in native
species coverage on the minesite. This study was initiated to determine the nature of factors involved in
the invasion. The primary objective was to identify and rank factors significantly affecting the native
species invasion.
Data collection involved cover estimations at preselected sampling locations. Covariance analyses were
conducted to identify variables significantly affecting invasion by native species.
Analyses indicated that significant variables included coarse fragments, aspect, distance from the
nearest upwind seed source, alfalfa cover and slope. Independent variable rankings indicated that
coarse fragment rating was the most important variable contributing to occurrence of native species.
Aspect and distance from the nearest upwind- seed source ranked second. FACTORS AFFECTING THE NATIVE SPECIES INVASION OF A
R E C L A I M E D S U B ALPINE M I N E S ITE N E A R GRA N D E CACHE,
Sylvia Frances V a n
ALBERTA
Zalingen
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of.the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
in
Land Rehabilitation
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
December,
1987
J
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Sylvia Frances Van Zalingen
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis
committee and has,been
found to . be satisfactory regarding
content,
English usage,
format, citations, bibliographic
style, and consistency, and is ready for submission .to the
College of Graduate Studies.
Date
Committee
Approved for the Major Department
Date
Head, Major Department
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
Date
Graduate Dean
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this thesis
the
requirements
University,
available to
I
for
agree
a
in
partial
fulfillment of
master's degree at Montana State
that
the
borrowers under
quotations from this thesis
Library
shall
make
rules of the Library.
are allowable
it
Brief
without special
permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source
is made.
Permission
reproduction
of
for
extensive
quotation
this
thesis
be granted by my major
may
professor, or in his absence, by the Director
when, in
the opinion
of either,
from
of Libraries
the proposed
material is for scholarly purposes.
or
Any copying
use of the
or use of
the material in this thesis for financial gain shall not be
allowed without my written permission.
Signature
Date
A^mfi1rV(Ur)
Amym
F)QMtimfan Ift i I ^ R l
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
wish
assistance
to
during
collection, data
Dollhopf
and
the
project, with the
collection.
Rennick
Dr.
provided
methods.
property.
thank
the
the
many
course
analysis and
Alberta
of
provided
thesis assembly.
Dr. D.J.
Council arranged the
Research
Frank
who
project planning, data
Research
Alberta
help
people
Council
:
funding data
Munshower, Dennis Neuman and Bob
in
planning
the
data collection
Smoky River Coal Ltd. allowed me to work on their
Terry Mac yk ,
Zdenek Widtman
and Faye Nikiforuk
I
}
■
of
the
Alberta
Research
Council
technical support during data
provided
collection.
guidance and
Kathy Hanford,
' I
Carol
Bittinger
arid
Dr.
hours instructing me in
through
the
lengthy
provided 'food for
certain portions
Richard
the
data
thought’
of the
use
Lund spent innumerable
of
analyses.
during
thesis.
support.
computer
packages
and
and
guiding me
Dr. Brian Sindelar
the
struggle through
Finally, I would like to
thank Ray Carrier for his invaluable
various
SAS
for
assistance in
his
patient
use of
moral
V
’
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ................. ■...................... vii •
LIST OF FIGURES.
.......................................
xiv
A B S T R A C T ............................
INTRODUCTION .........................................
LITERATURE REVIEW
xvii
.
.....................................
Introduction
.....................................
S o i l s ......................
Fertilization .....................................
Seeding
.......................... .. . . . . .
.
S l o p e .............................
A s p e c t ...........................................
Seed Dispersal byW i n d ...........................
Succession
.....................
Native Versus Agronomic Species ............. . .
I
4
4
5
8
13
14
15
18
19
20
SITE D E S C R I P T I O N .................
27
METHODS AND MATERIALS
... ...........................
29
Data Collection . ................................
Statistical Analyses
.................
. . . . .
29
33
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
... ..................
Dependent Variables
............ . . . .
Variable M a n i p u l a t i o n ..........
Coarse Fragments
...............................
Coversoil Depth ........................... . . . .
F e r t i l i z a t i o n ............................
S l o p e .......................
A s p e c t ...........................................
Distance From The Nearest Undisturbed Area
...
Distance From The Nearest Westerly
Undisturbed Area ......... . . . . . . . . .
Percent Cover of Alfalfa..........................
Variable R a n k i n g ...................
39
39
41
45
58
59
60
62
64
65
66
66
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ...................... ..
Recommendations for Increasing Native Species
Percent Cover. . . . . . . . . .
.........
LITERATURE CITED ..........................
74
.
. . . . . .
APPENDICES ...................................... ..
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
I . REDUCED AND FULL MODEL COMPARISONS .
II.
SLOPE AND P-VALUE ESTIMATES . . . .
III. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE TABLES
. .
IV. LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TESTS.
\
78
80
91
92
95
105
123
vi i
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 I.
12.
13.
14.
Page
Native species present on the Number
8 M i n e . . . ......................
40
Comparison between fourth covariance analysis
series (reduced model ) and third covariance
analysis series (full model). . . . . . . . . .
93
Comparison between fifth covariance analysis
series (reduced model) and fourth covariance
analysis series (full model).................
93
Comparison between sixth covariance analysis
series (reduced mod el) and fifth covariance
analysis series (full model)...........
94
Slope estimates for the first series of
covariance analyses ............................
96
P-value estimates for the first series of
covariance a n a l y s e s ........................ ..
.
96
Slope estimates for the second series of
covariance analyses ............................
97
P-value estimates for the second series of
covariance analyses ............................
97
Slope estimates for the third series of
covariance a n a l y s e s ..........
98
P-value estimates for the third series of
covariance analyses ............................
98
Slope estimates for the fourth series of .
covariance analyses ............................
99
P-value estimates for the fourth series of
covariance analyses ............................
99
Slope estimates for the fifth series of
covariance analyses ............................
100
P-value estimates for the fifth series of
covariance analyses
100
Viii
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
15.
16.
17.
18.
Page
Slopes estimates for the sixth series of
covariance analyses ............................
101
P-value estimates for the sixth series of
covariance analyses ............................
101
Slopes estimates for the seventh series of
covariance analyses .............................
102
P-value estimates for the seventh series of
covariance a n a l y s e s .........................
102
19.
Slope estimates for the eighth series of
covariance a n a l y s e s ........... ................. 103
20.
P-value estimates for the eighth series of
covariance a n a l y s e s ........ .. ................ 103
21.
Slope estimates for the ninth series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively selected points). . . . .
104
P-value estimates for the ninth series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively selected points). . . .
104
Slope estimates for the tenth series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively selected points).
...
105
P-value estimates for the tenth series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively selected point's). . . .
105
Slope estimates for the eleventh series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively.selected points). . . .
106
P-value estimates for the eleventh series of
covariance analyses (data base including
additional subjectively selected points). . . .
106
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover
108
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
...
ix
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
Page
28.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding m o s s ).................... 108
29.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss). . . ...........
108
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r ..............................
109
30.
31.
32.
.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cov er.....................
109
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover ...........................
109
33.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover
34.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s ) .................... 110
35.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including mos s). ...........
36.
37.
...
110
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent cover ....................................
Ill
Covariance analysis of native nitrogenfixing species percent cover ..................
38.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover . ........................ 111
39.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover
40.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding moss). . ; ............
41.
110
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover, (including mos s ) ............
...
Ill
112
112
112
42.
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r ........... .. . .................. T13
43.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogenfixing species percent cov er ...................... 113
X
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
44.
Page
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent c o v e r ......................
n 3
45.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
46.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding moss ).................... 114
47.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss). . . ...........
48.
114
114
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent cover i ...............................
115
49.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cover...................... 115
50.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover . . . .
...................
115
51.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
52.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s) .................... 116
53.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss) .................... 116
54.
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent cover . ... ........... ................. 117
55.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cover. . . ................ 117
56.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover ..........................
117
57.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
118
58.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding moss ). ................
59.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including mos s) ........ ..
.
116
118
118
xi
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
60.
Page
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent cover . ... .......................
n 9
61.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cover. . . .................119
62.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover ...........................
63.
64.
119
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . . 120
'
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excludingmo s s )..................... 120
65.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including mo s s ).................... 120
66.
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r .............................. .
.
i2 1
67.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cover...................... 121
68.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover ..............................121
69.
Covariance analysis of moss percent coyer . . .
70.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s) .................... 122
71.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss). . . ■........... 122
72.
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r ..........
122
123
73.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cover...................... 123
74.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover . ................ ..
75.
. . .
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
123
124
xi i
LIST OF T A B L E S — Continued
Table
76.
77.
78.
Page
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mo ss) ............. ..
.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss). . . . . . . . .
124
1 24
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r ...........................
125
79.
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent c o ver ...................... 125
80.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover ...........................
125
81.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
82.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s) .................... 126
83.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including mos s) ................
84.
85.
86.
126
126
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent cover ....................................
127
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cov er. ...................
127
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent cover . * .....................
127
87.
Covariance analysis of moss percent cover . . .
88.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s) .................... 128
89.
Covariance analysis of native species
percent cover (including moss )............. ..
90.
91.
128
.
1 28
Covariance analysis of native tree species
percent c o v e r ..............................
Covariance analysis of native nitrogen­
fixing species percent cov e r ...................... 129
129
xiii
LIST OF TABLES— Continued
Table
Page
92.
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae
species percent c o v e r .............. ... ...... 129
93.
Least significant difference test for moss
percent c o v e r ...............
131
94.
Least significant difference test for native
species percent cover (excluding moss)........... 131
95.
Least significant difference test for. native ■
species percent cover (including moss)...........132
96.
Least significant difference test for native
tree species percent cover........................ 132
97.
Least significant difference test for native
nitrogen-fixing species percent cover .........
98.
1 33
Least significant .difference test for native
Asteraceae species percent cover.................. 133
x i v .
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi9ure
Page
I.
Location of Smoky River Coal L t d ..............
2.
Grid application to a map of the study site.
3.
Seeding and fertilization information for
Number 8 M i n e ...................................
34
4.
Soil depth map of the Number 8 Mine area . . .
36
5.
Percent moss cover with increasing coarse
fragment r a t i n g . ...................... ..
47
Percent native species cover with increasing
coarse fragment rating (excluding moss). . . .
47
Percent native species cover with increasing
coarse fragment rating (including moss). . . .
48
6.
^"
8.
9.
10.
1 I.
12.
13.
14.
15.
.
Percent native tree species cover with
increasing coarse fragment rating..........
2
30
48
Percent native nitrogen-fixing species
with increasing coarse fragment rating . . . .
49
Percent native Asteraceae species percent
cover with increasing coarse fragment rating .
49
Number of moss percent cover observations
with increasing coarse fragment rating . . . .
52
Number of native species percent cover
observations with increasing coarse fragment
rating (excluding moss)....................
Number of native species percent cover
observations with increasing coarse fragment
rating (including moss).....................
52
53
Number of native tree species percent c o v e r •
observations with increasing coarse
fragment rating. . . . . . . .
.................
Number of native nitrogen-fixing species
percent cover observations with increasing
coarse fragment rating . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
54
XV
LIST OF FIGURES— Continued
Figure
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Page
Number of native Asteraceae species percent
cover observations with increasing coarse
fragment rating............. ...................
54
Number of moss percent cover observations
with increasing coarse fragment rating
(additional data set)..........................
55
Number of native species percent cover
observations with increasing coarse fragment
rating (excluding moss) (additional data set).
55
Number of native species percent cover
observations with increasing coarse fragment
rating (including moss) (additional data set).
56
Number of native tree species percent cover
observations with increasing coarse fragment
rating (additional data s e t ) .................
56
Number of native nitrogen-fixing species
percent cover observations with increasing
coarse fragment rating (additional data set)
.
22. ' Number of native Asteraceae species percent
cover observations with increasing coarse
fragment rating (additional data set).........
23.
24.
25.
26.
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of moss percent cover.
. .
57
57
67
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of native species
percent cover (excluding moss) . . . .........
68
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of native species
percent cover (including moss) ...........
68
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of native tree species
percent cover......................... . .
69
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES--Continued
Figure
27.
28.
29.
30.
Page
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses .of Asteraceae species
percent cover. .................................
70
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of moss percent cover
(additionaldata set)................
71
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of native species
percent cover (excluding mos s) (additional
data set).....................
71
Ranking of variables significant in
covariance analyses of native species
percent cover (including moss) (additional
data set)
72
xvi i
ABSTRACT
Reclamation specialists
in Canada and the United
States have debated the utility of agronomic versus native
species in mined land reclamation. Agronomic species are
generally • readily
available,
easily
established and
inexpensive, while native species may be more viable on
particularly harsh sites.
Agronomic species are frequently
heavily dependent on agricultural treatments, while native
species are often
slow,
difficult,
and
expensive to
establish.
Smoky River Coal Ltd., in cooperation with the Alberta
Research Council, decided in the early seventies to use
agronomic
species
in the revegetation of their Number 8
Mine site located north of Grande Cache, Alberta.
Good
coverage of the subalpine
site by agronomic species was
achieved.
Since that time, researchers
from the Alberta
Research Council have noticed a gradual increase, in native
species coverage on the minesite.
This study was initiated
to determine
the nature of
factors involved in the
invasion.
The primary objective was to identify and rank
factors
significantly
affecting
the
native species
invasion.
Data collection
involved cover estimations at pre­
selected sampling
locations.
Covariance analyses were
conducted to identify variables
significantly affecting
invasion by native species.
Analyses indicated that significant variables included
coarse fragments, aspect, distance from the nearest upwind
seed source, alfalfa cover and slope.
Independent variable
rankings indicated that coarse fragment rating was the most
important variable contributing to occurrence of native
species.
Aspect and distance from the nearest upwind- seed
source ranked second.
I
INTRODUCTION
The Alberta
Land Conservation
1974 mandates that
Alberta
be
land
and Reclamation Act of
disturbed
reclaimed
to
a
by
level
surface
of
productivity
usefulness at least equal to the level which
to mining
activities.
'Land Conservation
regarding
the
developed on
whether
Y e t , both
Regulations'
nature
of
reclaimed
postmine
the
or
existed prior
the Act and the ensuing
are
relatively ambiguous
plant
sites.
vegetation
mining in
communities
No
mention
should
to
be
is
made of
approximate
premine
vegetation in terms of species composition or diversity.
This absence of
mining
companies
specific
and
regulatory
flexibility in determining
on a
site-specific basis.
debate
within
utility of
the
requirements
reclamation
native versus
agencies
appropriate
It
provides both
with
great
revegetation plans
has also
community
created room for
regarding
introduced species.
has become particularly heated with.regard
the
The debate
to revegetation
of high elevation areas in the Eastern Slopes.of Alberta.
Smoky River
Coal Ltd.
(formerly McIntyre Mines Ltd.),
in cooperation with the Alberta Research Council,
reached a
2
decision in the early seventies to use agronomic species in
the revegetation
of their
Number 8 Mine.
minesite is depicted in Figure I.
agronomic species
Despite
were unsuitable
Location of the
criticisms that
for the harsh subalpine
environment of the site, good coverage by these species was
achieved (Ma c y k , 1985).
Province of Alberta,
Canada
#Smoky River Coal Ltd.
Grande Cache
Figure I.
Location of Smoky River Coal Ltd..
3
During
the
years
since
the
area
researchers from the Alberta Research Council
a
gradual
increase
in
the
number
species present on the minesite.
established in
was
have noticed
and extent of native
Three 5 by 5 m plots were
1984 to give some initial indication of the
extent of native species invasion (Macyk, 1984).
the
plots
seeded,
indicated
populations with
a
Data from
general decline in native species
increasing distance
from the undisturbed
forest.
In order to learn more about the factors involved
in
native
this
Council,
in
species
cooperation
invasion,
with
the
Montana
Alberta Research
State University,
agreed to fund additional research into the process.
The purpose of this study was to fulfill objectives of
the Alberta
Research Council
in determining the nature of
factors involved in the native species invasion.
Objectives of this study were to:
(1)
Identify and
extent and
rank
factors
affecting
the areal
distribution of native species on the
minesite.
(2)
Provide
native
areas .
recommendations ■ for
species
invasions
of
enhancing
future
similar disturbed
4
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
An invasion of native species will occur over
any
site
which
has
Potentially, such
a
been
seeded
site
species composition (Hawk,
will
to
agronomic species.
revert
1973).
time on
to
a near-native
The natural revegetation
process appears to be multi factorial (Gibson et al ., I985).
Specific management
practices can
alter the rate at which
native invasion occurs (Hawk, 1973).
Use of competitive
species
can
(Johnson,
enhance
impede
1981).
growth
the
conditions,
, propagules
well-adapted
rate
of
agronomic
distance
(Gibson
or
other
species
Other factors
by ■ native
species
from
et
agronomic grass
of native species invasion
Fertilization
effect (Hawk, 1973).
invasions
and
can have a similar
potentially affecting
include
sources
practices which
of
soil
native
substrate
species
a l . , I985), slope, stability (Hawk,
1973), and aspect (Errington, 1975).
5
Soils
The
influence
productivity
and
of
soils
composition
on
postmine
vegetative
is associated with depth of
topsoil and chemical and physical properties of topsoil and
subsoil .(Redente
and Hargis,
of
1985; Rowell,
documenting
effects
topsoil
depth
success and
vegetation composition
al.
(1984)
on
Studies
revegetation
have attained variable
results (Biondini et a l . , 1984; Redente
Biondini et
1981).
were unable
and Hargis,
1985).
to find a significant
pattern in vegetation composition as related to soil depth.
Redente
and
Hargis
(1985)
production tended to
from 60
to 30
cm.
topsoil
depths
decrease
that
as
total vegetation
topsoil
depth declined
Greater productivity levels at greater
were
perennial grasses
found
attributed
and annual
primarily
weeds.
to
growth of
Perennial forbs and
shrubs were virtually excluded on these sites.
Physical characteristics
discussed by
a number
of authors
1976; Ashby et a l . , 1982;
Cleve >
1976).
probably
of
limit
postmine
plant
by
Martens
textured with
and
low
in
more
that
and Van
physical
mountainous areas
than
chemical
or
spoils were characterized
(1976)
moisture
Johnson
stated
soils
. growth
Nicholson
soil
1981;
(1981)
biological properties.. Postmine
soils have been
(Martens and Nicholson,
Rowell,
Rowell
characteristics
of postmine
as
being
very coarse
retention capabilities.
