The use of composted municipal waste to revegetate a high elevation mine site
by Gary Lynn Vodehnal
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Land
Rehabilitation
Montana State University
© Copyright by Gary Lynn Vodehnal (1993)
Abstract:
Mining in alpine and subalpine areas frequently results in surface soil coverings of spoil and
overburden that differ substantially from pre-mining soils. These severely disturbed sites frequently
require amendments to accelerate the development of desirable nutrient cycles and provide a hospitable
growing medium for plants. Composted municipal wastes are becoming more available as greater
emphasis is placed on waste reduction at the community level. A market for these waste-generated
compost products may be found in the reclamation of disturbed areas. This project evaluated the effects
of two types of composted municipal waste and a commercial nitrogen fertilizer on plant establishment,
cover, and production. The study site is located at a heap leach gold mine at an elevation of 2,300
meters, 25 kilometers southwest of Helena, Montana. Thirty three plots were established to measure
seedling density, vegetative cover, and plant production over two growing seasons. Plots treated with
the higher, incorporated rates of EKO sludge compost and Bozeman municipal yard waste compost
produced significantly greater plant density, cover, and biomass than the commercial nitrogen fertilizer
and unamended top soil treatment. Compost incorporated into the surface horizon produced greater
plant cover and biomass than surface applications. After two growing seasons total grass cover and
production were significantly greater than all other treatments with the higher rate of incorporated EKO
compost. Forb cover and production were significantly greater than all other treatments with the higher
rate of incorporated Bozeman compost. Results from this field study suggest that composted municipal
wastes enhance the establishment and growth of herbaceous cover on this disturbed high elevation site. THE USE OF COMPOSTED MUNICIPAL WASTE TO REVEGETATE
A HIGH ELEVATION MINE SITE
by
. Gary Lynn Vodehnal
A t h e s i s submi tted in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of t he r equi r eme nt s f o r t he degree
of
Master of Science
in
Land R e h a b i l i t a t i o n
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
November 1993
Tm;
n
s
11
APPROVAL
of a t h e s i s s ubmi t t e d by
Gary Lynn Vodehnal
This t h e s i s has been read by each member o f t h e t h e s i s
committee and has been found t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g
c o n t e n t , English usage, f o r ma t , c i t a t i o n s , b i b l i o g r a p h i c
s t y l e , and c o n s i s t e n c y , and i s ready f o r submi ssion t o t h e
Col l ege of Graduate S t u d i e s .
Date
C h a i r pe r s o n , Graduate Committee
Approved f o r 1'
Date
Approved f o r t h e Col l ege of Graduate S t u d i e s
Date
Graduate Dean
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e
requirements
for
a
master's
degree
at
Montana
State
U n i v e r s i t y , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t a v a i l a b l e
t o borrowers under r u l e s o f t h e L ib r ar y.
I f I have i n d i c a t e d my i n t e n t i o n t o c o p y r i g h t t h i s t h e s i s
by i n c l u d i n g a c o p y r i g h t n o t i c e page,
only f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s ,
copying i s a l l o w a b l e
c o n s i s t e n t with
" f a i r use" as
p r e s c r i b e d in t h e U.S. Copyright Law. Requests f o r p er mi s si o n
f o r ext ended q u o t a t i o n from or r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s in
whole o r in p a r t s may b£7granted only by t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r .
Signature
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would l i k e t o thank members o f my g r a d u a t e committee.
Dr. Frank Munshower, Dennis Neuman and Dr. James Schmitt f o r
t h e i r guidance and encouragement on t h i s p r o j e c t . Thank you to
John
Borkowski
who
was
i n s t r u me n t a l
in
t he
statistical
a n a l y s i s o f t h e dat a f o r t h i s stud'y. Speci al thanks to Steve
Drummond and Dan Adams, employees of t h e Basin Creek Mine, f o r
h e l pi n g t o e s t a b l i s h a study s i t e and f o r p r ovi di ng t e c h n i c a l
a s s i s t a n c e . Funds provided f o r t h i s p r o j e c t by The Yellowstone
Center f o r Mountain Environments, Pegasus Corporation and EKO
Compost were deeply a p p r e c i a t e d .
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................
v
LIST OF TABLES
.................
vii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................ i x
x
INTRODUCTION......................
I
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................
3
< £ > o o '-'Jc y > u i-p > < jO G J
ABSTRACT.........................................................
H i gh - El ev a t i o n Ecosystems . . . . . . . . .
D i s t u r b a n c e t o t h e System ....................................
Environmental C o n s i d e r a t i o n s in Re v eg e t at i o n
Soil G e n e s i s ..........................................................
Severe Soil Di s t ur ba nc e ...............................
Topsoil Salvage .................................................
Nitrogen Rate .....................................................
Inorganic F e r t i l i z e r s
. . ...........................
Organic Ma t t er .................. ...............................
B e n e f i t s o f Compost .................................................
Composted Municipal Waste in Reclamation
Compost A v a i l a b i l i t y . ........................... . .
21
MATERIALS AND METHODS
S i t e D e s c r i p t i o n ...............................
F i e l d P l o t Design . .......................
Amendment Recommendations . . .
A p p l i c a t i o n Rates and Methods
Seed Mix and Rate ...........................
Soil and Compost Sampling . , . .
Pen et ro me t er Measurements . . .
P r e c i p i t a t i o n Measurements . . .
V e g e t a t i v e Sampling ..................
Nonseeded P l a n t s
..................
. 21
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
24
24
26
27
29
29
30
30
Vl
TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued
S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s ...................... .... . .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
31
.......................................
32
Soil and Compost Sampling . ..................
P r o p e r t i e s o f Compost and Topsoil
P r o p e r t i e s o f Surface S o i l s . . .
Textural An a l y s i s . . ......................
Soil C r u s t i ng . . . ...........................
,
Penet rometer Measurements . . . .
Precipitation
...................................
Nonseeded P l a n t s ............................................
D e n s i t y ................................................
Cover . . . ......................................................
Production . . . "............................................
32
32
33
34
34
35
37
38
39
39
41
SUMMARY.AND CONCLUSIONS . ...................................
46
LITERATURE CITED
48
. . . ................................... ....
APPENDICES ..................................................................
APPENDIX A Ab b r e v i a t i o n s ...................... ,
APPENDIX B P r e c i p i t a t i o n ...................... ,
APPENDIX C D a t a ...............................................
56
57
59
61
vi i
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Treatments and amendments ap p l i e d in June
1991
2. Basin
. . . . .2 8
Creek Mine Seed Mix and Rate
. . .
3. P r o p e r t i e s o f salvaged t o p s o i l and compost
..
. . . .
27
32
4. Physical and chemical p r o p e r t i e s of s u r f a c e s o i l s . 33
5. Textural a n a l y s i s of s o i l and compost samples . . .
6. Penet rometer r ea d i ng s from J u l y and August, 1992
7. Mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n from 1988-1992
8. Nonseeded p l a n t s
34
. 36
. . . . .