6
They tended
to be
dark in
color with high bulk densities
and low cation exchange capacities.
High coarse fragment
(and
possibly
soils)
less
are
common
in spoils
of minesites located in mountainous
areas (Rowell, 1981).
contents
contents
Rowell reported that coarse fragment
20
than
percent
by
volume
permeability and aeration of dense soils.
may increase
He
stated that
higher coarse fragment levels will result in a reduction of
soil moisture holding capacity and cause
soil available
et al.
for root growth to become too small.
(1984) disagreed.
contents as
the proportion of
high as
They
noted that
45 percent
Ashby
coarse fragment
by volume in near surface
soils had no detrimental effects on yield of
corn, pasture
and trees.
Rock fragments affect chemical and physical properties
of
soils.
Their
difficult to
mining
affect
absorption, aeration
soil.
on
assess independently
altered during
fragments
effects
and
soil
plant
productivity
are
of other soil variables
reclamation
processes.
Rock
temperature
regimes,
water
and surface
area per
unit volume of
Coarse fragments in mountainous areas may extend the
growing season length by increasing soil temperatures early
in
the
spring
and
through the summmer.
voids
in
the
maintaining
higher soil temperatures
Water frequently remains in scattered
profile
throughout
the
growing
season.
I
It infiltrates
and is more
fragments
readily into soils high in coarse fragments
readily
hold
it
improve porosity
available
at
and
low
to
plants
tensions.
aeration
in
because coarse
Coarse fragments
uncompacted minesoils.
Despite reductions in surface area per unit volume of soil,
rooting volume may be
unaffected because
rooting depth is
frequently increased (Ashby et a l ., I984).
Presence
of
organic
matter
in
postmine soils will
enhance structure forming capabilities of these soils (Cook
et al.,
1974).
Positive attributes of soil organic matter
were discussed by Brady
moisture
holding
(1984) and
capacity
desirable to apply topsoil
topsoil storage
times.
and
included improved soil
nutrient
cycling.
where, possible
It is
and to minimize
Topsoil application may ameliorate
poor physical spoil characteristics such as dark color.
Soil and
areas vary
spoil
chemical
with the site.
limitations
in mountainous
Topsoil application ameliorates
some of the adverse chemical limitations, providing that it
is available
in sufficient
stated
it
that
is
quantities.
possible
to
But, Brown (1978)
overcome
adverse spoil
conditions in alpine areas even in the absence of available
topsoil.
and the
He cited use of chemical amendments such as lime,
application of
organic matter
possible means of achieving this.
and fertilizers as
8
Fertilization
Fertilization
considered
of
critical
high
at
or
altitude
near
sites
the
time of seeding to
achieve successful vegetation establishment
1981; Johnson,
1980).
when agronomic
species are
treatments will
been
(Fyles et a l .,
Several authors were convinced that
seeded, repeated fertilization
be required
to achieve continued survival
of these species (Fyles' et a l . ,
1977).
is generally
1981; Bell
and Meidinger,
Where mixtures of native and agronomic species have
seeded,
there
is
applications provide
advantage.
species
little
that
agronomic species
Errington (1978)
mixtures,
doubt
noted
applications
fertilizer
with a competitive
that
within agronomic
of fertilizer resulted in
improved grass species growth at the expense of legumes.
Trials by Ledgard (1974)
fertilizers
to
vegetation
increased
areas
had
been
competition
of
indicated
bare
introduced
from
that
subsoil
where herbaceous
frequently
was
enhanced
fertilizer,
rapid
growth
Doerr and
was
through
applications.
of
Redente
reduced
greater forb
by
fibrous
(1983)
on
in
Herbaceous cover
minimization
Nitrogen
of
fertilizer
initial
promoted
rooted grasses (Ledgard,
also reported
unfertilized
1974).
that forb biomass
fertilizer applications.
biomass
resulted
previously established plants
rather than promotion of seedling growth.
growth
addition of
They attributed
plots
compared to
9
fertilized plots to a reduction in grass competition within
unfertilized
plots.
reduced
time
the
They
concluded
necessary .for
that
fertilizers
grasses to achieve high
production levels at the expense of forb productivity.
In
a
northwest
study
of
a
Colorado,
sagebrush
grass
fertilization, while forb
were
unaffected
production
on
-
production
production
(Redente
grass
et
increased
declined
a l . , 1984).
unfertilized
areas
was
be
reduced
in
desired,
combination
Fertilization in complex
caused
a ■ decline
showed no effect.
seedlings
herbaceous
may
in
with
grass
-
Increased forb
to
It was suggested
applications should
altered
seeding rates.
forb
shrub mixtures
-
species diversity.
Mays and Bengtson
be
cover
recommended a
fertilizer
with
and shrubs
attributed
decreased competition from grass species.
that if forbs are
community in
Simple mixtures
(1978) found that tree
outcompeted by excessive development of
when
over-fertilization
combination of
occurs.
They
fertilization and herbicides
where tree seedlings are desired.
Coarse-textured
subalpine
areas
subsoils
frequently
which result in persistent
and Barrau,
1978).
and
glacial
tills
in
exhibit nitrogen deficiencies
soil
fertility
problems (Berg
Phosphorus is the other most frequently
deficient soil nutrient on reclaimed area's (Schoenholtz and
Burger, I984).
10
Ziemkiewicz (1982)
reported that a variety of Arctic,
alpine, and subalpine
reclamation
that
exhibited
seeded
species
declined in vigor as
plant
material
studies
good
initial growth, but
fertilization was
accumulated
at
the
have indicated
withdrawn and dead
soil
surface.
He
attributed increases in subalpine detritus to a combination
of slow
decomposition and increased shoot biomass from the
previous year.
program
will
Termination of a
result
in
a
maintenance fertilization
gradual
decline
in detrital
accumulation.
Self-sustaining vegetative cover development
will continue
to be inhibited by poor nutrient cycling and
scarcity of nitrogen-fixing species in subalpine areas.
Johnson (1980) recognized the importance of legumes in
revegetation of disturbed lands.
He stated that increasing
nitrogen fertilizer costs coupled with the
returning
disturbed
status as quickly as
areas
to
desirability of
a self-sustaining nutrient
possible, provide
good incentives to
research biological nitrogen fixation.
Ziemkiewicz (1982)
identified both immature and mature
' .reclamation plant community development.
the immature
plant community
small root system
with large
with
phase as having a relatively
little
yearly
decomposition, and
proportions of. available nutrients being moved
from shoots to detritus.
detrital
He characterized
decomposition
In
does
subalpine areas,
not
generally
where rapid
occur, plant
community nutrient deficiencies
result.
and
productivity declines
Nitrogen and phosphorus are immobilized more than
other macronutrients.
high elevation
Ziemkiewicz
areas are
likely to require longer periods
of maintenance fertilization.
mature
plant
communities
According
exhibit
larger yearly attrition, and
Nutrient
cycling
(1982) postulated that
occurs
to
larger
this author,
root
systems,
rapid detrital decomposition.
rapidly and these communities do
not require maintenance fertilization.
Legume growth
important for
with
high
altitude
reclaimed
areas is
creating a self-perpetuating plant community
adequate
Schoenholtz
on
nutrient
and
Burger
cycling
(1984)
(Errington,
1978).
stated that as succession
advances, dehydrogenase enzymatic activity levels increase.
They found
levels
a positive
and
perennial
correlation between enzyme activity
grass
or
alfalfa
productivity in
introduced seed mixtures and between enzyme activity levels
and perennial grass productivity in native seed mixtures.
Biondini
et
al.
lacking fertilization,
(1984)
and
soil
community
that
although areas
tended to become forb-dominated,
opposed to fertilized areas
they had
noted
(as
which became grass-dominated),
to reject their hypothesis that fertilizer levels
thickness
species
(1981) reported that
have
a
long-term
composition.
applications
effect
Sadasivaiah
of
on
plant
and Weijer
fertilizer
to high
12
altitude native
increases.
grasses resulted
They
adaptatations
attributed
to
low
make
such
altitudes
observation
levels.
species (or
adaptations
competition.
this
nutrient
conditions in which these
in no significant growth
a
to species
The
poor soil
ecotypes) originate
necessity
for
successful
An additional drawback of fertilizing at high
is
that
the combination of fertilizer, drought
and late season rainfall may create problems with the short
summers by extending the growing season so much that native
grasses do not have adequate time to become dormant.
Topsoil application ameliorates
fertilizers.
linear
McGinnies
increase
in
plant
topsoil depth.
But,
elevation sites
(Brown et
aid soil
and
the
Nicholas
growth
and
requirements for
(1980) reported a
productivity with
topsoil is often unavailable at high
a l ., 1976).
Fertilization may
development and stabilization, particularly where
topsoil is. shallow (McGinnies and Nicholas,
Munshower and Neuman (1980)
levels
calcium)
(nitrogen,
in
compared to
macronutrient
found lower macronutrient
phosphorus,
potassium,
growing
sites
plants
plants from
levels
on
topsoiled sites.
similar
1980).
to
native
magnesium
lacking
and
topsoil
The latter had
unmined
soils.
Ledgard (1974) noted that phosphorus applications increased
pine and
alder growth
rates in
specific
response
plants
by
the subalpine.
But, the
to fertilization treatments
frequently depends on
characteristics,.
soil
the
moisture
plant
distribution,
frequencies and
and Redente,
1983).
regimes,
species
amounts
in
of
other soil
use
and
the
rainfall (Doerr
Potential usefulness of fertilization
should be assessed on a site-specific basis.
Seeding
Successful
establishment
associated
seedling
is
with
emergence,
affected
seeding
by
a
growth
variety
practices.
of
Methods
and
factors
of
seed
application available on high elevation minesites are often
limited because of rough, uneven terrain
Drill
seeding
may
not
be
an option on many sites.
success of broadcast seeding varies with
seeded, moisture
conditions at
growing
had been broadcast onto
produced
which had
might be
a
ground
an
been fertilized
good success
has been
cover the seed
1974).
seasons, native plant seeds which
cover
expected to
the species being
any) to
following broadcasting (Cook et al.,
two
The
and subsequent to the. time
of seeding and techniques used (if
After
and steep slopes.
unamended,
only
rototilled surface
5 percent less than areas
and packed.
perform better
achieved on
Agronomic species
if drill-seeded, but
mountainous sites with
the use of broadcast seeding (Wishart,
1984; Macyk,
1976).
I4
Time of
optimum seeding
varies with species involved
and site edaphic conditions.
seeding
should
occur
Where
immediately
optimum moisture conditions.
seeding,
others
advocate
moisture is limiting,
prior
to
the time of
While some authors favor fall
spring seeding when legumes are
contained in the seed mix (Vallentine,
1980; M a cyk , 1976).
Slope
Post-mine
landscapes
steeper topography
(Berdusco and
in
Canada
commonly
exhibit
than that which existed prior to mining
Milligan,
1977).
A
variety of reclamation
problems can result from these changes (Lesko et a l ., 1975;
McDonald and Errington,
Steep
slopes
can
accelerated erosion
et al.
in
greatest
in
(Berdusco and
establishment
declines
gradients.
Further
slopes ' hinders
1984;
expected to
surface
Milligan,
creep
1977).
and
Lesko
seedlings, with the
between
Movement of
seedling
double for
when the vegetative
for
0
and
20
percent
gradient increases resulted in lower
1975).
each 10
cover
(1969)
soil particles
establishment
Errington,
Krause
rates
occurring
rates of decline.
1981).
result
1985).
(1975) found that increased slope gradients resulted
reduced
Reid,
1978; Veith et al.,
is
down steep
(Grossnickle
Erosion
rates
can
and
be
percent increase in slope
below
considered
50
percent
(Rowell,
the maximum slope for
15
successful revegetation to be
and Errington
70
( 1978) reported
percent,
62 percent
while McDonald
as the steepest
gradient conducive to vegetation establishment.
Lesko and
his co-workers described a 50 percent slope as being a more
realistic upper limit for viable vegetative cover.
Steep slopes are frequently
portions
as
excessive
a
result
runoff
Topographical
(Burns,
control
factor determining
alpine
areas.
of
limited
1980;
of
soil
droughty
in
their upper
snow accumulation and
Veith
et
al.,
snow distribution is a critical
distribution
Formation
of
and
ridges
development in
that are barren in
winter and dry in summer should be avoided (Johnson,
Errington
(1975)
noted
steep logging road
reduction in
that
surfaces
moisture.
1975).
declines
were
1980).
in plant cover on
probably
related
to a
Conversely, large depressions with
increased snow accumulation
are
undesirable
have short, very wet growing seasons (Burns,
because they
1980).
Aspect
Disturbance
practices
such
as dumping procedures in
mountainous terrain commonly increase
decrease
microsite
Milligan,
1977).
reduces
drainage
and
Filling
aspect
variations
of gullies
densities.
slope uniformity and
and low
Revegetation
(Berdusco and
areas often
becomes more
difficult as a result of these alterations, particularly if
post-disturbance
aspects
are
south
Southerly aspects have been found to
reclaim because
of temperature
or southwest facing.
be more
difficult to
and moisture stress (Veith
et a l ., 1985; McDonald and Errington, 1978).
In a study
( 1975) could
cover.
of
logging
road
disturbances, Errington
find no relationship between aspect and total
He postulated that some
species would
be affected
by variations in aspect.
The
combination
temperature and
germination
of
slope
seedling
influences wind
Takyi
noted
in
that
exposed
Foothills of
areas
Alberta.
be largely responsible
minesite
in
the
damage
to
for
Cadomin
the
which control seed
Aspect
exposure (Errington,
gusts
of
in
100
the
soil
1975).
to 120 km/h are
Rocky
Mountains and
The wind's dessieating effects may
after more than 26 years.
in
affect
emergence (Luke, 1981).
also strongly
frequent
aspect
moisture availability,
and
( 1980)
and
seedbed
aspects facing upwind seed
the
failure
region
of
an abandoned
to revegetate naturally
High velocity
and
loss
sources may
gusts may result
of seed.
However,
also receive large
quantities of native seed.
. Microsite
whether plants
1980).
variability
will
Lesko et
al.
is
experience
a
major
drought
determinant
of
stress (Johnson,
(1975) reported that germination and
seedling establishment occurred
primarily
in depressional
17
microsites
because
conditions.
of
their more favorable environmental
Rough-graded
surfaces
with
50
percent
depressional microsites
exhibited larger numbers of plants
per
bulldozer-packed
unit
placement
area
than
tests
indicated
plant
densities
Seed
that germination patterns were
not the result of seed accumulation
Increased
surfaces.
were
in depressional areas.
attributed
to
improved
seedbed quality in microsites.
Water-holding
capacities
of
depressional
microsite
soils were 3 to 7 percent higher than non-depressional area
soils.
and
This was
lower
attributed to
evaporation
rates
(Lesko et a l ., 1975) .
susceptible to
evaporation due
1975).
to
environmental
establishment
traps and
been
and Reid,
a
a number
of shrub,
(Biggins et al.,
successful
study
are less
near
desired for seedling
1984).
Condensation
significantly improved microsite
in
species at
1985).
aiding
Jasper National Park (Harrison,
In
microsites
to decreased wind exposure
conditions
rock placement
Decker, Montana
depressional microsites
Site preparation techniques can be used
(Grossnickle
conditions for
have
in
Depressional
(Errington,
create
higher runoff accumulation
plant
a site near
Hummocky surfaces
establishment in
1977).
Cadomin, Alberta, Takyi and Leitch
(1981) noted that plants growing
in
troughs
of
a ridged
treatment exhibited good growth and seed head production.
18
Troughs served as moisture collection and absorption areas .
Spoil material in
flowing
water
often
collected
in the
troughs and buried the plants.
Seed Dispersal by Wind
Several
authors
have identified dispersal efficiency
as a primary factor in native species invasion of disturbed
sites (Gibson
et a l .,
1985; Johnson and Van Cle v e , 1976).
Wind dispersal of seed is an
important means
of dispersal
for many pioneer species (Errington, 1975).
The ability
of undisturbed
disturbed areas with seed
quantity (Brady
from
these
direction,
varies in
and Thirgood,
undisturbed
seed
seed, duration of
(Zasada, 1971).
sites to provide adjacent
terms of
1982).
sites
is
source
quality,
seed
dispersal
quality and
Availability of seed
a
function
of
wind
quantities of available
and
dispersal distance
These factors must be considered in order
to assess revegetation potential of any site.
Presence of woody species
dispersal
method
invasion is
and
dominated by
species disseminated
vegetative
Bradshaw,
seed
means
1977).
can be
source
proximity.
of seed
Initial
wind-disseminated species, while
by animals
appear
a function
more
or those
slowly
which spread by
(Humphries
and
19
Succession
Successions!
processes
determining factors in
communities
on
considered
establishment
reclaimed
include interaction of
are
mined
biotic
of self-perpetuating
lands.
and
important
These processes
physical environmental
influences over time (Mackey and DePuit, 1985).
Several
secondary
authors
differentiate
succession
succession
occurs
(Revel
on
occurred previously.
influenced by
et
sites
plant growth
a l .,
where
Areas
between
of
process
rapid than
of
Primary
plant
growth has
no
secondary
(Odum,
succession are
which has occurred in the past
secondary
succession
primary succession
plant propagules
and
1984).
and modified environmental factors such as
The
primary
and soils
soil substrate.
is frequently more
because of
the presence of
more favorable to plant growth
1971; Daubenmire, 1968).
The
succession
minesite
under
because
study
topsoil
is
undergoing
secondary
was
replaced.
Factors
influencing the nature and rate of
secondary succession on
such sites include topsoil thickness, fertilization levels,
seed
mixtures
and
species . (Biondini
Dispersal
dispersal
et
efficiency
species can • be related
al.,
and
■efficiency
1984;
Gibson
establishment
to the
of
colonizing
et al.,
of
1985).
colonizing
nature of the seed source,
methods of seed dispersal, proximity of the seed
source to
20
disturbed
areas,
soil
topography (including
physical
slope
and
and chemical properties,
aspect)
and competition
from previously established species.