37
. ............................................................. . 38
9. Mean s e e d l i n g d e n s i t y in September, 1 9 9 1 ................. 39
10. P l a n t cover in September, 1992
........................................ 40
11. Cover
in
12. Total
p l a n t pr oduct i on in September, 1992
%
by s p e ci e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s
. .
. . . .
44
13. Biomass pr oduct i on by s p e ci e s ...................................
14. P l a n t s p e c i e s a b b r e v i a t i o n
15. P r e c i p i t a t i o n ......................
43
45
. ............................................... 58
i .......................... 60
16. Anal ys i s of v a r i a n c e f o r p enet r omet er r eadi ngs
. . 62
17. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r p l a n t d e n s i t y
....... 62
18. Analysis of var i a n ce, f o r cover in 1992
......
62
19. Analysis of v a r i a n ce f o r t o t a l p l a n t pr oduction .
. 62
20. Anal ys i s of v a r i a n c e f o r p l a n t cover by
. 63
species .
21. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r production by s p e c i e s
. . 64
22. Standard d e v i a t i o n f o r biomass pr oduct i on . . . . . .
65
23. Standard d e v i a t i o n f o r cover
66
............................................
viii
LIST OF TABLES—C o n t i nued
24. Grass cover in September 1992 ............................... ....
25. Forb cover in September 1992
......................................... 6 8
26. Cover by s p e c i e s f o r each f r a m e .......................... ....
27. Grass d e n s i t y . .
28. Forb d e n s i t y
67
69
.............................................................. 7 3
. . .
................................... ....
29. Grass d e n s i t y along t r a n s e c t 2
74
.......................................
75
30. Forb d e n s i t y along t r a n s e c t 2 ........................................... 76
31. Production by s p e c i e s ' ............................................................. 77
32. Penet rometer J u l y 1992
33. Penet rometer August 1992
............................................. . . .
......................
\
84
85
I X
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure
Page
1. Location of Basin Creek. Mine st udy s i t e ...................... 22
2. Randomized block design f o r t r e a t m e n t s ..........................
3. V e g et a t i ve t r a n s e c t d e s i g n ................................................
.
I
23
. 31
X
L
ABSTRACT
Mining in a l p i n e and s u b a l p i n e a r e a s f r e q u e n t l y r e s u l t s
in s u r f a c e s o i l co v e r i ng s o f s p o i l and overburden t h a t d i f f e r
s u b s t a n t i a l l y from pr e- mining s o i l s . These s e v e r e l y d i s t u r b e d
sites
f r e q u e n t l y r e q u i r e amendments t o a c c e l e r a t e t h e
development o f d e s i r a b l e n u t r i e n t c y c l e s and pr ovi de a
h o s p i t a b l e growing medium f o r p l a n t s . Composted municipal
wast es a r e becoming more a v a i l a b l e as g r e a t e r emphasis i s
p l a ced on wast e r e d u c t i o n a t t h e community l e v e l . A market f o r
t h e s e w a s t e - g e n e r a t e d compost p r o d u c t s may be found in t h e
r e c l a m a t i o n o f d i s t u r b e d a r e a s . This p r o j e c t e v a l u a t e d t h e
e f f e c t s o f two t y p e s of composted municipal waste and a
commercial n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r on p l a n t e s t a b l i s h m e n t , c o v e r ,
and p r o d u c t i o n . The s t u d y s i t e i s l o c a t e d a t a heap leach gold
mine a t an e l e v a t i o n o f 2,300 m e t e r s , 25 k i l o m e t e r s southwest
o f Helena, Montana. T h i r t y t h r e e p l o t s were e s t a b l i s h e d t o
measure s e e d l i n g d e n s i t y ,
vege tative cover,
and p l a n t
p r o d u c t i o n over two growing s e a s o n s . P l o t s t r e a t e d with t h e
h i g h e r , i n c o r p o r a t e d r a t e s o f EKO sl udge compost and Bozeman
municipal y ar d wast e compost produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r
p l a n t d e n s i t y , c o v e r , and biomass than t h e commercial n i t r o g e n
fertilizer
and unamended top s o i l
treatment.
Compost
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e . s u r f a c e horizon produced g r e a t e r p l a n t
cover and biomass than s u r f a c e a p p l i c a t i o n s . A f t e r two growing
se asons t o t a l g r a s s cover and p r o d u c t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r than a l l o t h e r t r e a t m e n t s with t h e h i g h e r r a t e o f
i n c o r p o r a t e d EKO compost. Forb cover and p r o d u c t i o n were
s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than a l l o t h e r t r e a t m e n t s with t h e
h i g h e r r a t e o f i n c o r p o r a t e d Bozeman compost. R e s u l t s from t h i s
f i e l d s t u d y s u g g e s t t h a t composted municipal wast es enhance
t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t and growth o f herbaceous cover on t h i s
d i s t u r b e d high e l e v a t i o n s i t e .
I
INTRODUCTION
Hard-rock mining in a l p i n e and s u b a l p i n e a r e a s f r e q u e n t l y
l e a v e s s p o i l m a t e r i a l s and overburden on t h e s o i l
surface.
These m a t e r i a l s d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y from p r e- mi ni ng s o i l s .
Removal
spoil
o f developed s u r f a c e h o r i z o n s g e n e r a l l y r e s u l t s
material
matter
and
in
a t t h e s u r f a c e t h a t i s both low in o r g a n i c
high
in
bulk d e n s i t y
(Chambers
et
al.
1987).
Numerous s t u d i e s have demonstr ated t h a t amending s o i l s with
o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l s , such as sewage sl udge and municipal wast e
compost, i n c r e a s e s s o i l
o r g a n i c m a t t e r c o n t e n t and improves
s o i l s t r u c t u r e and l ong- t er m f e r t i l i t y ( Khaleel e t a l . 1981;
J o o s t e t a l . 1987; Seaker and Sopper 1988). These municipal
wast es have been s u c c e s s f u l as o r g a n i c amendments in minespoiI
and
Superfund
site
reclamation
e a s t e r n United S t a t e s
at
low e l e v a t i o n s
in
the
( PI ass 1982; Skousen 1988; Garvey and
Donovan 1992).
Composted municipal
wast es
have
not
been
t h o r ou g h l y
t e s t e d in a r i d r e g i o n s or high e l e v a t i o n envi ronments o f t h e
Western United S t a t e s (Chambers e t a l . 1988; Fresquez e t a l .
1990;
Brandt
and
Hendrickson
1991).
Re s ea r c h er s
s t u dy i ng
r e v e g e t a t i o n t e c h n i q u e s a t molybdenum mines above t i m b e r l i n e
in Colorado found t h e most economical
amendments
to
ac h i e v e
sustainable
and b e n e f i c i a l
vegetative
cover
soil
were
2
a p p l i c a t i o n s of sewage sludge mixed with wood chips
1976).