Successional processes
by many reclamation
factors described
as regrading
through
activities.
earlier in
to alter
seeding,
can be altered and/or enhanced
These
this literature review, such
slope and
planting
and
Individual species selected and
postmine
landscape
are
include physical
aspect, and revegetation
fertilization techniques.
their
arrangement
considered
Miller
critical
to
the
advocated
the
succesSional
process.
principle of
nucleation, where, seeded or planted 'patches'
of vegetation serve as sources of
(1978)
on the
nutrients and propagules
to enhance further site colonization by native species.
noted that
at the
time of
publication, the
He
idea had not
been tested on actual reclamation areas.
Native Versus Agronomic Species
Bell
and
Meidinger
(1977)
described
species as "a plant species selected and bred
agricultural purposes
A native species is
within
a
region,
an
agronomic
for specific
such as forage, hay or cover crops."
a
and
plant
which
species
occurring naturally
is theoretically adapted to
local climates and habitats (Bell and Meidinger, 1977).
21
Opinions regarding native and agronomic species use in
minesite
reclamation
Preferences
include
vary
widely
use
of
in
the
literature.
agronomic,
native,
or
combination agronomic and native species mixtures.
Lesko
et
al.
(1975) reported that agronomic species
performance was at least equal to that of native species in
the
first
two
years
following
(1984) noted that agronomic
growth than
sites were
provide
appeared
grasses
native grasses.
that most native grass
seeding.
Tomm
species
Redente et al.
exhibited
and Takyi
tested
on
more rapid
(1981) found
high elevation
unable to develop plant cover rapidly enough to
adequate
to
be
erosion
control.
superior
. Agronomic
for this purpose
species
(Takyi, 1980).
Problems associated with use of native species include
variable seed production, uneven ripening, low yields, seed
shattering, hairs ■ and awns,
seed harvesting
Walker et al.,
insufficient
resulted in
viability and other
and handling difficulties (Mitchell, 1972;
1977).
These
commercial
problems have
sources
limited large-scale
Canadian reclamation
problems may
low seed
be
contributed to
of high quality seed and
use of ■ native species in
(Sadasivaiah and Weijer,
solved
agricultural engineering
through
genetic
technology,, but
1980).
Some
manipulation or
seed produced by
such processes is not yet commercially available.
22
Alteration of environmental conditions
may
result
in
agronomic
species being more suitable for
revegetation purposes than native
Areas
which
activities
present
have
may
prior
agronomic
been
not
to
species
through mining
species (Johnson,
fundamentally
remain
altered
suitable
for
disturbance
(Seiner,
are
to
unable
by mining
native species
1976).
become
1980).
But, many
established at
higher elevations because of low air and soil temperatures,
frost heaving damage, short
growing season
and high solar
radiation levels (Klock et a l ., 1975).
A
study
in
Colorado
by
Doerr
and
Redente (1983)
indicated that agronomic species provided the greatest forb
production.
native
This observed difference between agronomic and
forb
production
alfalfa (Medicago
was
sativa).
attributed
Westar Mines,
to
agronomic species
Berdusco,
1977;
of
in the Crowsnest
Pass region of British Columbia, has had good
use of
presence
success with
in subalpine areas (Milligan and
Ziemkiewicz,
1977).
Agronomic species
continued to reproduce and increase in cover and biomass at
elevations up to 1700 m (Berdusco and Milligan,
High cost of native seed is
a major
1977).
consideration of
mining companies when determining appropriate seed mixtures
(Ziemkiewicz, 1977).
Agronomic, seed is easily available at
low cost (Bell and Meidinger, 1977).
23
Even if
agronomic species die out during or after the
first growing season, they may have
reclamation goals
cultivars may
while
(Johnson and
provide adequate
simultaneously
Agronomic species
posing
Van Cleve,
1976).
These
short-term erosion control
no
often render
accomplished important
threat
a site
of
spreading.
more favorable for
native plant growth (Mitchell, 1972).
In a
study of harsh subalpine minesites at Adanac and
Cadomin, Alberta,
Tomm and
Russell (1980)
found that the
highest percent cover was achieved by a native seed mixture
comprised
primarily
of
wheatgrasses.
Native
mixtures
containing no wheatgrasses exhibited very poor ground cover
development.
In
suggested that
contradiction
with
Takyi
(1980), they
effective erosion-controlling
cover can be
achieved on subalpine sites in Alberta
selection
exhibiting
of
native
the
best
species.
plant
through appropriate
Native
cover
were
grass treatments
comparable
with
cultivated mixtures.
Biondini
used
for
et
al.
reclamation
(1984) noted that agronomic species
purposes
have
traditionally
been
selected for such characteristics as ease of establishment,
high above-ground biomass
production
responses to fertilization.
as fertilization could result
and
strong positive
Use of cultural practices such
in competitive
exclusion of
desirable native species and permanently affect succession.
24
Continued . fertilizer
agronomic species
applications
increase
often
reclamation
required
costs
by
(Walker et
al., 1977).
Transplanting
containerized
described as an effective
native
means of
grass
plants is
achieving rapid ground
cover on drastically disturbed areas (Walker et a l . , 1977),
but costs may be
transplanted
prohibitive.
containerized
for three years following
may
be
useful
for
Russell (1979)
plants
noted that
produced limited cover
transplantation.
The technique
small critical areas, but is probably
neither practical nor cost-effective on a large scale.
Native
agronomic
species
species
will
unless
maintained (Mitchell,
of
agronomic
eventually
the
1972).
species
if
occupation by native species.
native grasses
include the
quality
Sawyer,
Seeding
1981; Willard,
native
succession
through
the
goal
perennial nature
and
is site
useful at
1976;
Adapted
high elevations
little maintenance
can
and high
Weijer, 1980).
1976;' Vaartnou,
species
continuously
ability to adapt to local soil
(Sadasivaiah
survive with
of
Other positive attributes of
native species are particularly
because they
stands
a positive attribute
reclamation
and environmental conditions, a
forage
latter . are
This is
the
invade
(Wheeler and
Blake,
1981).
increase the rate of natural
process
of
'nucleation',
where
native species serve as 'nuclei' of propagule dispersal.
25
Native
species
have
advantages (Bell and
ecological,
economic, and aesthetic
Meidinger,
1977).
Low maintenance
expenses such as reduced needs for repeated fertilizing and
reseeding may more than offset additional native seed costs
(Ziemkiewicz, 1977).
Choice
of
suitable
reclamation
is
important
resulted
in
principle
past
is
Species choice
use
species for high altitude
because
failures.
to
originated from
plant
only
poor
A
decisions
general
those
have
bioengineering
species
which
have
sites with
similar ecological conditions.
is critical
because successional processes
in such areas are extremely slow .(Schiechtl, I980) .
Research
combination
comparing
native
and
use
of
native,
agronomic
agronomic,
and
mixtures
has
seed
indicated that combination mixtures are superior (Doerr and
Redente, 1983).
production
by
Mixtures
means
of
provide rapid
agronomic
long-term productivity and species
native species
1976).
A
establishment and
species and increased
diversity
by
means of
(Brown et a l . , 1976; Johnson and Van Cleve,
well-planned
vegetation cover
seed
mixture
that establishes
can
result
in
rapidly, lasts for many
years, provides good cover and is less vulnerable to pests,
disease,
drought
combination native
mixtures
exhibited
and
and
frost.
agronomic
significantly
Agronomic
grass
-
greater
grass
forb
and
- shrub
above-ground
26
production than pure native seed mixtures
(Redente et a l .,
1984).
Both agronomic
and native species are useful for site
revegetation when
adapted
selection
be
should
to
based
disturbed
on
rather than native plants alone
primary
consideration
should
areas.
use of 'adapted'
(Sindelar,
1982).
1980).
Rapid
initially limit resource
through competitive
The
land use
growth of agronomic species may
availability
interactions, but
superior adaptations will
species,
be suitability of plants to
disturbed environments and the projected postmine
(Johnson,
Species
eventually
species (United States Forest Service,
for
native species
native species with
outcompete agronomic
1979).
27
SITE DESCRIPTION
The study
site involved
in this
research project is
located in the Rocky Mountain Foothills 13 km
town of Grande Cache, Alberta.
approximately
nearly 1600
91
hectares,
meters.
north of the
Areal extent of the site is
with
The site
an
upper
is situated
elevation of
on the McEvoy
anticline of Horse Mountain (Macyk and Steward,
Terrain
sloping.
in
Soil
the
area
mantles
is
are
1977).
characteristically steeply
generally thin and situated
immediately above bedrock (Macyk and Steward,
1977).
Prior
to mining, soil cover within the mining area varied from 10
cm to I m, with a mean depth of 30 cm.
depths
vary
from
5
portions of the site
range (Macyk,
The
winters.
in the
area
by
10 to
25 cm
Recorded
between
93
month of the yea r.
and 65 cm (Macyk,
cool
is
summers
annual temperature
degrees Celsius.
and
climate
brief,
The mean
45
35 cm in depth, with substantial
coversoil depth
I979).
mined
characterized
to
Postmine coversoiI
days,
cold
and
continental,
long,
cold
is approximately 2
frost-free periods
have varied
but frost can occur during any
Mean annual precipitation is between 50
1977).
28
Well-drained
are
dominated
latifolia),
upland
by
sites
lodgepole
with
fewer
typical of the mined area
pine
numbers
(Pinus
of
contorta
white
var.
spruce (Picea
qlauca), Engelmann spruce (Picea enqelmannii), black spruce
(Picea mariana),
aspen
(Populus
subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa), quaking
tremuloides)
and
balsam
poplar (Populus
balsamife r a ) (M a c y k , 1977).
Common shrubs include willow (Salix spp.), river alder
(Alnus
tenuifolia),
tall
bilberry
Labrador
tea
(Vaccinium
membranaceum),
(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), wild
twinflower (Linnaea
rose
borealis).
purple
bunchberry,
(Rosa
bearberry
woodsii), and
Grasses and forbs include
hairy wildrye (Leymus innovatus),
spicatum),
(Ledum qroenlandicum),
spike trisetum (Trisebum
reedgrass (Calamaqrostis purpurescens),
(Corpus
anqustifolium), Indian
canadensis),
fireweed
(Epilobium
paintbrush (Castilleja miniata) and
perennial lupine (Lupipus
argenteuS).
Also
present are
Sphagnum spp., Dicranum spp. and Peltiqera apthosa.
. Agronomic species
seeded on
brome (Bromus inermis v a r .
(Festuca rubra
Climax),
Fairway),
the site included smooth
Carlton),
creeping
red fescue
v a r . Boreal), timothy (Phleum pratense v a r .
crested
Russian
wheatgrass
wildrye
alfalfa (Medicaqo sativa v a r .
(Trifolium hybridum).
(Aqropyron
(Elymus
cristatum
junceus
Rambler)
and
var.
var. Sawki),
Alsike clover
29
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Data Collection
Sampling
point
applying a 60 m
photograph
of
system was
a
locations
interval grid
the
study
randomly
Application of
were
predetermined
pattern to
site.
chosen
by
a 1:3000 aerial
The origin of the grid
point
on
the photograph.
the grid pattern to a map of the study site
is depicted in Figure 2.
Each
grid
represented an
intersection
were
Known
ground-truthed
improve accuracy.
was staked
on
individual sampling point.
were sighted and measured.
photograph
falling
A central grid
initially.
All other
the
study site
Sampling points
points
on ' the aerial
with on-site locations to
line of
sampling points
grid points were staked
using the center grid line points for reference.
At each of the
tape
was
laid
out
220 sampling
due
point locations,
west from the stake.
Daubenmire
frames (Daubenmire, 1959) were placed at the 2 , 4 ,
10 m
points along
the north
edge of the tape.
sides of the frames were placed parallel to
the southeast corners located on meter marks.
a 10 m
6, 8 and
The 20 cm
the tape, with
Figure 2.
Grid application to a map of the study site
31
Ocular
estimates
of
percent
cover
(aerial)
recorded for species present within the frames.
agronomic
species
cover
sheets.
Species
endemic
native.
Cultivars
agronomic.
were
seeded
Although the
to
Native and
grouped separately on data
the
on
terms
were
area
the
as
were considered
area were considered
defined
here
are not
mutually exclusive, no species present on the site fit both
definitions.
Unknown species were indicated as such on the
data sheets and flagged for subsequent identification.
Additional
percent
slope,
limitations to
data
recorded
aspect
in
each
degrees,
and
of
Estimates of
plant growth caused by coarse fragments and
limitations).
fragments
while
2
of
I,
limitations) to
A rating of 0 indicated a percent
ground cover of coarse
ratings
included
estimates
ground surface.
coal waste consisted of ratings from 0 (no
3 (severe
site
plant growth caused by coarse fragments and
coal waste as viewed at the
limitations to
for
of
I
percent
or less,
and 3 indicated covers of coarse
fragments of 2 to 5 percent,
6 to
20 percent
and greater
standard
soil science
than 20 percent respectively.
These
estimates
differ ' from
methods for coarse fragment
are usually
1983) or
measured on
volume basis
difficulty in
estimation.
Coarse fragments
a percent weight (Donahue et a l .,
(Ashby et
al.,
distinguishing between
1982).
Because of
coarse textured soil
32
and coarse fragments less than
fragments between
4
mm
in
diameter, coarse
2 and 4 mm in diameter were not included
in cover estimations.
Under-estimatipns of coarse fragment
cover were anticipated.
Following
it was
for
completion
decided that
correct
invasion.
density
of pre-selected point sampling,
sampling density
characterization
of
had been inadequate
the
Insufficient time remained to
over
additional
the
sampling
between stakes
entire
study
points
in known
were
native
species
increase sampling
site.
As
selected
a
result,
at mid-points
areas of extensive native species
invasion.
Data collected
from these
points were retained
in
separate
the
data
set' which had
sampling . scheme.
Subjectively
files
reflected
selected
from
the
original
data
points,
'base
hereafter
referred" to
as
the
’additional data set', were included only in final analyses
to compare
results from data files including these data to
'base data se t' results.
set analyses'
Conclusions from 'additional data
are included
in this thesis for the sake of
interest only, and are not intended to represent definitive
conclusions of this research.
Means were
taken of
mini-transect, with the
percent cover
means
values for each grid point.
all other
variables measured
values along each
representing
overall cover
This approach is valid because
at the
sampling points were
33
constant
along
each
mini-transect
and thus constant for
individual sampling sites.
Plant specimens
collected.
Dr.
from
J.H.
the
Rumely
site
were
(Prpfessor
identified and
of
Botany and
Curator, Montana State University Herbarium) verified them.
Statistical Analyses
Data utilized in
collected on
previous
statistical
the site
site
fertilization
and additional
studies.
and
analyses
data available from
Additional
seeding
included that
treatments,
data
number
included
of
times
fertilized, number of times seeded, topsoil depth, distance
from
the
nearest
undisturbed
nearest
westerly
undisturbed
seeding
information
was
Alberta Research Council
and
fertilization
Fertilization
activities
on
and
from a map completed by
researchers
to
the
document seeding
site
during
the
Coversoil depth information
sampling point was derived from a coversoil depth
map documenting a postmine
Macyk
and
4).
Distance
distance
area.
derived
previous 14 years (Figure 3).
for each
area and distance from the
other
from
soil survey
completed by Terry
Alberta Research Council members (Figure
from
the
the
nearest
undisturbed
area
and
nearest westerly undisturbed area were
calculated from the 1:3000 aerial photograph
the sampling locations grid.
overlaid with
SCALE:
LEGEND:
Figure 5.
Seeding and fertilization information for Number 8 Mine
See page 35.
35
Legend:
I
Experimental plot areas.
Forested (undisturbed).
I
Seeded and fertilized. May,
1974. Refertilized May,
1975, Aug., 1984.
Seeded and fertilized, June
1975. Refertilized May,
1978, Aug., 1984.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1973.
Refertilized May, 1975, May 1978.
Seeded and fertilized May, 1974.
Refertilized May, 1975.
Seeded and fertilized May, 1974.
Refertilized May, 1975, May, 1977.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1974.
Refertilized May, 1975, May, 1977.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1974.
Reseeded and refertilized June, 1975.
Seeded and fertilized, Aug., 1974.
Reseeded and refertilized Aug., 1975, May, 1978.
Seeded and fertilized June, 1975.
Refertilized May, 1978.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1975.
Refertilized May, 1976.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1974.
Refertilized May, 1975, May, 1977, Aug., 1984.
Seeded and fertilized Aug., 1975.
Refertilized May, 1976, Aug., 1984.
Seeded and fertilized Mayl, 1974.
Refertilized May, 1975, May, 1977, Aug., 1984.
Figure 3 - continued.
Seeding and fertilization information for
Number 8 Mine.
LEGEND:
# - soil depth (cm)
SCALL:
Figure 4.
Soil depth map of the Number 8 Mine area.
undisturbed
37
Statistical
analyses
covariance analyses.
for
native
depth,
Independent
included
fertilization
percent
and
coal
waste
undisturbed area.
in
covariance
treatments,
distance
distance
from
analyzed
aspect,
times seeded,
rating,
undisturbed area and
variables
slope,
seeding
times fertilized, number of
rating,
data consisted primarily of
Dependent variables were cover values
species.
statistically
of
number of
coarse fragment
from
the
topsoil
the
nearest
nearest westerly
Variables identified as class variables
analysis
procedures
were
coarse fragment
rating and coal waste rating.
All
statistical
Version 5 SAS
NC).
analyses
statistical
were
performed
package
(SAS
using the
Institute, Cary,
Covariance analyses were completed through use of the
GLM (General Linear Model ) procedure.
Decisions regarding addition or
to or
from covariance
analyses involved
two criteria.
The first of
P-values
determine
to
contributing
Variables
these was
whether
significantly
were
considered
to
Confidence levels
were
as
conducted to
significant.
compare
versus reduced models.
a
a combination of
to examine printout
given
the
variable
observed
was
effect.
significant when P-values were
0.20 or lower.
accepted
deletion of variables
significance
of 80
percent or higher
Secondly,
of
F-tests were
variables
in full
38
Variable
under
ranking
comparison
comparing
their
at
was
unity
values
at
higher than their means.
variable's
value
for
achieved
at
one
by setting variables
their
standard
Multiplication
one
means,
numbers
attained
for
then
deviation unit
of each dependent
standard deviation unit by its
slope estimate resulted in a value which could
to
and
other
variables.
be compared
The standard
deviation unit effectively provided a common scale by which
to compare variables measured by different methods.
39
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
■:
Dependent Variables
Table I
contains a list of native species observed on
the minesite.
The
native species
cover of
the species
sp .).
’percent
cover of
refers to the total percent
listed in
Table I excluding
'Native tree species' comprises all
woody species observed on
The species
variable
excluding moss'
any of
moss (Dicranum
dependent
the minesite,
including shrubs.
included in this dependent variable were river
alder (Alnus tenuifolia),
Canada
canadensis),
white-flowered
albiflorum),
tall
buffaloberry (Shepherdia
Rhododendron
billberry
(Vaccinium
(Rhododendron
membranaceum),
Engelmann spruce (Picea enqelmannii ), lodgepole pine (Pinus
contorta),
balsam
poplar
(Populus
balsamifera), quaking
aspen (Populus tremuloides) and willow (Salix spp.).
'Native
bearberry
species.
nitrogen-fixing
species'
(Arctostaphylos
included
.uva-ursi),
and
river
alder,
all Fabaceae
40
Table
I.
Native species present on the Number 8 Mine.
FAMILY
SCIENTIFIC BINOMIAL
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Asteraceae
Betulaceae
Boraginaceae
Brassicaceae
Campanulaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Cornaceae
Cyperaceae
Elaeagnaceae
Equisetaceae
Ericaceae
Ericaceae
Ericaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fabaceae
Fumariaceae
Gentianaceae
Juncaceae
Liliaceae
Onagraceae
Orchidaceae
Pinaceae
Pinaceae
Achillea millefolium L .
Aqoseris aurantiaca (Hook.) Greene
Arnica cordifolia Hook.
Aster conspicuous Lindl.
Eriqeron pereqrinus (Pursh.) Greene
Senecio triangularis Hook.
Solidaqo spathulata DC.
Taraxacum officinale Weber*
Alnus tenuifolia Nutt.
Mertensia paniculata (Ait.) G . Don
LepldiunFbourqeauanum Thell.
Campanula rotundifolia L.
Linnaea borealis L .
Sambucus racemosa L .
Cornus canadensis (L.) Nutt.
Carex bebbii Olney
Shepherdla canadensis (L .) Nutt.
Equisetum arvense L.
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi L. Spr eng '
Rhododendron albiflorum H o o k .
Vaccinium membranaceum Dou gl.
Astragalus amerlcanus~(Hook.) M.E. Jones
Astragalus robbinsii (Oakes) A. Gray
Hedysarum alpinum L .
Hedysarum boreale Nutt.
Lupinus arqenteus Pursh.
Oxytropis sericea Nu t t .
Oxytropis splendens Dougl . ex Ho ok .*
Vicia americana Muh l.
Corydalis aurea Willd.*
Gentianella amerella (L.) Borner
Luzula piperi (Cov.) Jones
Zipadenus eleqans Pursh.
Epilobium anqustifolium L .
H a b e n a n a hyperborea (L.) R. Br.
Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm.*
Pinus contorta Loudon v a r . Iatifolia
Engelm.*
Calamaprostis purpurescens R . Br.
Critesion jubatum (L.) Nevski
Leymus innovatus (Beal) Pilger
Poa alpina L.*
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
Poaceae
41
Table I.
(continued).
FAMILY
SCIENTIFIC BINOMIAL
Pyrolaceae
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Rubiaceae
Salicaceae
Salicaceae
Saxifragaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Moneses uniflora (L.) A. Gray
Anemone multifida Poir.
Aquileqia flavescens S . Wats.
Fraqaria virqiniana Duchesne
Potent ilia norveqica L .
Rosa woodsii Lindl .
Rubus idaeus L.
Rubus pedatus J.E. Smith
Galium boreale L .
Populus tremuloides M ic h x .
Salix drummondiana Barr. ex H o o k .*
Parnassia palustris L .
Castilleia miniata Douql. ex Hoo k.
Pedicularis bracteosa Benth.
Penstemon procerus Douql . ex Grab;
Rhinanthus mino.r L.
Dicranum s p . .
*Not Verified
Specimens verified by Dr.
J.H.'Rumelyf Pr o f . of Botany,
Montana State University.
Variable Manipulation
Statistics for this study
covariance
separate
analyses.
analyses
species excluding
native
with
Each
involved
series
percent
eleven
series of
of analyses included
cover
of
moss,
native
and including mos s, native tree species,
nitrogen-fixing
species
and
native
Asteraceae
species as the dependent variables.
Ten
covariance
variables
analyses.
were
examined
Significant
in the first series of
results
obtained
in
covariance analysis of nitrogen-fixing species were ignored
42
because of
the
compared to
and
relatively
the large
seeding
small
number
of observations
number of variables.
combination,
distance
Fertilization
from
the
nearest
undisturbed area and soil depth were not significant. These
variables were deleted from further analyses.
Results from
west codings
the north
of aspect
versus south
indicated that
and east versus
a more appropriate
analysis of aspect significance would involve comparison of
northwest
versus
'northwest
versus
change.
It
southeast
southeast
was
also
aspects.
aspect1
hypothesized
The
resulted
that
variable
from this
elevation
distance from the ridge summit on the mine site could
factor
in
the
native
species
reinvasion.
'Distance C ' , representing distance from the
of the
be a
The variable
southeast end
minesite, was introduced to account for this trend.
The southeast end of
the minesite
is the
area of maximum
elevation and the ridge summit on the minesite.
distance
from
distance from
this
area
would
reflect
Increasing
both increasing
the ridge summit and a decline in elevation.
Because variables had been
the
or
transition
between
covariance analyses, it was
changed, deleted,
first
and
second
impossible to
and added in
series
of
conduct F-tests
to determine significance of deleted variables.
43
Following the second series of covariance analyses, it
was hypothesized that number of times seeded and
times
fertilized
could
species reinvasion.
third series
These
of
indicated
contributing
variables
times
that
these
and
number
variables
deleted
prior
moss
to
cover.
further
not
significant
Slope was significant
All
the
for the
of times fertilized
four
covariance
examining the significance of
added
native
for 'Distance C ,
were
contributors to the observed effect.
only for percent
the
P-values obtained in
covariance analyses
seeded
to
were
of covariance analyses.
the third series of
number
be
number of
variables were
analyses.
four
F-tests
deleted variables
yielded no significant F-values.
P-values from the fourth series of covariance analyses
indicated that
significant.
the
coal
waste
rating
variable
was not
It was deleted from subsequent analyses.
tests indicated the variable
had
not
been
F-
a significant
factor in the model.
The fifth series of covariance analyses indicated that
the variable representing percent
cover of
alfalfa was of
significance only for moss and Asteraceae species.
series of analyses was completed to
of
the
variable's
contribution.
A sixth
determine significance
F-test
calculations
demonstrated that it had not contributed significantly.
44
No
variable
following the
deletions
were
considered
appropriate
sixth series of covariance analyses.
F-test
summaries are presented in Appendix I.
Additional
obtain more
covariance
information.
analyses
The seventh
involved a final 'recoding'
northwest versus
Aspect
was
covariance
were
of aspect
southeast recoding
recoded
to
analyses
northeast
were
completed
to
series of analyses
to ensure
that the
had been appropriate.
versus
completed
both
southwest, and
including
and
excluding northwest versus southeast codings.
Finally,
completed
a
which
series
of
utilized
covariance
the
additional
selected data points. . The objective
research
conclusions
would
be
analyses
were
subjectively
was to
determine if
significantly
altered by
inclusion of the additional data.
Slope and P-value
are listed
by analysis
estimates
series in
for
covariance analyses
Appendix II.
Tables 5
through 20 contain slope and P-value estimates for analyses
involving the
base data
represent analyses
set.
Original
set only.
Tables
which incorporated
data
is
filed
at
21 through 26
the additional data
the Alberta Research
Council Terrain Sciences Department in Edmonton, Alberta.
45
Summarized covariance analysis
by analysis
series in
include data for
only.
Tables
Appendix III.
estimates
75
through
92
are presented
Tables 27 through 74
involving
included the additional data
Least Significant
results
the
base
represent
set.
data set
analyses which
Appendix
IV contains
Difference means separation test results
for the sixth series of covariance analyses.
Coarse Fragments
'Coarse
fragments
significant variable
significant
(Appendix
for
II,
at
for most
moss,
Table
21).
16).
The
soil
surface'
was
a
covariance analyses. It was
native
when the additional data
II, Table
the
species
and
tree species
Confidence levels were higher
points were
variable was
percent confidence level for
considered (Appendix
significant at the 92
Asteraceae
species
when the
additional data points were included.
Although
covariance
fragment
rating
observed
effect,
was
an
this
expect
should
there
indicated
important
interpretation
Given the nature of
that
analyses
contributor
of
native
species
to
the
of results is difficult.
variable,
one
might reasonably
be a clear linear relationship
between percent cover and coarse fragment
cover
that coarse
should
exhibit
rating.
a
Percent
positive or
negative response to increased coarse fragment rating.
46
While the variable is significant, the relationship between
percent cover and coarse fragment rating is neither clearly
positive nor negative.
between coarse
The trend is one of initial decline
fragment ratings
of 0 and I, followed by a
gradual increase to a coarse fragment rating of
3 (Figures
5 through i0).
Examination
Difference
(LSD)
interpretation
fragment
of
means
of
ratings
results
the
with
dependent variable
from
the
separation
results.
percent
Least Significant
tests
LSD
cover
complicates
tests
of
for coarse
moss
as
the
(Appendix IV, Table 93) indicate that a
coarse fragment rating of I is significantly different from
coarse fragment ratings of 2 or 3, but not from a rating of
0.
A rating of 0 is not
other rating,
significantly different
from any
and ratings of 2 and 3 are not significantly
different from each other.
LSD tests for
cover
of
native
coarse
species
variable (Appendix IV, Table
fragment
rating
of
0
is
fragment
ratings
with percent
excluding moss as the dependent
94)
indicate
significantly
that
a coarse
different
ratings of I and 3, but not from a rating of 2.
from
There are
no other significant differences for this set of analyses.
47
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure 5.
Percent
moss
cover
fragment rating.
with
increasing
coarse
CK
Ld
>
O
O
H-
~Z.
Ld
O
or
Ld
CL
Z
<
Ld
5
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure 6
Percent
native species cover
with increasing
coarse fragment rating (excluding moss).
48
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure 7.
Percent
native
species cover
with increasing
coarse fragment rating (including moss).
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure 8.
Percent native tree species cover with
increasing coarse fragment rating.
49
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure 9.
Percent native nitrogen-fixing
species
with increasing coarse fragment rating.
cover
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
Figure
10.
Percent native Asteraceae species percent cover
with increasing coarse fragment rating.
50
Analysis
of
LSD
test
results
for
coarse fragment
ratings with native species including moss as the dependent
variable
(Appendix
IV,
Table
95)
yields
slightly more
significant differences.
A coarse fragment rating of
significantly
from
ratings.
different
There
according to
are
no
this test.
98 in Appendix IV,
all
other
other
I is
coarse fragment
significant
differences
As indicated by Tables 96 through
results
of
LSD
tests
for
the other
dependent variables are similar to those just described.
There are
few significant
differences between coarse
fragment ratings in terms of percent
plant cover according
to the
It is one of the most
powerful
LSD means
tests
separation test.
for
between means.
The
detecting
significant
test compares
differences
pairs of means using a
comparison-wise error rate and a constant least significant
difference, so that the probability of Type I errors (false
significances)
Trends depicted
importance.
LSD
in Figures
test
variable
cover.
results.
There may
between coarse
at
is
the
coarse
rating
contradicts
a
problem
low
10 have little
suggest that there is no
fragment
fragment ratings
problem
observations
This
be
5 through
results
correlation between coarse
Another
1 976).
is increased (Chew,
and dependent
covariance
of
analysis
factor interaction
and other site variables.
number
fragment
of
ratings
native
of
0
species
and
I.
51
Although it is clear
that
coarse
fragments significantly
affect percent cover of native species,
satisfactorily explain
results
and
that
analyses.
relationship
But,
species
based
on these
there is a positive linear
relationship between coarse fragment
native
it is impossible to
observations.
rating and
Number
number of
of native species
observations increases with coarse fragment rating (Figures
I I through 22).
Competition
from
seeded
agronomic
contributed to this relationship.
greatest
on
species.
and
sites
most
Such sites
better
coversoiI
mantles
Competition
favorable
to
include those
moisture
and
on
of
is probably
growth
of
these
with deeper coversoil
fertility
sites
species probably
relations.
higher
coarse
Thinner
fragment
ratings are expected to contribute to decreased competition
from
seeded
agronomic
species,
with
resultant improved
viability opportunities for encroaching native species.
■
Secondly,
coarse
fragments
creating favorable microsites for
fragments
depressional
temperature
from
wind.
create
areas
a
gradations
The
ground
moisture
caused
resultant
be
important
native species.
variable
of
may
by
and
surface
soil
in
Coarse
with
collection,
shading and protection
mosaic
of
environmental
conditions can inadvertently create conditions conducive to
native species establishment and growth.
52
150-,
100
-
\// /1
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R a tin g
Figure I I.
Number of moss percent cover observations with
increasing coarse fragment rating.
ISO-.
100
-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R a tin g
Figure
12.
Number
of
native
species
observations
with
increasing
rating (excluding moss).
percent
cover
coarse fragment
53
ISO-.
100
-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure 13.
Number
of
native
species
observations with
increasing
rating (including moss).
percent cover
coarse fragment
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure
14.
Number of
native
tree
species
percent cover
observations
with
increasing
coarse fragment
rating.
54
(Z)
150-1
C
o
15
>
V-
Q) 1 0 0
-
-Q
O
V-
50-
0)
-Q
E
D
Z
iSpl-EZjZZ.
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure 15.
Number
of
native nitrogen-fixing species
percent
cover observations with
increasing
coarse fragment
rating.
(Z)
c
O
O
>
V-
<D 100
-
(Z)
-Q
O
O
50-
0)
-Q
E
Q
Z
— _
0
1777]P5773
1
2
3
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure
16.
Number
of
native
Asteraceae
species percent
cover
observations
with
increasing
coarse
fragment rating.
55
100
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure 17.
Number of moss percent cover observations with
increasing coarse
fragment rating (additional
data se t).
V)
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure 18.
Number
of
native
species
percent cover
observations with
increasing coarse fragment
rating (excluding moss) (additional data set).
56
150-1
100
-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R a tin g
Figure 19.
Number
of
native
species
percent cover
observations with
increasing coarse fragment
rating (including moss) (additional data set).
ISO-,
100-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R ating
Figure 20.
Number of
native
tree
species
percent cover
observations
with
increasing
coarse fragment
rating (additional data set).
57
ISO-,
100-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R a tin g
Figure 21.
Number
of
native
nitrogen-fixing
species
percent cover
observations with
increasing
coarse fragment rating (additional data set).
150-,
100-
C o a rs e F ra g m e n t R a tin g
Figure 22.
Number
of
native
Asteraceae
species percent
cover
observations
with
increasing
coarse
fragment rating (additional data set).
58
Many sites
steep slopes
these areas
plant
high in
coarse fragments
with little coversoil.
reduces the
growth,
adverse
While lack of soil on
amount of
effects
moisture available for
are ameliorated by coarse
fragments present at the ground surface.
increase surface
runoff wat er .
were located on
Coarse fragments
roughness and dissipate erosive energy of
Depressions created by
coarse fragments can
trap moisture and channel it into areas of infiltration.
Texture
of
Number
8
Mine
coversoil
uniform silty clay loam throughout the
But,
bulk
density
varied
as
was
a fairly
site (Macy k, 1977).
a result of organic matter
accumulation caused by site vegetation and compaction which
had occurred
during site
of rain onto bare mined
preparation.
areas
would
The beating action
have
also increased
soil compaction (Macyk , 1977).
Minimum compaction probably,
occurred on high relief areas,
which
were
also
areas of
maximum ground surface coarse fragment cover.
Coversoil Depth
Coversoil
depth, was
not identified as a significant
factor contributing to observed
6).
Failure to
cover (Appendix
achieve a significant linear relationship
may partially result from absence of
coversoil.
II, Table
Still,
there
was
a
control areas lacking
good representation of
different coversoil depths on the site (Figure 4).
59
The implication is that coversoil depths of 5 to 35 cm
have no
effect on
native species cover .
It should not be
concluded that coversoil has no beneficial effect on native
species growth.
species
Any amount of coversoil may benefit native
growth,
coversoil
but
depths
differences
might
not
minimum required amount
could be
in
be
has
effects
of various
easily detected when the
been
supplied.
The effect
similar to that of a threshold value, where there
are marked differences below the threshold -value, but where
further
increases
in
the
resource
beyond the threshold
level fail to yield similar response changes.
Another possibility is that
sensitive
or
variations
appropriate
in
encroachment
coversoil
has
it
native
may
species
coversoil depth.
not the
indicator
depth.
increased
currently exists,
An
is
percent
cover
native
substantially
that
adequately
not a
of plant response to
When
possible
is
observational study
beyond
cover
reflect
species
what
of various
variations
of this
in
type is
best way to approach examination of this variable,
particularly
at
this
early
stage
in
successional
development of the; reclaimed are a.
Fertilization
Coding of fertilization and seeding treatments into 13
fertilization and seeding treatment
combinations failed to
60
result
in
any
significant
species cover and treatment
the
'seeding
and
seeded'
times
yielded
between
combinations.
fertilization
variable to 'number of
times
correlation
Conversion of
treatment
fertilized'
similar
combination'
and
results.
significant relationship between
cover
native
'number of
There
of
was no
native species
and number of times the area had been seeded of fertilized.
Although this may be a real effect,
of control
areas was
observed effect.
that lack
a major contributor to absence of an
No
portions of
fertilized 0 or I times.
Significant
it is likely
the study
area had been
There were no unseeded areas.
differences
species
composition and
percent cover would have probably occurred
on unfertilized
and/or unseeded
areas.
or 4
seeded 2
times and
yielded
as
great
a
in
Analysis of areas fertilized 2, 3
or 3
times is
unlikely to have
difference between fertilization and
seeding repetitions as between untreated and treated areas.
Without
data
from
untreated
areas,
it is impossible to
arrive at a definite conclusion regarding fertilization and
seeding effects on the native species invasion.