Although
appl ying
sludge
e l e v a t i o n s has been' s u c c e s s f u l
and wood wastes
(Brown
at
high
in r e v e g e t a t i n g mine s p o i l s ,
n i t r o g e n l e v e l s must be c a r e f u l l y balanced t o p r ev e n t s o i l
microbes from competing with p l a n t s f o r n i t r og e n dur i n g t h e
decomposition p r o c e s s . Composting t h e sewage sludge and wood
■wastes
at
lower
elevations
could
speed
decomposition
and
e l i m i n a t e some f l u c t u a t i o n in n i t r o g e n c y c l i n g (Norland e t a l .
1991).
The
growth
and
development
of
municipal
composting
f a c i l i t i e s has expanded r a p i d l y in r e c e n t y e a r s as communities
a c r o s s t h e country sear ch f o r ways t o reduce s o l i d waste and
increase
t he
life
of dwindling l a n d f i l l
space.
Commercial
composting o p e r a t i o n s have proven t o be a c o s t e f f e c t i v e and
e n v i r o n me n t a l l y
sound
recycling
technology
(Gol dstei n
and
S t e u t e v i l i e 1992; S t e u t e v i 11e 1992).
The purpose of t h i s study was to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t s of
two t y p e s
of municipal
compost and a commercial
nitrogen
f e r t i l i z e r on v e g e t a t i o n e s t a b l i s h m e n t and pr oduction a t a
h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e d i s t u r b e d by mining.
3
LITERATURE REVIEW
High-El evat ion Ecosystems
H i g h - e l e v a t i o n ecosystems in the. United S t a t e s occur in
mountainous t e r r a i n
of t he eleven west er n s t a t e s ,
p o r t i o n of t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n s t a t e s ,
a small
and Alaska. These hi gh-
e l e v a t i o n systems ar e found near or above t r e e - l i n e and are
c h a r a c t e r i z e d by s h o r t , cool growing seasons and long, cold
w i n t e r s . T r e e - l i n e v a r i e s in the west er n United S t a t e s from
3,500 m i n ' t h e Southwest to about 2,000 m in nor t her n Montana
(Brown e t a I . 1978).
Dis t u r b a n c e To The System
High e l e v a t i o n ecosystems are under i n c r e a s i n g p r e s s u r e
from a c t i v i t i e s such as mineral e x p l o r a t i o n , mining, g r a z i n g ,
recreation,
t i m b e r h a r v e s t i n g , road c o n s t r u c t i o n , and water
development. Of t h e approximately t h r e e m i l l i o n h e c t a r es (7. 4
m i l l i o n a c r e s ) of a l p i n e area in t h e west er n United S t a t e s ,
almost
twel ve
percent
has
been
disturbed
and
requires
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n (Brown e t a l . 1978). Because of p a s t abuse and
' i n c r e a s e d development,
a major c h a l l e n g e i s to develop t h e
technol ogy and s k i l l s necessar y t o r e t u r n t h e s e ecosystems t o
> a natural, self-sustaining state.
4
Erivironmental C o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
I n Reveoetati on of Hidh E l ev a t i o n S i t e s
Rehabilitation
of
disturbed
high
elevation
sites
is
e x t r e mel y d i f f i c u l t due t o se v e r e c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s . Short
growing s e a s o n s , low t e m p e r a t u r e s , s t r o n g winds, f r o s t a c t i o n ,
p r e c i p i t a t i o n ext remes, f l u c t u a t i n g s o i l moi s t ure c o n d i t i o n s ,
and i n t e n s e s o l a r r a d i a t i o n a r e a few of t h e imposing b a r r i e r s
to
traditional
rehabilitation
Reclamation e f f o r t s
efforts
in
these
sites.
ar e f u r t h e r complicated by extremes in
t opography and poor a c c e s s i b i l i t y .
The predominant f e a t u r e of h i g h - e l e v a t i o n environments i s
t h e low hea t budget t h a t r e s u l t s from s h o r t growing seasons
(60 t o 90 days) and low growing season te mper at ur es (Brown e t
a l . 1978, Guillaume 1984). Temperatures o f t en f a l l below 0° C
and f r o s t may occur p e r i o d i c a l l y during the growing season
(Marr and Wi l l a r d 1970; Brown e t a l .
1978). "Needle i c e and
f r o s t a c t i o n i n j u r e p l a n t s by l i f t i n g young s e e d l i n g s from t he
soil
and exposing r o o t s to d e s i c c a t i o n (Brink e t a l . 1967).
The low heat budget r e q u i r e s s p e c i a l
a d a p t a t i o n s by p l a n t s
l i v i n g in t h e a l p i n e zone ( B i l l i n g s 1974).
Precipitation
occurs mainly as snow during the months of
September t o June. Total e f f e c t i v e annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n can be
highly
variable
for
different
alpine s i t e s
due to
uneven
d i s t r i b u t i o n . Snow d r i f t p a t t e r n s r e s u l t from i n t e r a c t i o n s of
wind and topography, with l e e s l o p e s and d e p r e s s i o n s r e c e i v i n g
h i g h e r snow accumulation than windswept r i d g e s .
5
Strong
wind,
ecosystems,
results
a
characteristic
of
high-altitude
in severe d e s i c c a t i o n o f exposed p l a n t
p a r t s during both w i n t e r and summer (Johnson e t a l . 1975).
P l a n t s on t h e s e s i t e s ar e s u b j e c t t o i n c r e a s e d f r o s t damage
and se v e r e a b r a s i o n by windblown i c e and s o i l p a r t i c l e s . Wind
a l s o erodes f i n e s o i l p a r t i c l e s from d i s t u r b e d s i t e s , reducing
w a t e r and n u t r i e n t - h o l d i n g c a p a c i t i e s (Brown e t a l , 1978).
High s o l a r r a d i a t i o n f l u x d e n s i t i e s and i n c r e as e d l e v e l s
of u l t r a v i o l e t r a d i a t i o n a f f e c t the growth and development of
h i g h e r p l a n t s (Caldwell 1968). High r a d i a t i o n l e v e l s r e s u l t in
i n c r e a s e d s o i l and p l a n t s u r fa c e t e m p e r a t u r e s , which promote
high e v a p o r a t i o n and drought during t h e growing season.
Soi I Genesis
Many f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e t he development of s o i l s in h i g h elevation
envi ronments.
These • i n c l u d e
landform and geomorphic p r o c e s s e s ,
parent
as well
material,
as v e g e t a t i o n ,
b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y , and cl i ma t e (Brown -et a l . 1978). The r a t e
of s o i l development i s l i m i t e d by slow mechanical weathering
of t h e hard and r e s i s t a n t rock types in t h e s e r eg i o n s . Cold
t e mp e r a t u r e s i n h i b i t chemical r e a c t i o n s and b i o t i c a c t i v i t y
that
contribute
to
soil
genesis.
The r e s u l t i n g
soils
ar e
young, h e t er ogeneous , and weakly developed ( Ret zer 1974). This
h e t e r o g e n e i t y of s o i l s
complicates r e h a b i l i t a t i o n
o f t e n r e q u i r i n g s i t e s p e c i f i c r ecl ama t i on s o l u t i o n s .
efforts,
6
WelI - d r a i n e d s o i l s a r e more e x t e n s i v e than poorly d r ai n e d
soils
in a l p i n e r egi ons and possess unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
important to successful revegetation e f f o r t s .
These s o i l s are
g e n e r a l l y co a r s e t e x t u r e d with low o r g a n i c ma t t e r c o n t e n t .
Severe drought c o n d i t i o n s may e x i s t in h i g h - e l e v a t i o n a r ea s
because of t h e
reduced w a t e r - h o l d i n g
capacities
of s o i l s ,
coupled with per i ods of low summer r a i n f a l l . T h e s e . s o i l - w a t e r
c o n d i t i o n s may i n h i b i t p l a n t e s t a b l i s h m e n t and growth (Brown
e t a I . 1978).
Severe Soi I Dist ur banc e
Mining in h i g h - e l e v a t i o n ar e a s produces spoil m a t e r i a l s
and overburden which d i f f e r from premining s o i l s . Removal of
the
weakly
developed
overburden m a t e r i a l
high
in
bulk
surface
pools,
holding
capacity
horizons
results
in
t h a t i s both low in or gani c m a t t e r and
density
(Chambers
disturbance also a ffe c ts soil
nutrient
soil
nutrient
al.
1987).
Severe
s t r u c t u r e , or ganic carbon and
cycling
(Bradshaw
et
and
processes,
Chadwick
and m o i s t u r e
1980;
Marrs
and
Bradshaw 1982; Brandt and Hendrickson 1991).
One o f t h e most se v er e s o i l and wat e r problems in h i g h elevation
a r ea s
results
from
the
exposure,
. through
d i s t u r b a n c e , of p y r i t e s and o t h e r s u l f i d e mi n e r a l s . Natural
o x i d a t i o n o f t h e exposed s u l f i d e m i n e r a l s with a i r and wat e r
can r e s u l t in t h e formation of acid rock d r a i n a g e . Under t h e s e
c o n d i t i o n s t h e s u r f a c e s o i l s , s u r f a c e wat e r , and groundwater
7
may become very a c i d i c . A ci d i t y may i n c r e a s e t h e s o l u b i l i t y of
certain
el eme n t s,
particularly
aluminum,
to
toxic
levels.
Runoff of t h e s e contaminated waters i s d e t r i m e n t a l to p l a n t
communities and s e r i o u s l y degrades water q u a l i t y and a q u a t i c
ecosystems (Brown e t a l . 1978).
Toosoi I Salvaae
Salvaging t o p s o i l
r ec l ama t i o n
p r i o r to disturbance is a d es ira b le
a c t i v i t y . ■ Replacing
topsoil
accelerates
soil
development by p r o v i d i n g a p a r t i , c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n which
helps supply adequate water f o r p l a n t growth, reduces r u n o f f ,
i n t r o d u c e s a v a r i e t y of p l a n t and microorganism p r o p ag u l e s ,
and
encourages
faster
establishment
of
(Schuman and Power 1981).
Unfortunately,
available
quantities
in
sufficient
in
nutrient
topsoil
a
cy c l e s
is rarely
high-elevation
environment t o be e f f e c t i v e in t he r e v e g e t a t i o n process (Brown
e t a l . 1978).
Topsoil s a l v a g e on h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e s can cause mixing
o f t h e shallow A horizon which c o n t a i n s t he bulk o f . t h e s o i l ' s
o r g a n i c carbon and microorganisms with deeper mineral s o i l s .
Consequently t h e s e d i s t u r b a n c e s produce cover s o i l m a t e r i a l
that
lacks s t r u c t u r e and i s prone to formation of s u r f a c e
c r u s t s a f t e r a few p e r i o d s of r a i n f a l l .
Topsoil
can be salvaged from a d j a c e n t land t o r e p l a c e
s o i l removed during s i t e d i s t u r b a n c e . This p r a c t i c e , however,
degrades
additional
areas,
is
often
very c o s t l y ,
and can
8
result
in
the
introduction
of
detrimental
to
revegetation.
In a d d i t i o n ,
stored
only
for
& few months
plant
species
b e f or e
potentially
when t o p s o i l
use
is
many , e s s e n t i a l
m i c r o b i o l o g i c a l c o n s t i t u e n t s a r e l o s t ( M i l l e r 1984).
Severe
soil
disturbances
produce c o n d i t i o n s
in which
decomposit ion and n u t r i e n t c y c l i n g a r e d r a s t i c a l l y reduced
(Reeder and Sabey 1987;
disturbed
areas
Schuman and Belden 1991).
frequently
require
amendments
to
S e v e r el y
increase
n u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y and develop s u s t a i n a b l e n u t r i e n t c y c l e s .
N u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y i s one o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s in
r e v e g e ta tio n of high-ele vati on s o i I s . P la n t - a v a i I a b l e - n i trogen
is
generally
deficient
in
undisturbed
alpine
soils
in
comparison t o l o w e r - e l e v a t i o n s o i l syst ems. This d e f i c i e n c y i s
the
result
of
cool
summer
microorganism a c t i v i t y
Ni tr ogen
supply
decomposit ion
to
in
temperatures
surface
plants
and e f f i c i e n t
soils
and
restricted
(Guillaume
depends
heavily
cycling,
since
on
1984).
m i c r o b i al
nearly all
the
n i t r o g e n a p l a n t o b t a i n s from t h e s o i l i s d e r i v e d from o r g a n i c
matter.
Ni tr ogen Rate
Nitrogen
plants
and
is
is
required
an e s s e n t i a l
in
relatively
el ement
for
large
plant
amounts
by
metabolism.
Impaired n i t r o g e n supply i s t h e most i mp o r t a n t f a c t o r l i m i t i n g
ecosystem development and t h e a t t a i n m e n t o f s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g
vegetation.
In s o i l s , most o f t h e t o t a l
av ailab le nitrogen
9
(>95%) e x i s t s as o r g an i c n i t r o g e n (Marrs and Bradshaw 1982)
with
low l e v e l s
(<1%)
in
the
form o f
nitrate
or ammonia
n i t r o g e n ( Faust and Nimlos 1968). In c o l d e r c l i ma t e s o f h i g h elevation
areas,
Consequent ly,
decomposition
rates
are
t h e r e must be a l a r g e n i t r o g e n
very
slow.
r e s e r v o i r to
p r o v i d e a s u f f i c i e n t supply through m i n e r a l i z a t i o n t o meet
o
annual v e g e t a t i o n r eq u i r eme n t s . The t o t a l n i t r o g e n r e s e r v e and
r a t e of m i n e r a l i z a t i o n a r e c r i t i c a l t o s u s t a i n e d p l a n t growth
in d i s t u r b e d h i g h - e l e v a t i o n systems.