Slope
Effects
of
slope
significant for moss.
the most
on
native
Tables 9 and 10
accurate representation
species
growth
in Appendix
are
II are
of this variable because
61
they contain the lowest number of
analyses in
a positive
variables for covariance
which slope was considered..
relationship
between
moss
slope (Appendix I I , Tables 5, 7 and 9).
contrary to what one expects.
tend to
Analyses indicate
percent
cover and
Initially, this is
Steeper slopes
on minesites
be e r o d i b l e have less coversoil and are generally
less stable.
They should not be conducive to plant growth.
Yet, their lack of coversoil and increased coarse fragments
near the soil surface could
moss growth.
Aside
make
them
more
conducive to
from decreased competition from other
species, benefits of
such
sites
could
include favorable
was
not a significant
microsites for moss establishment.
It
variable
is
important
that
influencing
(Appendix II,
cover
sampled
other
for
an
of slopes
accurate
species preferred
tend
to
a significant
species
this
on
and/or data points
of
site.
other variables such as aspect.
more important that slope angle.
slope
variety of slopes
preclude this possibility.
alone is probably not
invasion
It is possible
representation
Bu t, the large sample size and
would
than moss
Despite the variety of
to steep slopes or vice versa.
sampled
effects.
species
indicate native
that an insufficient variety
were
of
Tables 6, 8 and 10).
slopes, analyses do not
level areas
slope
Slope
determinant of native
Slope may interact with
Slope shape
may have been
62
Aspect
Aspect
was
originally
subsequently coded
west.
Analyses
between
percent
(Appendix II,
to north
indicate
cover
a
degrees,
and
•*
and east versus
strong positive correlation
moss
and 6).
aspects as
in
versus south
of
Tables 5
on northerly
recorded
and
northerly
aspect
Increased moisture supply
compared to
southerly aspects is
probably a major contributing factor.
Of
additional
relationship
species and
on
this
Moisture
interest
is
between ■ percent
westerly aspect.
site
has
been
relations
are
cover
site
receive
greatest
likely
less
strong
of
negative
seeded agronomic
Success of agronomic species
influencing this relationship.
study
the
on
to
easterly
be
aspects.
a dominant factor
Easterly
slopes
on this
wind and intense sunlight, thus
contributing to a more mesic environment on these aspects.
Recoding
aspects
of
resulted
aspect
in
to
significant
covariance analyses (Appendix
There
is
a
positive
northwest
II,
versus
values
Tables
moss
show
7
subsequent
through 20).
relationship between moss cover and
northwest aspects (Appendix II, Table 15).
excluding
on
southeast
a
similar
Native species
trend,
with
cover
significantly higher on northwest than southeast aspects.
63
Consideration
Asteraceae
of
native
species
on
tree
a
species,
separate
significant aspect results.
legumes,
and
basis failed to yield
Other native
species must be
contributing to the observed effect.
Nitrogen-fixing
significantly
species
affected • by
southwest aspects
and
changes
(Appendix II,
Native
Asteraceae
species.
species
(excluding
from
Table 18).
that nitrogen-fixing species cover
aspects.
Asteraceae
species are
northeast
Data indicate
is higher
favor
moss)
to
on northeast
southwest
aspects.
show
positive
a
relationship between southwest aspect and cover.
Moss
favors
northwest
aspects only.
excluding.moss exhibit greater cover on
northwest
aspects
having
the
Nitrogen-fixing species are the
to favor east aspects.
Trends
observed
west aspects, with
strongest positive effect.
only native
here
the southwest
slopes with west aspects
disseminated spores
species group
Northeast aspects are preferred.
are probably related to aspect
effects on seed and moisture availability.
winds from
Native species
in this
area is
more conducive
and seeds.
Predominance of
likely to make
to receiving wind
Simultaneously, the force
and frequency of these winds is likely to create conditions
too
dry,
cold,
or ' otherwise
establishment and growth on
aspects could
unfavorable
southwest aspects.
to
seedling
Northwest
receive a significant proportion of the wind
64
disseminated
spores
protected from
and
seeds
the drying
while
forces of
being sufficiently
wind and sunlight to
provide favorable growing conditions for native species.
Northeast aspects are cooler
other aspect..
reached
and more
mesic than any
Although wind-disseminated seeds would have
these, aspects
nitrogen-fixing
less
species
frequently
were
in
this
area,
found to favor this aspect.
Moisture conditions on northeast
aspects are
probably the
primary reason for nitrogen-fixing species existence there.
Addition
of
the
extra
points to
the covariance
to native
species trend
Tree species
level for
subjectively
selected
data
analysis resulted in few changes
results (Appendix
preferred northwest
nitrogen-fixing species
aspects.
II, Table 22).
The confidence
preference of northeast
aspects increased from 89 to 94 percent.
Distance From The Nearest Undisturbed Area
'Distance from the nearest undisturbed area'
A) was
not
variables
significant
(Appendix
for
II,
any
of
Table
the
6).
(Distance
native species
Site-specific
characteristics may have been major contributor to the lack
of
significance.
area should not be
Distance
disregarded
from the nearest undisturbed
as
a
native species invasions on other sites.
possible
factor in
65
Site specific
variable
could
prevailing
elongated
characteristics
include
wind
trends,
direction.
The
this
site
shape
and
minesite
itself
was
a
generally
north-south
prevailing winds
were from
the southwest. . The force and
constancy
in
slope
confounding
of
the
contribution of
wind
east.
edges of
significantly
while
reduced
wind disseminated seed and spores from the
site's eastern edge.
the
probably
direction,
Much of the site also sloped
Potential
the minesite
wind—disseminated
had to
down to
seed on eastern
disperse against prevailing
winds and a slope gradient.
Distance From The Nearest Westerly Undisturbed Area
'Distance from
was
significant
(Appendix II,
the nearest westerly undisturbed a r e a '
for
Tables 5
nearly
all
covariance
through 26).
analyses
There is a negative
correlation between distance from the nearest westerly seed
source and
percent cover of native species excluding moss.
The effect is strongest for tree species.
Most native species observed on this site rely heavily
on wind
for seed dissemination.
Prevailing winds from the
west disseminate seed away from the
minesite.
As distance
number of seeds
carried
westerly edges
of the
from westerly edges increases, the
by
the
wind
decreases,
corresponding reduction in native species cov er.
with a
66
Percent Cover of Alfalfa
Percent
cover
of
effect on the percent
(Appendix
II,
native
moss
Tables
relationship could
Other
alfalfa has a significant negative
be
species
and
13
a
Asteraceae
and
result
may
14).
of
species cover
This
shading
negative
by alfalfa.
be more shade tolerant.
increased available nitrogen
in
the
vicinity
Also,
of alfalfa
plants may enhance agronomic species, which then outcompete
moss and Asteraceae species.
Variable Ranking
Figure
independent
23
ranks
variables
moss percent cover.
significant
closely by
aspect.
the
included
Coarse
contributor
the
variable
Percent
relative
cover
of
in covariance analyses of
fragment
to
significance
rating
is
the most
the observed effect, followed
for
of
northwest
alfalfa
is
versus southeast
an intermediate
contributor to analysis results, with percent
slope acting
as the least significant contributor.
The three
highest ranked
variables account for an R-
square value of approximately 0.15., with the value expected
increase slightly
III, Table 54).
variables,
they
when percent slope is included (Appendix
While the
explain
four variables
are significant
only approximately 15 percent of
the factors affecting moss percent cover on the minesite.
67
Legend
A
COAHSC FRAGMENT HATINC
X
N W -S E ASPECT___________
O
PERCENT ALFALFA COVER
■
PERCENT S L O P E ________
x + s
Figure 23.
Ranking of variables significant
analyses of moss percent cover.
Figure 24
ranks variables
in covariance
significant in analyses of
native species excluding moss.
Although
coarse fragment
rating again contributes most to analysis results, distance
from the
second,
nearest westerly
followed
seed source
by northwest
(Distance B ) ranks
versus southeast aspect and
northeast versus southwest aspect.
The
R-square value for
these variables is 21 percent (Appendix III, Table 61).
Variables
significant
in
including moss are identical
analyses
(Figure
25).
native species cover
native species
analyses of native species
to those
identified for moss
Moss constituted the majority of
observations
and
biases
analyses which include it.
results of
Coarse fragment
rating is superceded by northwest versus southeast aspect.
68
Legend
A
COARSE rRAGMCNT BATING
X
DISTANCE B
Q N W -S E ASPECT
■
Figure 24.
N E -S W A SPECT
_____
Ranking of variables significant
in covariance
analyses
of
native
species percent cover
(excluding moss).
Legend
- — -H
A
N W -S E ASPECT___________
x
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
D
PERCENT ALFALFA COVER
■
PERCENT SLOPE
x + s
Figure 25.
Ranking of variables significant
in covariance
analyses
of
native
species
percent cover
(including moss).
69
A ranking
analyses of
Coarse
for
variables
contributing
to covariance
native tree species is presented in Figure 26.
fragment
rating
is
ranked
as
most
important,
followed by distance from the nearest westerly seed source.
The R-square value was
approximately 26
percent (Appendix
III, Table 56).
Legend
A
COABSE FRAGMENT RATING
X
DISTANCE B'
x + s
Figure 26.
Ranking of variables significant in covariance
analyses of native tree species percent cover.
Northeast
versus
variable significant
fixing native
species
southwest
aspect
for covariance
(Appendix
II,
was
the
only
analyses of nitrogen­
Table
18).
species preferred northeast to northwest aspects.
These
70
Figure 27
ranks variables
species covariance analyses
18).
significant for Asteraceae
(Appendix
Alfalfa cover is most important,
from the nearest westerly
versus
southwest
undisturbed
aspect.
The
II,
Tables
14 and
followed by distance
area
R-square
and northeast
is
32 percent
(Appendix III, Table 68).
Figures 28 through 30 represent analyses comparable to
those
for
Figures
23
through
25 respectively, with the
exception that the additional data points are included.
Legend
A
PERCENT ALFALFA COVER
X
DISTANCE
□
N E - S W SLOPE
_____
x + s
Figure 27.
Ranking of variables significant
in covariance
analyses of Asteraceae species percent cover.
71
Legend
A
N W -S E A S W C T___________
X
COARSE FRAGMENT WATK C
x + s
Figure 28.
Ranking of variables significant in covariance
analyses of moss percent cover (additional data
set).
Legend
A
DISTANCE B'______________
X
COARSE FRAGMENT RATINC
x + s
Figure 29.
Ranking of variables significant in covariance
analyses of native
species
percent cover
(excluding moss) (additional data set).
72
6-i
Legend
A WW-SE ASKCT_______
X
Figure 30.
Ranking of variables significant in covariance
analyses of native
species
percent cover
(including moss) (additional data set).
While
most
significant
account
are
effect (i.e.
only
variables
at
for
Variables
COARSE FRAGMENT RATING
the
included in these rankings are
90
percent
R-square
values
significant
native species
approximately
20
confidence
of
level,
they
approximately
0.2.
contributers
cover), but
percent
of
to
the observed
they account for
native
species cover
values when a linear relationship is modelled.
If
alteration
manipulate
these
species invasion
native
of
mining
variables
for
and
reclamation
enhancement
plans to
of
native
resulted in even a 10 percent increase in
species coverage, effects
could be
dramatic.
73
Such an
increase in
greatly improve
onsite native
species coverage would
the potential for further spread of native
species seed on the site.
There is also a
have
correctly
possibility that
identified
greatest importance to
that
a
model
other
the
the
covariance analyses
independent
variables of
native . species
than
invasion, but
a simple linear one could have
improved the R-square values substantially.
In terms
of variable
importance,
it
is evident that
coarse fragment rating is the most important contributing
variable.
for
Northwest versus
moss
analyses,
distance
from
most other
alfalfa
the
native
ranks
but
southeast aspect ranks second
is
replaced
nearest
species
third
in
importance
by
westerly undisturbed area for
analyses.
overall
for
moss
Percent
cover of
analyses, but is
replaced by either one of the two aspect variables for most
other analyses.
Of the variables ranked in these analyses
percent slope appears to be least important. -
74
-
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Presence of native species on reclaimed high elevation
minesites in Alberta is valuable for provision of long term
self-sustaining erosion
few
maintenance
control and
requirements.
species adapted to such
expensive to
obtain.
But,
sites
are
seed
supplies
usually
of
difficult and
Commercial supplies of grass species
adapted to those areas
were not
nutrient cycling with
are only
now being
developed, and
available in the m i d - 1970's when Smoky River Coal
Ltd.'s Number 8 Mine site was being reclaimed.
Seeding of agronomic species
the
only
cost-effective
invasion
of
onto
provide mine
factors
sites
has. usually been
alternative
reclamation projects in high
Recognition
is and
elevation
which
seeded
for
large-scale
areas
of Alberta.
influence
to
native
agronomic
species
species could
reclamationists with the opportunity to alter
reclamation plans to enhance this invasion.
A variety of factors
which
could
potentially affect
invasion of native species was measured in conjunction with
sampling cover of native species
Grande Cache,
Alberta.
on
a
minesite
north of
Covariance analyses were completed
with percent cover of native species as dependent variables
in. order
to determine
confidence levels for
significance
75
of independent variables and
relationships between
to
determine
the
nature of
independent and dependent variables.
Significant independent variables were
ranked to determine
their relative importance.
Covariance
independent
northwest
nearest
analyses
variables
versus
slope.
percent
Statistically
aspect,
cover
depth,
times ■fertilized,
distance
of
distance
from
northeast
the
versus
independent variables
and
fertilization
times seeded,
from
rating,
alfalfa and percent
seeding
treatment combinations, number of
significant
fragment
area,
insignificant
coversoil
that
coarse
undisturbed
aspect,
included
included
southeast
westerly
southwest
indicated
number of
the nearest undisturbed
area, coal waste rating and distance from the
southern end
of the minesite..
The
relationship
between
coarse fragment rating and
native species cover is difficult to interpret.
linear
and
there
are few significant differences between
rating levels.
The
increases
coarse
with
native species
number of
indicating that
coarse fragments at
Probable reasons for this relationship
competition
sites
coarse
microsite
rating,
with more
include decreased
higher
native species occurrences
fragment
favor sites
the ground surface.
of
It is not
conditions
for
from
fragment
native
agronomic
ratings
and
species on
improved
seedling establishment.
76
Mean percent of coarse fragments at the ground surface
was approximately 12.5 percent.
percent.
Analyses indicated
quantities observed on
this
Values
rarely exceeded 30
that coarse fragments in the
site ' enhanced
occurrence of
native species.
. Analyses of the influence of aspect on plant growth on
the site indicated that seeded agronomic
most successful
on easterly
favors northwest
native
species
aspects
over
excluding
nitrogen-fixing
and
significantly favor
Moss (Dicranum sp.)
southeast
moss.
as do
native
tree,
species
failed
to
either northwest or southeast aspects,
moss'
be
the
trend.
cause
for
species.
the 'native
Native species (excluding
moss) prefer southwest aspects to northeast
Asteraceae
aspects,
Because
Asteraceae
other native species must
species excluding
aspects.
species have been
Nitrogen-fixing
aspects, as do
species
prefer
northeast aspects.
Observed aspect trends
effects
on
seed
and
can
moisture
be
attributed
to aspect
availability.
Southwest
aspects are most likely to receive large quantities of wind
disseminated spores
unfavorable
and seeds,
moisture
probably receive
conditions.
almost as
as southwest
aspects,
conditions
as
a
but simultaneously exhibit
but
Northwest
aspects
many native species propagules
have
result
more
of
favorable moisture
less
sun
exposure.
77
Southeast
aspects
propagules and
are
likely
to
receive
few
native
exhibit poor available moisture conditions.
No native.species groups
southeast aspects.
examined in
this study preferred
Northeast aspects are likely to receive
few native species propagules
but
exhibit
good available
moisture conditions.
Distance
was
from
significant
particularly for
of
moss,
all
for
nearest westerly undisturbed area
all
native
native tree
native
increasing distance
area.
the
species.
species
from the
species
groups,
and
With the exception
declined
in
cover
with
nearest westerly undisturbed
A factor interaction is suspected to account for the
positive
relationship
between
moss
cover
and
this
independent variable.
Percent
affect both
cover
of
alfalfa
appears
moss and Asteraceae species cover.
declines with increasing alfalfa cover .
effect
to significantly
for
Asteraceae
effect include
competition
excessive
mechanisms.
species.
There is a similar
Explanations
shading
by
alfalfa
agronomic
species,
for this
plants and
Increased available nitrogen in
the vicinity of alfalfa plants may be enhancing
of
Moss cover
which
then
the growth
outcompete
moss
and
Asteraceae species.
Percent slope affected only moss cover.
positive
relationship
between
moss
cover
There
was a
and
slope.
78
This
relationship
combination of
fragments at
can
probably
reduced coversoil
the ground
be
surface and
growth of
to
a
depths, increased coarse
relatively poor soil
moisture conditions on steeper slopes.
unfavorable to
attributed
Such conditions are
most species
found on the site,
thus reducing interspecific competition for moss.
Ranking of independent variables indicates that coarse
fragment rating is the most important variable contributing
to native species cover.
Northwest versus southeast aspect
and
nearest westerly undisturbed area
distance
from
the
rank second, followed by percent cover of alfalfa.
Percent
slope and soil depth rank relatively low.
Overall, variables listed as significant accounted for
R-square
values
sufficient for
of
approximately
0.2.
This
may
be
the reclamation specialist to significantly
increase native
species
cover
on
similar
sites through
appropriate manipulation of these variables.
Recommendations for Increasing
Native Species Percent Cover
I.
Where
the
ground
fragments of
attempt should
surface
approximately
be made
has
35
a
cover
percent
of
or
coarse
less, ho
to remove or cover the coarse
fragments.
2
.
If possible during the
recontouring process, maximize
slope orientation to windward aspects.
Where
possible,
parallel
to
minimize
the
.lengths
of
disturbances
dominant wind, direction to minimize
distance from nearest windward seed sources.
Where native species seed
cover
an
efforts
entire
in
but
Establish
native
native species
inadequate to
disturbed area, concentrate seeding
areas . of
potential
supplies are
low
adequate
seed
natural
soil
seed
dispersal
moisture availability.
sources
on
site, by seeding
in localized areas on windward slopes.
Avoid use of competitive
agronomic
species
in these
areas where possible.
Whenever
possible,
use competitive agronomic species
only where necessary for soil and
purposes.
This
slope stabilization
recommendation
observations of plant communities
is
on the
based
on
site and is
unsubstantiated by the analyses.
Where
fertilization
will
be unavoidable for several
years, minimize or eliminate
the
competitive
tend
dominant
on
species
a
site
which
when
use
to
of excessively
become
fertilization
overly
occurs.
Creeping red fescue exhibited this type of behavior on
this site, although definitive data were unavailable.
80
LITERATURE CITED
81
. LITERATURE CITED
Ashby, W.C.,
W.G. Vogel, C.A. Kolar and G.R. Philo.
1982.
Productivity of stony soils on strip mines.
pp. Si44
in:
J.D.
Nichols,
P.L.
Brown and W.J. Grant
(editors).
Erosion
and
productivity
of soils
containing rock
fragments.
Soil Science Society of
America Special Publication 13. Madison, Wisconsin.
Bell, M.A. and D .V. Meidinger.
1977.
Native species in
reclamation of disturbed
lands.
pp.
143-157 in:
Reclamation of lands disturbed by mining.
Proceedings
of
the
First British
Columbia Mine Reclamation
Symposium. Province of British Columbia Ministry of
Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources.
Berdusco, R.J.
and A.W.
Milligan.
1977.
Surface
reclamation
situations
and
practices
on coal
exploration and surface mine
sites at Sparwood, B.C.
Paper No. 6., 9 pp. in:
Proceedings of the Canadian
Land Reclamation Association Second Annual Meeting.
Edmonton, Alberta.
Berg, W.A . and E.M. Barrau.
1978.
Management approaches
to nitrogen deficiency
in revegetation of subalpine
disturbances,
pp. 174-181
in:
S.T. Kenny (editor).
Proceedings of High Altitude Revegetation Workshop No.
3.
Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute,
Information Series No. 28.
Colorado State University.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Biggins,
D.E.,
D.B.
Johnson and M.R.
Jackson.
1985.
Effects of rock structures and condensation traps on
shrub establishment.
Reclamation and Revegetation
Research, 4:63-71.
Biondini, M.E.,
C.D.
Bonham and E. F. Redente.
1984.
Relationships between
induced successional patterns
and soil biological activity of reclaimed areas.
Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 3:323-342.
Blake,
G.
1981.
Exotics
Wildlands, 7:26-27.
versus
natives.
Western
Brady, N.C.
1984.
The Nature arid Properties of Soils.
Macmillan Publishing Company.
New York, New York. 750
pp.
82
Brady, M.A.
and J .V. Thirgood. 1984.
Preliminary Report:
A study of the natural revegetation of placer mining
disturbances
in the Klondike area, Yukon Territory.
University of British Columbia.
Vancouver, British
Columbia. I7 pp.
Brown,
R.W., R .S . Johnston,
B.Z.
Richardson and E .E .
Farmer.
1976.
Rehabilitation of alpine disturbances:
Beartooth Plateau,
Montana.
pp. 58-73 in: R.H., Zuck
and L.F. ' Brown
(editors).
Proceedings
of High
Altitude Revegetation Workshop No. 2. Colorado State
University.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
Burns, S .F . 1980. Alpine soil factors
in disturbance and
revegetation.
pp. 210-227 in: C.L. Jackson and M.A.
Schuster
(editors).
Proceedings of High-altitude
Revegetation Workshop No.
4,
Colorado School of
Mines.
Golden, Colorado.
Chew, V.
1976.
Comparing treatment means:
HortScience, 11:348-356^
A compendium.
Cook, C.W., R.M. Hyde and P.L. Sims.
1974. Guidelines for
revegetation and stabilization of surface mined areas
in the western states..
Range Science Series No. 16.
Colorado State University.
Fort Collins, Colorado.
70 pp.
Daubenmire,
R.
1968.
plant synecology.
York.
300 p p .
Plant communities:
Harper and Row.
Daubenmire,
R.
1959.
vegetational analysis.
A textbook of
New York, New
A canopy-coverage method of
Northwest Science, 33:43-64.
Doerr, T.B.
and E .F . Redente.
1983.
Seeded plant
community changes on intensively disturbed soils as
affected by cultural practices.
Reclamation and
Revegetation Research, 2:13-24.
Donahue,
R.L.,
R.W.
Miller and J.C.
Shickluna.
1983.
Soils: An introduction
to soils and plant growth.
Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
667 pp.
Errington, J.C.
1975.
Natural
revegetation of disturbed
sites in British Columbia.
P h . D . Thesis.
University
of British Columbia.
Vancouver, British Columbia. 114
PP-
83
Errington, J .C .
1978.
Revegetation studies in the Peace
River Coal Block.
British Columbia Ministry of
Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Paper 1979-3.
32 pp.
Fyles, -J.W., I .H . Milne and M •A . Bell.
1981. Development
of vegetation and soil on high elevation reclaimed
lands in southeastern British. Columbia.
pp. 221-236
in: Reclamation in mountainous areas.
Proceedings of
the Canadian Land Reclamation Association Sixth Annual
Meeting and the Fifth Annual British Columbia Mine
Reclamation Symposium.
Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Queen's. Printer
for British Columbia.
Victoria,
British Columbia.
Gibson,
D.J.,
F .L . Johnson and D . G . Risser.
1985.
Revegetation
of
unreclaimed . coal
strip mines
in
Oklahoma.
II.
Plant communities.
Reclamation and
Revegetation Research, 4:31-47.
Grossnickle, S.C.
and C.P.
Reid.
1984. The influence of
reclamation practices on the microclimate of a highelevation mine
site,
and their effect on water
relation patterns
of
Pinus
contorta seedlings.
Reclamation and Revegetation Research 3:31-48.
Harrison, G.
1980.
Revegetation
research. Windy Point,
Jasper National Park.
Summary Report - 1977 to 1979.
Natural History Research Division,
Western Region,
Parks Canada, 30 pp.
Harrison, J.E.
1977.
Summer soil temperature as a factor
in revegetation of coal mine waste. Geological Survey
of Canada, Ottawa.
pp. 329-332 in:
E.B. Peterson
and N.M. Peterson (editors).
Revegetation information
applicable to
mining sites
in northern Canada.
Environmental Studies No. 3. Paper 77-1 A.
Indian and
Northern Affairs.
Ottawa, Ontario.
Hawk,
A.
1973.
Maintenance
of revegetative grass
seedings.
pp.
41-44
in: 1973 Alaska Revegetation
Workshop Notes.Cooperative
Extension Service,
University of Alaska.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Humphries,
R.N.
and
A .D.
Bradshaw.
establishment
of
woody plants
on
Scientific Horticulture, 29:23-33.
1977.
derelict
The
land.
84
Johnson, L.A.
1981.
Revegetation and selected terrain
disturbances along the trans-Alaska pipeline, 19751978.
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers,
Cold Regions
Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Hanover, New
Hampshire.
124 pp.
Johnson, D.A.
1980.
Improved plant
traits for high
altitude disturbances,
pp. 173-184
in: C.L. Jackson
and M.A.
Schuster
(editors).
Proceedings of Highaltitude Revegetation Workshop No. 4. Colorado School
of Mines.
Golden, Colorado.
Johnson, L . and K. Van Cleve.
1976.
Revegetation in
arctic and subarctic North America:
A literature
review.
Cold Regions
Research and Engineering
Laboratory, Hanover, New Hampshire.
38 pp.
Johnson, R.L., P.J. Burton, V. Klaassen, P.D. Lulman and D .
Doram.
1984.
Reclamation monitoring:
The critical
elements of a reclamation
monitoring program
in
western North America.
21 pp. in: Reclamation in
mountains, foothills and plains:
Doing
it right!
Proceedings . of
the
Canadian
Land
Reclamation
Association Ninth Annual Meeting.
Calgary, Alberta.
Klock, G.O., A .R. Tiedemann and W. Lopushinsky.
1975.
Seeding recommendations
for disturbed mountain slopes
in north central Washington.
United States Department
of Agriculture Research Note PNW-244.
8 pp.
Krause,
1969.
Fuels,
land,
and the
future.
in:
Proceedings of the Twenty-first Canadian Conference on
Coal.
Dominion Coal Board. Ottawa, Ontario.
(as
cited in Lesko et a l ., 1975)
Ledgard, N.J.
1974. Direct seeding of woody plants above
1000 meters.
New
Zealand Forest Service, Forest
Research Institute.
Protection Forestry Division
Report 131 (unpubl.). 60 pp.
Lesko, G .L ., H.M. Etter
selection, seedling
coal mine spoils
Report NOR-X-117.
Edmonton, Alberta.
and T.M.
Dillon.
1975.
Species
establishment and early growth on
at Luscar, Alberta.
Information
Northern Forest Research Centre.
37 pp.
85
Luke, A .G .
1981.
Establishment of wooded landscapes from
seed on disturbed land:
The effects of aspect and
mulching on seedling recruitment and growth,
pp. 237240
in:
Reclamation
in
mountainous
areas.
Proceedings
of
the
Canadian
Land
Reclamation
Association Sixth Annual Meeting and the Fifth Annual
British
Columbia
Mine
Reclamation
Symposium.
Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Queen’s Printer for
British Columbia.
Victoria, British Columbia.
Mackey, C.V.
and E.J. DePuit. 1985.
Natural revegetation
of
surface-deposited spent oil shale
in Colorado.
Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 4:1-16.
Macyk, T.M.
and Z .W . Widtman.
1985.
Progress report,
surface mine reclamation project, No.
8 and No. 9
Mines,
Grande Cache,
Alberta.
Alberta Research
Council.
Report F856. 45 pp.
Macyk, T.M. and Z.W. Widtman. I984.
Progress report,
surface mine reclamation project, No.
8 and No. 9
Mines,
Grande Cache,
Alberta.
Alberta Research
Council. 41 p p .
Macy k, T.M.
1979.
Progress
report, surface mine
reclamation
project,
No.
8
Mine,
Grande Cache,
Alberta. Alberta Research Council.
21 pp.
Macyk, T.M.
1977.
Progress
report, surface mine
reclamation
project,
No.
8
Mine,
Grande Cache,
Alberta.
Alberta Research Council.
39 pp.
Macy k, T.M.
1976.
Progress report, strip mine reclamation
project, No. 8 Mine,
Grande Cache,
Alberta.
Alberta
Institute of Pedology Report M-76-11.
43 pp.
Martens,
H.E.
and W.E.
Nicholson.
1976.
A soil and
reveg^tation inventory of coal mining wastes
in the
Rocky Mountain Region of Alberta and British Columbia.
in:
Proceedings of the Canadian Land Reclamation
Association First Annual Meeting.
University of
Guelph.
Guelph, Ontario.
Abstract on ly . I p.
McDonald, J.D. and J.C. Errington. 1978.
Reclamation of
lands disturbed by coal mining in British Columbia,
pp.
480-490
in:
Proceedings
of
the First
International Symposium on Stability
in Coal Mining.
Vancouver, British Columbia.
86
McGi nnies, W. J. anci P •J . Nicholas.
1980.
Effects of
topsoil
thickness and nitrogen
fertilizer on the
revegetation
of coal mine
spoil.
Journal of
. Environmental Quality, 9:681-685.
Miller,
G.
1978.
A method of establishing native
vegetation on disturbed sites consistent with the
theory of nucleation.
pp. 322-327 in: Proceedings of
the Canadian Land- Reclamation Association Third Annual
Meeting.
Laurentian University.
Sudbury, Ontario.
Milligan,
A.W.
and R.J.
Berdusco.
1977.
Reclamation
problems at high
elevations.
pp. 11-22
in:
Proceedings
of
the Coal
Industry
Reclamation
Symposium.
Banff, Alberta.
The Coal Association of
Canada. . Calgary, Alberta.
Mitchell, W.W.
1972. Adaptations of species and varieties
of grasses for potential use in Alaska.
pp. 2-6 in:
B.H, McCown and D.R. Simpson (editors).
The impact of
oil
resource
development
on
northern
plant
communities..
Proceedings of the Twenty-third AAAS
Alaska Science Conference.
University of Alaska.
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Moss, E.H.
Press.
1983. Flora of Alberta. University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario.
687 pp.
Munshower, F .F . and D.R.
Neuman.
1980.
Elemental,
concentrations
in native plant
species growing on
minesoils and native range. Reclamation Review, 3:4146.
Odum, E .P . 1971.
Fundamentals of Ecology.
3rd edition.
W.B. Saunders. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Redente,. E.F.
and N .E . Hargis.
1985.
An evaluation of
soil thickness and manipulation of soil and spoil for
reclaiming
mined
land
in
northwest
Colorado.
Reclamation and Revegetation Research, 4:17-29.
Redente, E.F.,. T .B . Doerr, C.E. Grygiel and M.E. Biondini.
1984.
Vegetation establishment and succession on
disturbed soils
in northwest Colorado.
Reclamation
and Revegetation Research, 3:153-165.
Revel,
R.D.,
T.D. Dougherty and D.J. Downing.
1984.
Forest
growth and revegetation along seismic lines.
The University of Calgary Press.
Calgary, Alberta.
150 pp.
87
Rowell, M.J.
1981. Assessment of the soil resource.in the
reclamation of disturbed mountainous areas.
pp. 241270
in:
Reclamation
in
mountainous
areas.
Proceedings
of
the
Canadian
Land
Reclamation
Association
Sixth Annual Meeting. Cranbrook, British
Columbia.
Queen's. Printer
for British Columbia.
Victoria, British Columbia.
Russell, W.B.
1979.
Native grass reclamation research:
container plantings in the Eastern Slopes of Alberta.
Alberta Forest Service.
Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta
Energy and Natural Resources Report No. 140.
14 pp.
Sadasivaiah, R.S. and J. Weijer. 1981.
The utilization of
native grass species for reclamation of disturbed land
in the alpine and subalpine regions of Alberta.
pp.
211-220
in:
Reclamation
in mountainous areas.
Proceedings
of
the
Canadian
Land
Reclamation
Association Sixth Annual Meeting and the Fifth Annual
British
Columbia
Mine
Reclamation
Symposium.
Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Queen's Printer for
British Columbia.
Victoria, British Columbia.
Sadasivaiah, R.S. and J . Weijer.
1980.
The utilization
and genetic
improvement
of native grasses from the
Alberta Rocky Mountains.
A report on the work
performed
in
1979 for
the Reclamation Research
Technical Advisory Committee of
the Province of
Alberta, .Alberta
Environment, Alberta Fish and
. Wildlife, Alberta Forestry and Parks Canada. - 80 pp.
Schiechtl, H.
1980.
Bioengineering
for land reclamation
and conservation.
The University of Alberta Press.
Edmonton, Alberta. 404 pp.
Schoenholtz, S.H. and J.A. Burger. .
1984.
Influence of
cultural treatments on survival and growth of pines on
strip-mined sites.
Reclamation
and Revegetation
Research, 3:223-237.
Seiner, J.E.
in the
Service.
1976. The important role of trees and shrubs
land reclamation . process.
Alberta Forest
Edmonton, Alberta. 6 pp.
Sindelar, B.W.
1982.
Native or introduced species in land
reclamation? Paper presented at the
1982 Society for
Range Management Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta.
4
PP-
88
Takyi, S.K.
1980. Methods of establishing native grasses
on coal overburden„
First Year Report.
Alberta
Energy and Natural Resources.
17 pp„.
Takyi, S.K.
1980.
Influence of roll-out mats and ridging
on the establishment of plant cover on an unamended
coal spoil.
1979 Progress Report.
Alberta Energy and
Natural Resources Report No. 152.
36 pp.
Takyi, SiK. and R .H . Leitch.
1981.
Influence of roll-out
mats and ridging on the establishment of plant cover
on an unamended coal
spoil.
1980 Progress Report.
Alberta Energy and Natural Resources Report No. T/2080.
23 pp.
Tomm, H.O.
and W.B.
Russell.
1981. Native grass and
cultivated grass-legume
seed
mixture
trials on
subalpine coal-mined disturbances
in Alberta:
A
progress.report for 1980. Alberta Energy and Natural
Resources Report No. T/21-80.
Edmonton, Alberta.
38
pp.
Tomm, H.O. and S.K. Takyi. 1981.
Influence of cultivated
grasses and legumes on the establishment success of
■ native grass mixtures at two abandoned coal mines in
the subalpine
region of Alberta.
pp. 195-209 in:
Reclamation in mountainous areas.
Proceedings of the
Canadian Land Reclamation Association Sixth Annual
Meeting and
Fifth Annual
B .C . Mine Reclamation
Symposium.
Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Queen's
Printer
for British Columbia.
Victoria,
British
Columbia.
United States Forest Service.
1979.
User guide to
vegetation mining
and reclamation
in the west.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Ogden, Utah.
United States Department
of Agriculture
Forest Service General technical Report INT-64. 88 pp.
Vaartnou, M.
_ 1977.
Testing grasses and legumes for
revegetation of disturbed areas
in Alberta.
1976
Progress Report. Vaartnou and Sons Enterprises Ltd.
Prepared
for
Alberta
Agriculture . and
Alberta
Environment.
I08 pp.
Vallentine,
J.F.
^ 1980.
Range
Development
and
Improvements.
Brigham Young University Press.
Provo
Utah.
pp. 325-346.
'
89
Veith, D .L ., K.L. Bickel, R.W.E. Hopper and M.R. Norland.
1985.
Literature on the revegetation of coal-mined
lands: An annotated bibliography.
United States
Bureau of Mines.
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
296 pp.
Walker, D. , Sadasivaiah, R.S.
and J. Weijer. 1977. The
selection and utilization .of
native grasses
for
reclamation in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta.
Paper
No. '18, 16 pp.
in:
E.B. Peterson and N.M. Peterson
(editors). Revegetation
information applicable to
mining sites
in northern
Canada.
Environmental
Studies No.
3.
Minister
of Indian and Northern
Affairs.
Ottawa, Ontario.
388 pp.
Wheeler, D.W. and J.O. Sawyer.
1981. Natural revegetation
of exploration trenches in the Stillwater complex of
the Beartooth Mountains,
Montana.
pp. . 119-124 in:
Reclamation in mountainous areas.