Legumes add s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l s of n i t r o g e n to g e o l o g i c
materials
through n i t r o g e n
fixation.
pathways f o r r a p i d n i t r o g e n cyc l i ng
problems
are
posed
by i nc l u d i n g
( i . e . . T r i f o l i urn s p p . )
They help r e e s t a b l i s h
(Reeder 1990).
agronomic
Several
legume s p e c i e s
in a r ecl ama t i on seed mix f o r h i g h -
el e v a t i o n s i t e s . High l e v e l s of calcium and phosphorus must be
added t o
disturbed
soils
t o maintain
a p r od u c t i v e
legume
p o p u l a t i o n (Marrs and Bradshaw 1982). The use of i n t r o d u ce d
legume s p e c i e s may not be p e r mi t t ed i f s t a t e r ecl ama t i on laws
r e q u i r e t h e use of n a t i v e s p e c i e s . Legumes ar e a l so s e n s i t i v e
t o some heavy-metal t o x i c i t i e s , phosphorus a v a i l a b i l i t y , and
co mp e t i t i o n from many g r a s s s p e c i e s (PIass 1982).
I n o r a a n i c F e r t i I i zers
A d e f i c i e n c y of p l a n t - a v a i l a b l e n i t r o g e n . c a n l i m i t p l a n t
growth and long-term s t a b i l i t y of land d i s t u r b e d by s u r f a c e
mining.
Deficiencies
arise
because d i s t u r b a n c e d r a s t i c a l l y
10
a l t e r s t h e flow of n i t r o g e n through t h e s o i l - p i a n t - m i c r o b i a l
ecosystem. The a v a i l a b i l i t y of n u t r i e n t s , e s p e c i a l l y n i t r o g e n ,
depends on t h e s e v e r i t y of the d i s t u r b a n c e ( T i Iman 1982). A
major r e c l a m a t i o n goal has been to ac hi eve s t a b i l i z a t i o n of
the
disturbed
requires
site
little
with
or
no
a desirable
plant
community t h a t
l ong- ter m^ f e r t i l i z a t i o n
inputs.
Hopefully, t h e community w i l l maintain a l e v el of p r o d u c t i v i t y
comparable t o t h a t e x i s t i n g before d i s t u r b a n c e (Woodmansee e t
a l . 1978).
Development of a s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g n i t r o g e n c y c l e
i n v o l v e s both accumulation of n i t r og e n w i t h i n t he system and
e f f i c i e n t c y c l i n g of t h i s n i t r o g e n r e s e r v e (Marrs and Bradshaw
1982). A minimum n i t r o g e n supply of 1000 kg/ha. to develop a
self-sustaining
nitrogen
cycle
was
recommended
by
these
a u t h o rs f o r China cl ay waste. Some d i s t u r b e d land may r e q u i r e
decades . or
centuries
to
accumulate
this
much
nitrogen
n a t u r a l l y and evolve toward a s t a b l e n u t r i e n t cycle (Reeder
1985).
Conventional
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n methods
at
high e l e v a t i o n
s i t e s r e l y on t h e use of commercial n i t r o g e n , phosphorous, and
potassium f e r t i l i z e r s
to
increase
available
nutrients
for
p l a n t growth and s u r vi v a l (Brown e t a l . 1978). With low l e v e l s
of
available
nitrogen
in
high-elevation
topsoil,
a rapid
r esponse would be expected from a p p l i c a t i o n of small amounts
of n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r . This has not been t he case, however.
In a study c a r r i e d out a t a h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e . i n Colorado,
270 kg of NH4NO3 (ammonium n i t r a t e ) / ha
were r e q u i r ed b e f o r e a
11
-
p l a n t r esponse was noted (Faust and Nimlos 1968). S c o t t and
B i l l i n g s (1964) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s in t h e Medicine Bow
Range of
Wyoming.
Ap p l i c a t i on
rates
of
up t o
111
kg of
n i t r o g e n ( e q u i v a l e n t ) / h a in bulk f e r t i l i z e r were a b s o l u t e l y
e s s e n t i a l f o r s u c c e s s f u l and r api d e s t a b l i s h m e n t of p l a n t s on
high-alpine s i t e s
(Brown e t .
a l . 1978).
However, Brown e t
a l . (1984) found t h a t i n o r g a n i c f e r t i l i z e r s were not r e l i a b l e
sour ces of n u t r i e n t s f o r p l a n t growth in a h i g h - a l p i n e a r ea
u n l e s s a p p l i e d r e p e a t e d l y over long time p e r i o d s . Berg and
Barrau (1978) i n d i c a t e t h a t f o r b e s t r e s u l t s on a d i s t u r b e d
h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e , n i t r o g en should be a p p l i e d a t a r a t e of
60 pounds per a c r e per y e a r f o r a t l e a s t 4 cons ecut i ve y e a r s .
Chambers e t a l . (1987) r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e r e s i d u a l q u a n t i t i e s
of n i t r o g e n , phosphorus, and potassium on r e v e g e t a t e d a l p i n e
areas
in
Montana
decreased
rapidly
after » fe rtiliz e r
a p p l i c a t i o n . I n c o r p o r a t i o n of organic m a t t e r was viewed as an
i mp o r t a n t s t e p towards r e t e n t i o n of t h e s e elements in a viablesystem of n u t r i e n t c y c l i n g .
In some cases h i g h e r s e e d l i n g m o r t a l i t y was noted on
fertilizer
plots
in
disturbed
alpine
sites
because of
an
i n i t i a l p u l s e of n i t r o g e n and phosphorus, followed by a r a p i d
d e c l i n e in n i t r o g e n .
This d e c l i n e in f e r t i l i t y f ollowing a
n u t r i e n t p u l s e can r e s u l t in decreased n u t r i e n t a b s o r p t i o n ,
photosynthesis,
and
growth,
and
in
turn,
cause
s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o o t h e r s t r e s s e s (Chapin 1980).
greater
12
Reeder (1990) s t a t e d t h a t i n o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r
added
to
mined
lands
was
more
prone
to
l eachi ng . and
v o l a t i l i z a t i o n l o s s e s because p l a n t and mi c r o b i al communities
were l e s s a c t i v e a f t e r d i s t u r b a n c e . This r a i s e s t he concern of
t h e impact on s u r f a c e and ground waters o f i nc r e a s e d d i s s o l v e d
n i t r o g e n l e v e l s r e l a t e d t o heavy n u t r i e n t loading on d i s t u r b e d
sites.
Rennick e t a l . (1984) did not recommend using i n o r g a n i c
fertilizers
increased
on t o p s o i l e d coal
invasion
by weedy s p e c i e s
community d i v e r s i t y .
s e edi ng
rates
and
s p o i l s in Montana because of
Brown e t a l .
heavy
and
(1984)
application
a loss
of
plant
stated - that
rates
of
high
inorganic
f e r t i l i z e r could produce cl osed p l a n t communities and impede
s u c c e s s i o n a l development in a l p i n e ecosystems.
*}
Or o a n i c Matter
Soil o r ga n i c m a t t e r c o n s i s t s of p l a n t and animal r e s i d u e s
in v a r i o u s s t a g e s of decomposition, l i v i n g s o i l organisms, and
s u b s t a n c e s s y n t h e s i z e d by t h e s e organisms. This m a t e r i a l
is
i m p o r t a n t t o t h e development of mineral s o i l s and i s one of
t h e major keys t o s o i l p r o d u c t i v i t y . S o i l s d i f f e r in o r g a n i c
m a t t e r c o n t e n t from region to r eg i o n . Semiarid areas u s u a l l y
have t o p s o i l with l e s s than 2% o r g an i c m a t t e r .
The
chemical
composition
of
soil
o r g an i c
matter
c a t e g o r i z e d in t h r e e major groups: p o l y s a c c h a r i d e s ,
is
lignins
and p r o t e i n s . These t h r e e c l a s s e s of m a t e r i a l s are sour ces of
13
food f o r s o i l mi cro-organisms (Ludwick 1990). Organic m a t t e r
i s p r i m a r i l y carbon (approximately 58% by weight) and c o n t a i n s
a l a r g e r e s e r v o i r of e s s e n t i a l p l a n t n u t r i e n t s
( Ti s d a l e and
Nelson 1985). The c o n c e n t r a t i o n of n i t r o g e n in p l a n t m a t e r i a l
i s u s u a l l y g r e a t e r than 1% and may exceed 3% (Reeder and Sabey
1987).
.
Organic
matter
content
of
soils
directly
affects
m o i s t u r e - h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y by i n c r e a s i n g wa t e r a b s o r p t i o n and
retention
(Brandt and Hendrickson
1991).
It
a l s o enhances
n u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y by i n c r e a s i n g c a t i o n exchange c a p a c i t y ,
and
pr ovides
a steady
supply
of
plant
nutrients
through
decomposition and m i n e r a l i z a t i o n (Smith e t a l . 1987).
High
seedling
mortality
has
been
attributed
to
the
f ormation of needle i c e and s o i l drought c o n d i t i o n s a t hi ghelevation
sites
(Roach and Marchand 1984).
Cochran
(1969)
found t h a t o r g a n ic amendments enhanced s e e d l i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t
by d e c r e a s i n g s o i l
temperatures.
water l o s s and i n c r e a s i n g
Organic
amendments
also
soil
alter
surface
surface
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which help prevent s u r f a c e wind e r o s i o n of
s o i l and seeds.
Incorporating
o r ga n i c
matter
into
mineral
soils
and
s p o i l s can i n c r e a s e p l a n t growth ( J o o s t e t a l . 1987; Smith e t
al.
1987;
Ludwick
1990).
Brown e t
al.
(1978)
recommended
a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e s , of 2,000 to 4,000 k g / h a ' 1 of o r g an i c m a t t e r
t o improve wat er and n u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y in x e r i c , s t e r i l e
a l p i n e s p o i l s . However, a c o s t e f f e c t i v e and env i ro n me n t a l l y
14
acceptable
sour ce
of
o r g an i c
matter
suitable
for
high-
e l e v a t i o n r e c l a ma t i o n p r o j e c t s can be d i f f i c u l t to f i n d .
Be n e f i t s of Compost
The b e n e f i t s of composted municipal wastes on d i s t u r b e d
sites
are derived
organic
carbon
microbiological
relative
primarily
pool,
nutrient
i noc ul a
contributions
from t h e
compost' s s t r u c t u r e ,
c o n t e n t J and
form, and
(Brandt and Hendrickson 1991).
of
each
type
of
compost
to
The
soil,
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and p l a n t growth wi l l vary with the m a t e r i a l s
and b u l k i n g ag e n t s used in t h e composting p r oc e s s . Compost dry
m a t t e r based on p l a n t and animal wastes co n t ai n a f u l l range
of p l a n t macro- and m i c r o n u t r i e n t s g e n e r a l l y s u i t e d f o r p l a n t
growth.
Al I
composts
provide
a
large
o r g a n i c m a t t e r which may improve t h e
amount
of
friability
degraded
of
fine-
t e x t u r e d s o i l s and the m o i s t u r e - h o l d i n g c a p a c i t y of c o a r s e t e x t u r e d s o i l s (Bradshaw and Chadwick 1980).
One of t h e p r i n c i p a l
b e n e f i t s of compost a d d i t i o n s t o
d i s t u r b e d s o i l s i s the i n i t i a t i o n of n u t r i e n t cycl i ng. This
r e s u l t s from t h e i n o c u l a t i o n i n t o s t e r i l e s o i l s of mi crobi al
decomposers p r e s e n t
nitrogen
in
soils
mineralization
certain
soil
of
in t he compost.
is
soil
constantly
o r ga n i c
microorganisms
energy so u r ce and n i t r o g e n
use
The supply of mineral
replenished
by mi c r obi al
matter.
In
this
process,
organic
substances
from t he o r g a n i c mat er i al
as
an
as a
b u i l d i n g block f o r microorganism p r o t e i n . Dead microorganisms
15
s ub s e qu e n t l y decay and r e l e a s e n i t r og e n f o r microorganism and
p l a n t use. S t u d i e s of compost and municipal sludge amendments
t o s o i l s have documented inc r e ase d s o i l m i c r o b i al biomass and
n u t r i e n t c y c l i n g (Fresquez and Lindemann 1982; Whitford e t a l .
1990). Microbial p r oc e s s e s are so i mp o r t a n t t o s o i l r ecovery
t h a t t he a c t i v i t y of microorganisms may be used as an index
f o r t h e p r o g r e s s of s o i l
genesis in mi n e s p o i I s
(Seaker and
Sopper 1988).
The mi c r o b i al decomposition of o r g a n i c m a t t e r i s a l s o one
of t h e most i mp o r t a n t f a c t o r s in s o i l s t r u c t u r e development.