Proceedings of the
Canadian Land Reclamation
Association Sixth Annual
Meeting
and
the
Fifth Annual British Columbia
Reclamation Symposium.
Cranbrook, British Columbia.
Queen's Printer
for British Columbia.
Victoria,
British Columbia. .
Willard, B.E.
1976. High elevation reclamation nuts and
bolts.
pp.
1-3 in:
R.H
Zuck and L.F. Brown,
(editors).
Proceedings of High Altitude Revegetation
Workshop No.
2.
Colorado State University.
Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Wishart, . D.M.
1984.
Montane grassland revegetation
trials.
17 pp.
in:
Reclamation
in mountains,
foothills and plains: Doing it right!
Proceedings of
the.Canadian Land Reclamation Association Ninth Annual
Meeting.
Calgary, Alberta.
Zasada, J . C .
1971.
Natural
regeneration of interior
Alaska
forests:
Seed,
seedbed, and vegetative
reproduction considerations.
in: Proceedings - Fire
in the northern environment.
College, Alaska, (as
cited in Brady and Thirgood, 1984)
Ziemkiewicz, P.F.
1982.
Determination
of nutrient
recycling capacity of two reclaimed coal mine sites in
British Columbia.
Reclamation
and Revegetation
Research 1:51-61.
90
Ziemkiewicz, P.F.
1977.
The distribution of nutrients and
organic matter
in native mountain grasslands and
reclaimed areas
in southeastern British Columbia.
Paper. No. 16, 24 pp. in:
Proceedings of the Canadian
Land Reclamation Association Second Annual Meeting.
Edmonton, Alberta.
91
APPENDICES
92
APPENDIX I
REDUCED AND FULL MODEL COMPARISONS
93
Equati on
F = (SSE reduced model - SSE full model)/difference in df
MSE full model
Table 2.
Dependent
Variable
Comparison between fourth covariance analysis
series
(reduced model) and
third covariance
analysis series (full model).
SSE
Reduced
Moss
69794.968
Natives (Ex­
cluding Moss) 7504.126
Natives (In­
cluding Moss) 81515.759
Native
Trees
1380.433
NitrogenFixers
1262.138
Native
Asteraceae
7.109
Table 3.
Dependent
Variable
MOSS
SSE
Full
Dif. MSE
Full Model Critical
df
Reduced Error df
F-value
Calculated
F-value
68576.826
5
389.916
17 4
2.21
0.625
7303.620
5
64.138
112
2.29
0.625
79900.598
5
450.363
176
2.21
0.717
1292.424
5
30.676
40
2.45
0.574
771.692
5
78.884
11
3/20
1.243
3.282
5
0.547
8
3.84
1.400
Comparison between
fifth covariance analysis
series
(reduced model) and fourth covariance
analysis series (full model).
SSE
Reduced
71421.061
Natives (Exeluding Moss) 7713.070
Natives (Ineluding Moss) 84079.284
Native
Trees
1511.737
NitrogenFixers
1262.873
Native
Asteraceae
9.029
SSE
Full
Dif. MSE
Full Model Critical
df
Reduced Error df
F-value
Calculated
F-value
69794.968
3
392.423
179
2.60
1.381
7504.126
3
350.918
117
2.68
0.198
31515.759
3
456.953
181
2.60
1.870
1380.433
3
31.495
45
2.81
1.390
1262.138
3
70.160
16
3.24
0.003
7.109
3
0.564
13
3.41
1.135
94
Table 4.
Dependent
Variable
Comparison between
sixth covariance analysis
series
(reduced model)
and
fifth covariance
analysis series (full model).
SSE
Reduced
Moss
72430.459
Natives (Exeluding Moss) 7726.189
Natives (Ineluding Moss) 85571.811
Native
Trees
1515.147
NitrogenFixers
1298.938
Native
Asteraceae
13.777
SSE
Full
Dif. MSE
Full Model Critical
df
Reduced Error df
F-value
Calculated
F-value
71421.061
I
395.795
182
3.84
2.551
7713.070
I
63.852
120
3.92
0.205
84079.284
I
462.550
184
3.84
3.227
1511.737
I
30.921
48
4.03
0.110
1262.873
I
68.365
18
4.41
0.528
9.029
I
0.636
16
4.49
7.465
95
APPENDIX II
SLOPE AND P-VALUE ESTIMATES
/
/
96
Table 5.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
Dependent Variable
Independent
Variable
Natives Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
N-S Aspect
E-W Aspect
Distance A
Distance B
Percent Slope
Soil Depth
% Cover Alfalfa
Table 6.
-7.4962
3.9737
0.0094
0.0079
0.1842
-0.0149
-0.1743
.0.8074
-0.5375
-0.0232
-0.0290
0.0151
0.1173
-0.0647
(%
2916
7190
0218
0108
2047
1292
2147
P-value estimates
for
covariance analyses.
Dependent Variable
Independent
Variable
Seeding & Fertiliration Trt. Comb.
N-S Aspect
E-W Aspect
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Coal Waste Rating
Distance A
Distance B
Percent Slope
Soil Depth
% Cover Alfalfa
Moss
Natives
Excluding
Moss
0.0547
0.0332
0.2147
0.5663
0.6661
0.7732
0.0796
0.1156
0.8160
0.6858
0.0865
0.9517
0.1803
0.1246
0.5445
0.2689
0.0069
0.7784
0.3645
0.4498
first
series
of
Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Natives
-8
4
-0
-0
0
0
-0
the
Trees
0.2051
2.1654
-0.0319
-0.0259
0.0423
0.2131
-0.0902
the
N-Fixers
Asteraceae
-0.5057 0.3715
-19.7064 3.2564
-1.2460 0.0424
1.1167 -0.0213
-0.6377 -0.0567
0.2110 0.0271
-2.7612 0.0273
first
series
Agro
nomic
Species
2.7981
-7.9856
0.0583
0.0093
-0.0604
-0.0820
1.0173
of
Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Natives
Including
Moss
Trees
N-Fixers
0.8260
0.0283
0.1724
0.8915
0.9454
0.4492
0.0044
0.8583
0.0003
0.6408
0.4954
0.2939
0.0328
0.3150
0.0024
0.0299
0.0696
0.6188
0.6087
0.0796
0.6266
0.1273
0.4265
0.8114
0.3774
0.0854
0.7067
0.2968
0.6052
0.5441
0.0013
0.0009
0.0008
0.0049
0.2523
0.0007
0.4627
0.7506
0.4618
0.6101
0.4012
0.8426
0.7940
0.0001
0.4963
0.0688
0.5565
0.4674
0.6331
0.0001
Asteraceae
Agro­
nomic
Species
97
Table 7.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
second
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
Distance C
Percent Slope
% Cover Alfalfa
-6.2607
0.0192
-0.0012
0.1329
-0.1929
-3.0917
-0.0349
-0.0009
0.0340
-0.0268
Table 8.
-8.4108
-0.0061
-0.0018
0.1611
-0.2325
P-value estimates for
covariance analyses.
Trees
-2.7012
-0.0224
-0.OOtil
-0.0612
-0.0049
the
N-Fixers
-0.4212
-0.0414
0.0022
0.2562
-0.1566
second
j
Asteraceae
-0.1744
-0.0034
-0.0002
0.0038
-0.0428
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Coal Waste Rating
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
Distance C
Percent Slope
% Cover Alfalfa
Moss
0.0235
0.2020
0.0672
0.2428
0.6841
0.1886
0.1028
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0296
0.3974
0.0909
0.0001
0.5502
0.4852
0.7075
0.0148
0.1029
0.0215
0.7275
0.5738
0.1378
0.0670
Trees
0.3240
0.2749
0.2721
0.0227
0.9609
0.4212
0.9693
N-Fixers
0.4044
0.8421
0.9427
0.2347
0.6589
0.2925
0.6373
Asteraceae
0.6791
0.4687
0.8026
0.4231
0.5464
0.8723
0.1276
98
Table 9.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
third
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
Distance C
Percent Slope
% Cover Alfalfa
-5.9400
0.0167
0.0005
0.1235
-0.2300
-2.8106
-0.0373
-0.0004
0.0323
-0.0586
Table 10.
-8.0722
-0.0086
-0.0001
0.1503
-0.2707
P-value estimates for
covariance analyses.
Trees
-2.6010
-0.0275
0.0013
-0.05(50
-0.0685
the
N-Fixers
Asteraceae
3.4112 -0.9970
-0.0500 0.0004
0.0009 -0.0003
-0.0030 0.0007
-0.8478 -0.0102
third
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Coarse Fragment
Rating
0.0644
Coal Waste Rating 0.2005
NW-SE Aspect
0.0906
Distance B
0.3274
Distance C
0.8901
Percent Slope
0.2285
% Cover Alfalfa
0.0676
# Times FertilizedO.1045
# Times Seeded
0.3450
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0394
0.3552
0.1291
0.0001
0.8133
0.5117
0.4673
0.7066
0.5675
0.0334
0.0980
0.0310
0.6335
0.9889
0.1721
0.0448
0.4702
0.3738
Trees
0.5294
0.2318
0.3376
0.0105
0.5492
0.4698
0.6211
0.6978
0.2501
N-Fixers
0.7310
0.5738
0.5551
0.1470
0.8780
0.9927
0.0716
0.7993
0.1425
Asteraceae
0.1542
0.2734
0.1541
0.9114
0.3316
0.9692
0.7039
0.2945
0.2132
99
Table I I.
Slope estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
fourth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
% Cover Alfalfa
-6.1813
0.0206
-0.2009
-3.1009
-0.0335
-0.0283
Table 12.
-8.2869
-0.0040
-0.2407
P-value estimates
for
covariance analyses.
Trees
-2.3448
-0.0240
-0.0011
the
N-Fixers
Asteraceae
-2.8390 -0.1699
-0.0306 -0.0022
-0.2009 -0.0375
fourth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species >
Independent
Variable
Moss
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Coal Waste Rating
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
% Cover Alfalfa
0.0114
0.2474
0.0698
0.1989
0.0863
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0197
0.3580
0.0884
0.0001
0.6870
0.0100
0.1316
0.0232
0.8155
0.0559
Trees
0.1798
0.2474
0.3239
0.0058
0.9931
N-Fixers
0.5533
0.9954
0.5868
0.3382
0.5061
Asteraceae
0.3233
0.3588
0.7919
0.4534
0.1286
I OO
Table 13.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
fifth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species '
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
MOSS
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
% Cover alfalfa
-6.7984
0.0189
-0.1858
-3.1530
-0.0315
-0.0314
Table 14.
-8.9575
-0.0055
-0.2257
P-value estimates for
covariance analyses.
N-Fixers
Trees
-2.8261 -0.3059
-0.0305 -0.0042
-0.1973 -0.0416
-1.1877
-0.0200
-0.0400
the
Asteraceae
fifth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
% Cover Alfalfa
Moss
0.0038
0.0448
0.2554
0.1105
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0134
0.0804
0.0001
0.6522
0.0035
0.0139
0.7461
0.0724
Trees
N-Fixers
0.1034
0.6026
0.0154
0.7436
0.4694
0.5510
0.3069
0.4826
Asteraceae
0.4359
0.5962
0.1379
0.0940
101
Table 15.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
sixth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species/
Independent
Variable
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
-7.7869
0.0131
Table I6
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
-3.1941
-0.0324
-10.1384
-0.0127
P-value estimates
for
covariance analyses.
Trees
N-Fixers
-1.2917
-0.0205
the
Asteraceae
-4.2134 -0.2869
-0.0325 -0.0033
sixth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0003
0.0202
0.4002
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0115
0.0752
0.0001
0.0002
0.0050
0.4477
Trees
N-Fixers
0.0981
0.5639
0.0108
0.4979
0.3255
0.2668
Asteraceae
0.6241
0.6390
0.2574
Table
17.
Slope estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
seventh
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
-1.5074
0.0128
2.1505
-0.0310
Table 18
0.1805
-0.0120
P-value estimates for
covariance analyses.
Trees
N-Fixers
0.4010 -6.8053
-0.0197 -0.0329
the
seventh
Asteraceae
0.5279
-0.0032
series of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0001
0.6128
0.4194
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0204
0.1400
0.0001
0.0001
0.9554
0.4815
Trees
0.1015
0.8023
0.0205
N-Fixers
0.7344
0.0770
0.2298
Asteraceae
0.5256
0.1114
0.2323
I03
Table
19.
Slope
estimates
for
covariance analyses.
the
eighth
series
of
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
-7.7017
-0.9924
0.0129
-3.3988
2.3452
-0.0313
Table 20.
•-10.1955
0.7716
-0.0126
P-value estimates
for
covariance analyses.
Trees
N-Fixers
-0.9860 -0.3080
-6.3792 0.5317
-0.0319 -0.0032
-1.3708
0.5211
-0.-196
the
Asteraceae
eighth
series
of
Dependent Variable (.% Aerial Cover of Native Species;
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NW-SE Aspect
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0003
0.0222
0.7367
0.4096
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0195
0.0575
0.1049
0.0001
0.0003
0.0050
0.8081
0.4533
Trees
N-Fixers
0.1198
0.5467
0.7$34
0.0216
0.7400
0.8317
0.1484
0.2619
Asteraceae
0.5365
0.5978
0.1174
0.2462
Table 21.
Slope
estimates
for
the ninth
series
of
covariance
analyses
(data
base
including
additional
subjectively selected points).
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
-9.4272
0.0136
-1.4918
-0.0242
Table 22.
-10.5983
-0.0100
Trees
N-Fixers
2.8523
-0.0042
1.5241
0.0163
Asteraceae
0.0583
-0.0043
P-value estimates
for the ninth series of
covariance
analyses
(data
base
including
additional subjectively selected points).
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NW-SE Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0002
0.0005
0.8203
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0391
0.3359
0.0022
0.0001
0.0005
0.5140
Trees
0.0309
0.2279
0.6707
N-Fixers
0.3797
0.5793
0.3675
Asteraceae
0.0751
0.9407
0.4607
105
Table 23.
Slope
estimates
for
the
tenth
series
of
covariance
analyses
(data
base
including
additional subjectively selected points).
Dependent Varianle (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
-2.0101
0.0142
0.3106
-0.0232
Table 24.
-1.6430
-0.0077
Trees
-0.5073
-0.0071
N-Fixers
-4.9850
0.0125
Asteraceae
0.4563
-0.0040
P-value estimates
for the tenth series of
covariance
analyses
(data
base
including
additional subjectively selected points).
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0001
0.4624
0.3124
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0416
0.8244
0.0038
0.0001
0.5644
0.6254
Trees
0.0464
0.8016
0.5035
N-Fixers
0.3552
0.0601
0.4854
Asteraceae
0.0896
0.5002
0.4993
Table 25.
Slope estimates
for
the eleventh
series of
covariance
analyses
(data
base
including
additional subjectively selected points).
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Variable
Moss
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
NW-SE Aspect
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
-9.3905
-1.3084
0.0124
-1.5760
0.4565
-0.0241
Table 26.
-10.6205
-0.9101
-0.0110
Trees
N-Fixers
2.8084
-0.4990
-0.0055
3.0486
-5.7477
0.0117
Asteraceae
0.1067
0.4598
-0.0039
P-value estimates
for the eleventh series of
covariance
analyses
including
(data
base
additional subjectively selected points).
Dependent Variable (% Aerial Cover of Native Species)
Independent
Coarse Fragment
Rating
NW-SE Aspect
NE-SW Aspect
Distance B
Moss
0.0002
0.0006
0.5979
0.3674
Natives
Natives
Excluding Including
Moss
Moss
0.0455
0.3139
0.7457
0.0028
0.0001
0.0006
0.7449
0.4757
Trees
0.0317
0.2368
0.8044
0.6050
N-Fixers
0.2627
0.2703
0.0365
0.5111
Asteraceae
0.0983
0.8926
0.5036
0.5084
APPENDIX III
ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE TABLES
108
First Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 27.
Source
d£
Model
Error
Total
24
164
188
Covariance
df
Model
Error
Total
23
103
126
Mean Square
F-value
20287.8387
64606.1041
84894.9429
845.3266
393.9397
2.15
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
df
Model
Error
Total
24
166
126
0.0028
native
Mean Square
F-value
2809.1411
7009.4397
9818.5808
122.1366
68.0528
1.79
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
Sum of Squares
24800.2871
77218.5300
102018.8172
Mean Square
1033.3453
465.1719
F-value
2.22
moss
P-value
Sum of Squares
Table 29 .
Source
of
Sum of Squares
Table 28.
Source
analysis
percent
R-square
0.2400
cover.
CV
72.4628
species percent
P-value
R-squareI CV
0.0249
0.2861
169.0344
native species percent
P-value
0.0018
R-square
0.2431
CV
71.0663
109
Table 30.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
Sum of Squares
930.7011
1120.1600
2050.3611
25
29
54
Table 31 .
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
20
4
24
Table 32.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
20
2
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
of
native
tree
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
37.2280
38.6262
0.96
0.5339
0.4538
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
1582.9101
12.1875
1595.0976
79.1455
3.0469
species
CV
184.5701
native nitrogen- fixing
F-value
P-value
R-square
25.98
0.0031
0.9924
CV
28.7851
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
12.2948
1.4826
13.7774
Mean Square
0.6147
0.7413
F-value
0.83
P-value
R-square
0.6791
0.8924
CV
101.0347
Second Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 33 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
11
177
188
Table 34.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
11
115
126
CO
in
Table
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
179
190
11
Covariance
Sum of Squares
15796.5775
69097.3653
84893.9429
analysis
Mean Square
1436.0525
390.3806
of
moss
percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
3.68
0.0001
0.1861
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
2369.2634
7449.3174
9818.5808
215.3876
64.7767
3.33
0.0005
0.2413
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
21554.6988
80464.1183
102018.8172
1959.5181
449.5202
CV
72.1347
species percent
Sum of Squares
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
cover.