S o i l s with good s t r u c t u r e
provide t h e best, c o n d i t i o n s
for
supplyi ng wat e r and n u t r i e n t s to p l a n t s . The b e s t water and
n u t r i e n t regimes occur in s o i l s with g r a n u l a r s t r u c t u r e with
ag g r eg a t e s i z e s from I t o 2 mm (Smith e t a l . 1987). Brandt and
Hendrickson
(1991) s t a t e d t h a t a d d i t i o n s of 25% compost by
volume could a l t e r physi cal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o i l s . Organic
m a t e r i a l has l i t t l e e f f e c t on s o i l s t r u c t u r e , however, u n l e s s
mi c r obi al a c t i v i t y produces s t a b l e s o i l a g g r e g a t i o n . Fungi and
actinomycetous produce mycelia and have me t a b o l i c pr o ces s es
t h a t s y n t h e s i z e complex or gani c molecul es. These decomposition
p r o d u c t s , in combination with the mechanical binding a c t i o n of
c e l l s and f i l a m e n t s from microorganisms, produce s t a b l e s o i l
aggregates.
Another
i mp o r t a n t
benefit
of
compost
additions
d i s t u r b e d s o i l s i s t h e i n o c u l a t i o n i n t o s t e r i l e s o i l s of
to
16
s ymb i ot i c mycorr hiza
(Brandt
and Hendrickson. 1991).
These
organisms form symbi otic a s s o c i a t i o n s with r o o t systems of
many p l a n t s
and
their
presence
is
mineral uptake by some higher p l a n t s
et al.
crucial
f o r water
and
(Williams 1979; Whitford
1990).
Su r f a c e
mining
can
disrupt
mycorrhiza
and
other
microorganism p o p u l a t i o n s in s o i l when p l a n t communities are
temporarily
d e s t r o y e d . . Microbial
population
disruption
is
i n c r e a s e d when t o p - s o i l s are s t o r e d f o r long periods of time
or mixed with s p o i l and subsoi l m a t e r i a l . Repopulation of the
mi c r o b i a l biomass in such ar eas can be very slow because fungi
and b a c t e r i a do not r e a d i l y adapt t o chemical
and physical
changes in d i s t u r b e d s o i l s (Smith e t a l . 1987).
Addition of composts,, which a r e high in organic m a t t e r
c o n t e n t , can improve water i n f i l t r a t i o n , reduce e v a p o ra t i o n ,
improve d r a i n a g e in f i n e - t e x t u r e d s o i l s ,
extensive
and deeper r o o t systems
and encourage more
(Brandt and Hendrickson
1991). Other o r g a n i c amendments, such as st r aw and wo od-f i be r
mulches, can a l s o have , p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s on s o i l s t r u c t u r e when
t he y a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t he s o i l column (Schuman and Belden
1991).
These
nutrients
content
amendments,
commonly su p p l i ed
could
actually
however,
may
by compost.
d ec r e as e
nitrogen
be
low
in
those
Thei r high carbon
availability
for
p l a n t s because t h e amendments s t i m u l a t e microorganism growth
r a t e s with a subsequent i n c r e a s e in n i t r o g e n uptake.
1990).
Consequent ly,
rates
of
decomposition
and
(Simms
nutrient
17
c y c l i n g in s o i l s r e c e i v i n g only mulch w i l l g e n e r a l l y be lower
than c o m p o s t - t r e a t e d s o i l s (Brandt and Hendrickson 1991).
Sewaoe Sludae and Composted Municipal Waste in Reclamation
Numerous s t u d i e s
have shown t h a t
amending s o i l s
with
o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l s such as sewage sludge i n c r e a s e s s o i l o r g an i c
matter
content,
and improves
soi l
structure
and long-term
f e r t i l i t y (Bradshaw and Chadwick 1980; Khaleel e t a l . , 1981;
J o o s t e t a l . 1987; Simms 1990). Many of t h e s e s t u d i e s were
c a r r i e d out on a g r i c u l t u r a l lands, but sewage sludge has a l s o
been ext remely s u c c e s s f u l when used as an o r g a n i c amendment in
minespoiI r e c l a m a t i o n ( Ho r t e n s t i n e and RothwelI 1972; Seaker
and Sopper 1988; Skousen 1988).
Researcher s in P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pennsylvania used a "mine
mix" of 50 p e r c e n t dewatered sludge and 50 p er ce n t sludge
compost to s u c c e s s f u l l y r ecl ai m s t r i p . m i n e d lands (Alp e r t and
Segal I 1990). Sabey e t a l . (1980) demonstrated t h e b e n e f i t s of
sewage sludge in t h e r ecl ama t i o n of d i s t u r b e d o i l s ha l e lands
in
n o r t h we s t e r n
Colorado.
Sewage sl udge a l s o enhanced t h e
growth of n a t i v e shrubs in s p o i l s of a copper mine in Utah
(Sabey e t a l . 1990). Norland e t a l . (1991) u t i l i z e d composted
municipal waste t o i n c r e a s e v e g e t a t i v e e s t a b l i s h m e n t on co a r s e
taconite
tailing
on
Minnesota' s
Mesabi
iron
range.
Four
a p p l i c a t i o n s of municipal waste compost, a p p l i e d during a two
year
period,
characteristics
significantly
improved
and
plant
increased
soil
growth
nutrient
on
sterile
18
phosphate sand t a i l i n g s in Fl o r i da . ( H o r t e n s t i n e and RothwelI
1972).
Several r e s e a r c h e r s found t h a t municipal sludge could be
used
to
successfully
revegetate
strip-mined
land
in
Pennsylvania (Sopper and Kerr 1981; Seaker and Sopper 1988).
Repeated
sl u d g e
applications
had
no
advers e
effects
on
v e g e t a t i o n , s o i l , or groundwater q u a l i t y and t h e r e was l i t t l e
r i s k to animal or human h e a l t h from heavy-metal cont ami nation.
Amendments such as sewage sludge and composted municipal
waste have proven v a l u a b l e in reduci ng metal
toxicities
in
a c i d t a i l i n g s . A combination of sewage sl udge and f l y ash were
used t o r e v e g e t a t e
superfund s i t e
Plass
(1982)
an a c i d i c and heavy metal
in Pennsylvania
contaminated
(Garvey and Donovan 1992).
s u c c e s s f u l l y r e v e g e t a t e d a c i d i c wastes
(pH of
4. 0) by app l y i n g 20 m e t r i c tons of o r g a n i c m a t t e r per h e c t a r e .
Mushroom
compost
successfully
and
revegetate
paper- mil l
acidic
sl udge
(pH 3. 3
were
to
4:1)
used
to
coal-mine
s p o i l s in s o u t h e a s t e r n Ohio (Vogel and Rothwell 1985).
Three Amax Inc. molybdenum mines a t t i m b e r l i n e along t he
continental
d i v i d e in Colorado have had a c t i v e r ecl amation
programs f o r y e a r s . Researchers have found t h a t a mature soi l ,
i s p r e r e q u i s i t e t o achievi ng s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g v e g e t a t i o n . The
most economical and b e n e f i c i a l s o i l amendments were an i n i t i a l
a p p l i c a t i o n o f 44.8 m e t r i c tons per h e c t a r e of both sewage
sl u d g e and wood-chips, followed two or t h r e e y e a r s l a t e r by an
additional
22. 4 m e t r i c
tons
per
hectare
o f sludge
(Brown
19
1976). Although t h i s procedure has been s u c c e s s f u l , n i t r o g e n
l e v e l s must be c a r e f u l l y bal anced. Soil microbes consume more
n i t r o g e n than p l a n t s dur i n g decomposition, which may r e s u l t in
soil
nitrogen
deficiencies.
s t a b l e and l e s s l i k e l y t o
A compost
is
more, ch e mi c al l y
mo b i l i ze n i t r o g e n when added t o
s o i l , . a f t e r i t has decomposed over a l onge r period of time
(Si kora and Sowers 1985).