CV
164.9155
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
4.36
0.0001
0.2113
CV
69.3610
Table 36.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
11
43
54
Table 37.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
10
14
24
Table 38.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
11
11
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
of
native
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
692.8398
1358.0213
2050.8611
62.9854
31.5819
1.99
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
P-value
0.0531
tree
R-square
0.3378
species
CV
166.8940
native nitrogen- fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
K-value
P-value
R-square
432.5735
1162.5241
1595.0976
43.2574
83.1374
0.52
0.8485
0.2712
CV
150.2719
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
6.9314
6.8460
13.7774
Mean Square
0.6301
0.6224
F-value
P-value
R-square
1.01
0.4920
0.5031
CV
92.5747
Third Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 39.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
14
174
188
Covariance
Sum of Squares
16317.1172
68576.8257
84893.9429
Table 40 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
14
112
126
Table
4 I.
analysis
Mean Square
1165.5084
394.1197
of
moss
F-value
2.96
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
F-value
2514.9607
7303.6200
9818.5808
179.6401
65.2109
2.75
Covariance
analysis
of
cover
(including moss).
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
14
176
190
22118.2191
79900.5981
102018.8172
1579.8728
453.9807
F-value
3.48
0.0015
R-square
0.2561
species
P-value
0.0001
CV
72.4794
species percent
P-value
native
cover.
R-square
0.1922
native
Mean Square
df
P-value
0.0005
Sum of Squares
Source
percent
R-square
0.2168
CV
165.4673
percent
CV
70.2067
Table 42.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
14
40
54
Table 43.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
13
11
24
Table 44.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
14
8
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
of
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
758.4376
1292.4235
2050.8611
54.1741
32.3106
1.68
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
native
P-value
0.1003
tree
R-square
0.3698
species
CV
168.8084
native nitrogen-fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
823.4057
771.6919
1595.0976
63.3389
70.1538
0.90
0.5750
0.5162
CV
138.1231
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
10.4954
3.2820
13.7774
Mean Square
0.7497
0.4103
F-value
P-value
R-square
1.83
0.1973
0.7618
CV
75.1617
Fourth Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 45.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
9
179
188
Table 46.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
9
117
126
Table 47.
Covariance
Sum of Squares
15098.9752
69794.9676
84893.9429
analysis
Mean Square
1677.6639
389.9160
of
moss
percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
4.30
0.0001
0.1779
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
2314.4544
7504.1264
9818.5808
257.1616
64.1378
4.01
0.0002
0.2357
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
9
181
190
20503.0583
81515.7588
102018.8172
2278.1176
450.3633
CV
72.0918
species percent
Sum of Squares
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
cover.
CV
164.1003
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
CV
5.06
0.0001
0.2010
69.9265
CO
Table
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
9
45
54
Table 49.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
8
16
24
Table 50.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
9
13
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
of
native
tree
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
670.4283
1380.4328
2050.8611
74.4920
30.6763
2.43
0.0241
0.3269
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
species
CV
164.4838
native nitrogen-fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
332.9592
1262.1384
1595.0976
41.6199
78.8836
0.53
0.8190
0.2087
CV
146.4651
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
6.6684
7.1090
13.7774
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
0.7409
0.5468
1.35
0.2997
0.4840
CV
86.7768
Fifth Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 51.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
6
182
188
Table 52.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
6
120
126
Table 53.
Covariance
Sum of Squares
13472.8816
71421.0613
84893.9429
analysis
Mean Square
2245.4803
392.4234
of
moss
percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
5.72
0.0001
0.1587
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
2105.5105
7713.0703
9818.5808
350.9184
64.2756
5.46
0.0001
0.2144
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
6
134
190
17939.5335
84079.2836
102018.8172
2989.9223
456.9526
CV
72.3232
species percent
Sum of Squares
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
cover.
CV
164.2764
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
6.54
0.0001
0.1758
CV
70.4362
Table 54.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
6
48
54
Table 55.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
6
18
24
Table
VD
ID
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
6
16
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
Of
native
tree
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
539.1241
1511.7370
2050.8611
89.8540
31.4945
2.85
0.0186
0.2629
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover
species
CV
166.6630
native nitrogen- fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
332.2244
1262.8732
1595.0976
55.3707
70.1596
0.79
0.5899
0.2083
CV
138.1289
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
4.7488
9.0286
13.7774
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
0.7915
0.5643
1.40
0.2733
0.3447
CV
38.1500
Sixth Series of Covariance Analyses
Table
57 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
183
188
Covariance!
Sum of Squares
12463.4821
72430.4587
84893.9429
Table 58 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
121
126
analysis
Mean Square
2492.6968
395.7949
of
moss
F-value
6.30
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Mean Square
F-value
2092.3919
7726.1889
9818.5807
418.4784
63.8528
6.55
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
5
185
190
16447.0061
85571.8111
102018.8172
3289.4012
462.5503
F-value
7.11
P-value
0.0001
Sum of Squares
Table 59 .
percent
R-square
0.1468
cover.
CV
72.6333
species percent
P-value
0.0001
R-square
0.2131
CV
163.7352
native species percent
P-value
0.0001
R-square
0.1612
CV
70.8663
Table 60.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
49
54
Table 61.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
19
24
Table 62.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
17
22
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
535.7143
1515.1468
2050.8611
107.1429
30.9214
of
F-value
3.47
Covariance analysis
of
species percent c o v e r .
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
296.1597
1298.9379
1595.0976
59.2319
68.3651
native
F-value
0.87
P-value
0.0093
tree
R-square
0.2612
species
CV
165.1395
native nitrogen-fixing
P-value
0.5215
R-square
0.1857
CV
136.3510
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
2.9603
10.8171
13.7774
Mean Square
F-value
0.5921
0.6363
0.93
P-value
0.4857
R-square
0.2149
CV
93.6057
Seventh Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 63
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
183
188
Table 64.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
121
126
Table 65.
Covariance
Sum of Squares
10393.6201
74500.3228
84893.9429
analysis
Mean Square
2078.7240
407.1056
of
moss
F-value
5.11
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Mean Square
F-value
2028.7946
7789.7862
9818.5808
405.7589
64.3784
6.30
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
5
185
190
12717.1720
89301.6452
102018.8171
2543.4344
482.7116
R-square
0.1224
cover .
CV
73.6638
species percent
P-value
0.0001
R-squareI CV
0.2066
164.4077
native species percent
F-value
5.27
P-value
0.0002
Sum of Squares
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
percent
P-value
0.0002
R-square
0.1247
CV
72.3942
Table 66.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
49
52
Table 67.
Source
Model
Error
Total
Table
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
Model
Error
Total
P-value
R-square
527.2494
1523.6117
2050.8611
105.4499
31.0941
3.39
0.0104
0.2571
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
F-value
5
19
24
439.1946
1155.9030
1595.0976
87.8389
60.8370
1.44
68.
Covariance
5
17
22
species
F-value
Mean Square
df
tree
Mean Square
Sum of Squares
df
native
Sum of Squares
percent
Source
of
of
165.6002
native nitrogen- fixing
P-value
0.2542
native
R-square
0.2753
Asteraceae
CV
128.6248
species
cover.
Sum of Squares
4.3745
9.4029
13.7774
analysis
CV
Mean Square
0.8749
0.5531
F-value
1.58
P-value
0.2184
R-square
0.3175
CV
87.2726
Eighth Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 69.
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
6
182
188
Covariance
Sum of Squares
12508.5760
72385.3669
84893.9429
Table 70 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
120
126
analysis
Mean Square
2084.7627
397.7218
of
moss
F-value
P-value
R-square
5.24
0.0001
0.1473
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
2260.4890
7558.0918
9818.5308
376.7482
62.9841
5.98
6
Table 71 .
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss ) .
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
6
184
190
16474.5097
85544.3075
102018.8172
2745.7516
464.9147
percent
cover.
CV
72.8098
species percent
P-value
0.0001
R-square
0.2302
CV
162.6176
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
5.91
0.0001
0.1615
CV
71.0472
123
CM
Table
Source
Model
Error
Total
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
df
6
48
54
Table 73 .
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
6
18
24
Table 74.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
6
16
22
of
native
tree
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
538.8583
1512.0028
2050.8611
89.8097
31.5001
2.85
0.0186
0.2627
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
species
CV
166.6777
native nitrogen-fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
442.1742
1152.9234
1595.0976
73.6957
64.0513
1.15
0.3744
0.2772
CV
131.9790
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
4.5417
9.2356
13.7774
Mean Square
0.7570
0.5772
F-value
P-value
1.31
0.3078
R-squareI CV
0.3297
89.1550
Ninth Series of Covariance Analyses (Additional Data Set)
Table 75.
Covariance
analysis
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
5
251
256
14559.7071
95765.1028
110324.8100
2911.9414
381.5343
Table 76 .
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
187
192
Table 77.
Source df
Model
Error
Total
5
257
262
of
F-value
7.63
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
Sum of Squares
1611.6386
16752.6217
18364.2603
moss
native
Mean Square
F-value
322.3280
89.5861
3.60
21620.7995
127371.0521
148991.8515
Mean Square
4324.1599
495.6072
P-value
0.0001
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
Sum of Squares
percent
R-square
0.1320
cover.
CV
70.5169
species percent
P-value
0.0039
R-square
0.0878
CV
142.4029
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
8.72
0.0001
0.1451
CV
69.6887
Table
Source
Model
Error
Total
78 .
df
Covariance
analysis
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
814.5215
7403.8587
8218.3802
162.9043
81.3611
2.00
5
91
96
Table 79.,
Source
Model
Error
Total
Source
Model
Error
Total
5
54
59
O
CO
Table
df
df
5
34
39
of
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover.
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
387.3701
5265.2192
5652.5893
77.4740
97.5041
0.79
native
P-value
0.0857
tree
R-square
0.0991
species
CV
152.4292
native nitrogen- fixing
P-value
0.5583
R-square
0.0685
CV
115.4452
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
41.6064
150.9926
192.5990
Mean Square
8.3213
4.4410
F-value
P-value
R-squareI
1.87
0.1249
0.2160
CV
149.9899
Tenth Series of Covariance Analyses (Additional Data S e t )
Table 81 .
Covariance
analysis
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
5
251
256
10123.4787
100201.3313
110324.8100
2024.6957
399.2085
Table
(NI
CO
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
187
192
Table 83.
of
moss
percent
F-value
P-value
5.07
0.0002
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
native
R-square
0.0918
Mesm Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
1518.1259
16846.1344
183642.2603
303.6252
90.0863
3.37
0.0061
0.0827
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
5
257
262
15813.5271
133178.3244
148991.8516
3162.7054
518.2036
72.1317
CV
142.7998
native species percent
F-valuei
6.10
CV
species percent
Sum of Squares
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
cover.
P-value
R-squareI
0.0001
0.1061
CV
71.2597
I 27
Table 84.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
91
96
Table
in
to
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
5
54
59
Table 86.
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
5
34
39
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
of
native
tree
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F-value
P-value
R-square
701.2239
7517.1563
8218.3802
140.2448
82.6061
1.70
0.1431
0.0853
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover,
species
CV
153.5911
native nitrogen-fixing
Sum of Squares
Mean Squar e
F-value
P-value
R-square
691.8741
4960.7152
5652.5893
138.3748
91.8651
1.51
0.2032
0.1224
CV
112.0572
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
42.9171
149.6319
192.5990
Ilean Square
8.5834
4.4024
F-value
P-value
R-square
1.95
0.1117
0.2228
CV
149.3375
Eleventh Series of Covariance Analyses
(Additional Data S e t )
rCO
Table
Covariance
analysis
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
6
250
256
14743.4940
95581.3159
110324.8100
2457.2490
382.3253
Table
CO
CO
Source
df
Model
Error
Total
186
192
Table
cn
CO
1609.9609
16754.2994
18364.2603
moss
percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
6.43
0.0001
0.1336
Covariance analysis of
cover (excluding moss).
S u m of S q u a r e s
6
of
native
F-value
P-value
R-square
268.3268
90.0769
2.98
0.0084
0.0877
Source
df
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
Model
Error
Total
6
256
262
21870.1768
127121.6747
148991.8516
3645.0295
496.5690
CV
70.5899
species percent
Mean Square
Covariance analysis of
cover (including moss).
cover.
CV
142.7924
native species percent
F-value
P-value
R-square
7.34
0.0001
0.1468
CV
69.7563
I29
Table 90 .
Source
Model
Error
Total
df
6
90
96
Table 91 .
Source
Model
Error
Total
6
53
59
Model
Error
Total
Mean Square
I
F-value
817.8596
7400.5206
8218.3802
136.3100
82.2280
1.66
Covariance analysis of
species percent cover
805.3785
4847.2108
5652.5893
6
33
39
134.2298
81.4568
native
P-value
0.1406
tree
R-square
0.0995
species
CV
153.2391
native nitrogen- fixing
F-value
P-value
R-square
1.47
0.2072
0.1425
CV
111.3079
Covariance analysis of native Asteraceae species
percent cover.
Sum of Squares
df
of
Sum of Squares
Sum of Squares - Mean Square
df
Table 92.
Source
Covariance analysis
percent cover.
43.0011
149.5979
192.5990
Mean Square
7.1669
4.5333
F-value
P-value
R-square
1.58
0.1838
0.2233
CV
151.5407
APPENDIX IV
LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TESTS
131
Fifth Series of Covariance Analyses
Table 93.
Least significant
percent cover.
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Compari son
O- I
0-2
0-3
I-0
1-2
1-3
2-0
2- I
2-3
3-0
3-1
3-2
difference
test
for
Lower
Confidence
Limit
Difference
Between
Means
Upper
Confidence
Limit
0.710
-12.579
-18.359
-38.116
-2 I .846
-27.473
-23.335
5.724
-12.408
-17.317
11.395
-0.510
19.413
5.628
-0.271
-19.413
-13.785
-19.684
-5.623
13.785
-5.399
0.271
19.684
5.399
38.116
23.335
17.817
-0.710
-5.724
-11.395
12.579
21.846
0.610
18.359
27.473
12.408
moss
***
***
***
***
***
***
*** * Comoarison significant ac aloha=.05 level.
df = I83
"MSE= 395.795
Critical T= I.97301
Table 94.
Least significant difference test
for native
species percent cover (excluding moss).
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Comparison
O-l
0-2
0-3
1-0
I-2
1-3
2-0
2-1
2-3
3-0
3-1
3-2
Lower
Confidence
Limit
Difference
Between
Means
2.207
-1.200
2.530
-18.413
-8.536
-4.383
-13.640
-0.451
0.616
-17.298
-4.086
-6.772
10.312
6.220
9.914
-10.312
-4.092
-0.398
-6.220
4.092
3.594
-9.914
0.398
-3.694
*** = Comoan son significant at alpha=.0 5 level.
' MSE=63.3528
Critical T = 1.97976
df= I2 1
Upper
Confidence
Limi t
13.413
13.640
17.298
-2.207
0.451
4.086
I.200
3.526
6.77-2
-2.530
4.383
-0.516
***
***
***
***
***
***
Table 95.
Least significant difference test for native
species percent cover (including moss).
Coarse fragment
Rating
Comparison
0- I
0-2
0-3
1-0
I-2
I-3
2-0
2- I
2-3
3-0
3- I
3-2
Lower
C o n fidence
Limi t
Di fferencs
Between
Means
Upper
C o n f idence
Limi t
5.327
-12.274
-15.030
-42.506
-26.789
-29.387
-23.91 I
9.508
-9.932
-20.374
12.702
-4.140
23.967
5.318
2.922
-23.967 ‘
-18.148
-21 .044
-5.318
18.148
-2.396
-2.922
21.044
2.396
42.606
23.911
20.374
-5.327
-9.508
-12.702
12.274
26.789
4.140
15.030
29.387
9.932
***
***
***
***
***
***
*** = Co m p a r i s o n significant at a l p h a = . 05 l e v e l .
M S E = 4 6 2 .55
Critical T = I .97297
Qt=Idb
ble 96.
Least significant difference
tree species percent cover.
Coarse Fragment
Rating
Comparison
0-1
0-2
0-3
1-0
1-2
1-3
2-0
2-1
2-3
3-0
3-1
3-2
df = 49
Lower
C o n f idence
Limit
Difference
Between
Means
I .206
-1.123
2.476
- 2 6 . I94
-9.482
-5.319
-21.752
-2.711
0.325
-25.207
-6.102
-6.729
13.700
10.314
13.341
-13.700
-3.386
0.141
-10.314
3.386
3.527
-13.841
-0.141
-3.527
M S E = 3 0 .9214
C r i t i c a l " T = 2 . 00953
test
for nativ
Uocer
C o n f idence
Limit
26.194
21.752
25.207
- I .206
2.711
6.102
1.123
9.482
6.729
-2.475
5.319
-0.325
***
***
***
***
***
Table 97.
Least significant difference test
for native
nitrogen-fixing species percent cover.
Coa r s e Fragment
Rating
Compari son
0-1
0-2
0-3
I-0
I-2
' 1-3
2-0
2- I
2-3
3-0
3- I
3-2
Lowe r
C o n f idence
Limit
-22.850
-25.299
-23.444
-17.116
-15.529
-14.018
-10.527
-6.491
-5.568
-13.558
-9.866
-10.454
D i fference
Between
Means
-2.867
-7.386
-4.943
2.367
-4.519
-2.076
7.386
4.519
2.443
4.943
2.076
-2.443
Upper
C o n f idence
Limit
17.116
10.527
13.558
22.850
6.491
9.366
25.299
15.529
10.454
23.444
14.018
5.568
** = Comparison significant at a l p h a = . 05 level.
d f = I9
'M S E = 6 8 .3652
Critical T = 2 . 09302
T a b l e 98.
Least
significant
difference
test
Asteraceae species percent c o v e r .
for n a t i v e
Coarse Fragment
Rating
C o m p arison
Lower
Confidence
Limi t
Difference
Between
Means
CJpoer
C o n f idence
Limit
0-1
0-2
0-3
1-0
1-2
1-3
2-0
2-1
2-3
3-0
3-1
3-2
-0.6075
-0.5305
-0.2379
-2.3075
- I .0806
-0.7836
-2. I 305
-0.9806
-0.5400
-2.3934
- I .2391
- I .0956
0.3500
0.3000
1.0778
-0.3500
-0.0500
0.2273
-0.3000
0.0500
0.2778
-I .0778
-0.2278
-0.2778
2.3075
2.1305
2.3934
0.6075
0.9806
I.2391
0.5305
I . 0806
I.0956
0.2379
0;7836
0.5400
*** = C o m c arison significant at aloha = .05 level.
df=l7
M S E = O .6369
Critical T = 2 . 10982
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
3 1762 10025532 O