Composting t h e sewage sludge and
wood wastes a t lower e l e v a t i o n s and t r a n s p o r t i n g the f i n i s h e d
p r o d u ct t o a h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e could speed decomposition and
e l i m i n a t e some f l u c t u a t i o n in n i t r o g en c y c l i n g .
Wood-chip/municipal,
sludge
composts
were
tested
in
r e v e g e t a t i o n experiments in an a r i d region of s o u t h e a s t e r n
Washington. Compost was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o s o i l s t h a t f a i l e d to
s u p p o r t growth t he pr ev i o u s y e a r . P l a n t s u r vi v a l and growth on
t h e composted s i t e s was more than twice t h a t of t he u n t r e a t e d
c o n t r o l s . Grass d e n s i t y on t he composted s i t e s was t h r e e t o
f i v e times g r e a t e r than c o n t r o l s . Sludge compost t r e a t m e n t s
a l s o produced g r e a t e r r e v e g e t a t i v e success than combinations
of
s t r aw
mulch
and
low-rates
of
fertilizers
(Brandt
and
Hendrickson 1991).
A review of t he l i t e r a t u r e s u b s t a n t i a t e s t he idea t h a t
composted municipal wastes have p r o p e r t i e s t h a t ar e b e n e f i c i a l
in r e c l a i m i n g mining d i s t u r b a n c e s . This p r o j e c t was designed
t o det er mine whether t h i s i n c r e a s i n g l y a v a i l a b l e waste p r oduct
has
a
practical
ecosystems.
use
in
restoring
alpine
and
subalpine
20
Compost Aval I a b i I i t v
The growth
and development
of sl udge
and yard waste
composting f a c i l i t i e s has expanded r a p i d l y in r e c e n t y e a r s as
communities a c r o s s t h e country search f o r ways t o reduce s o l i d
waste and i n c r e a s e t h e l i f e spans of dwindling l a n d f i l l space.
There were an e s t i m a t e d 800 to 1,000 municipal yard waste
composting f a c i l i t i e s
in t he United S t a t e s in 1988 with t h e
number growing s t e a d i l y (Glenn 1988). In 1987, t h e r e were 90
sludge
composting
projects
nat ionwide,
with
61 o p e r a t i n g
p l a n t s . In 1989 t h e r e were. 227 sludge composting p r o j e c t s , and
119 o p e r a t i n g p l a n t s (Gol dstei n and Ri ggle, 1989). Commercial
composting o p e r a t i o n s
effective
and
have proven themsel ves t o be a c o s t
en v i r o n me n t a l l y
sound
recycling
technology
(Taylor 1989).
Although t h e r e has been s u b s t a n t i a l r e s e a r c h on t h e use
of
sewage
elevations,
sl udge
and
compost
in mine
r ec l ama t i o n
at
low
use of sewage sludge compost a t h i g h - e l e v a t i o n
s i t e s in t h e Western United S t a t e s has not been t horoughly and
scientifically
tested.
Fu r t h e r
investigation
is
needed t o
e v a l u a t e how d i f f e r e n t types of municipal compost e f f e c t t h e
e s t a b l i s h m e n t of v e g e t a t i o n on d i s t u r b e d h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e s .
21
MATERIALS AND METHODS
S i t e D e s c r i D t i on
The. Basin Creek gold mine,
located
approximatel y
( Fi g u r e
I).
25
Operation
a heap I each o p e r a t i o n ,
km southwest
of
the
mine
of
Helena,
wi l l
result
is
Montana
in
the
d i s t u r b a n c e of approximatel y 156 ha. The mine i n c l u d es p u b l i c
and p r i v a t e land in t h e Deerlodge and Helena National F o r e s t s
and s t r a d d l e s t he c o n t i n e n t a l d i v i d e a t e l e v a t i o n s from 2,260
t o 2,380 m (Figure I ) .
Soils
in t he p r o j e c t a r ea are p r i m a r i l y g r a v e l l y and
sandy loams in t h e e a r l y s t a g e s of development with pH val ues
from 4. 5 t o 7. 5. Par ent m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t of q u a r t z monzonite
a t lower e l e v a t i o n s and porous l i t h i c t u f f and r h y o l i t e flows
a t higher e lev atio n s.
Prio r to disturbance the soil
a t the
s t u d y s i t e was c l a s s i f i e d as a Typic Cr yobor alf , coarse loamy,
mixed (Noel 1989). Mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n averages 760 mm
per year.
The
subalpine
lodgepole
(Xerophvlurn
s c o o a r i urn)
pine
( P i nus
tenax)
t he
site
and
dominate
c o mp l e t el y des t r oye d
t he
occupied t h e study s i t e .
is
dominated
contorta)
grouse
ground
plant
by dense
with
common
whortleberry
cover.
Mining
stands
of
beargrass
(V a c c i n i urn
disturbance
community which p r e v i o u s l y
22
Basin
Creek
Mine
L u ttre ll P eak
NORTH
Luttrell
Ridge Pit
Paupers Peak
. • Leach
Pad #1
;
S tu d y
•
S ite
Office
Leach Pad # 2 1,
Basin, Montana
Fi g u r e I . Location of Basin Creek Mine study s i t e .
23
F i e l d Plot Desian
In l a t e June of 1991 p r o j e c t implementation began on a
0. 5
ha area of the mine,
pr eviousl y used as a haul
road
(Figure I ) . The area was recontoured to a I to 8% grade with
a s o u t h w e s t e r l y exposure. Salvaged t o p s o i l was spread over t he
a r ea to a depth of 15 to 20 cm. Pl ot s with dimensions of 3 by
3 m were e s t a b l i s h e d in a randomized block design (Figure 2) .
One meter b u f f e r zones were maintained between al l p l o t s . Nine
t r e a t m e n t s and two c o n t r o l s per block were r e p l i c a t e d t h r e e
times f o r a t o t a l of 33 p l o t s .
= 3 BY 3 m
NORTH
BLOCK
1
27 28
31
2
3
Figure 2. Randomized block design f o r t r e a t m e n t s .
24
Amendment Recommendations
The Basin Creek Mine began using 9.5 Mg/ha of s u r f a c e
a p p l i e d sewage sludge compost (EKO Compost) as an amendment
dur i n g t h e f a l l of 1990. This a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e was based on
recommendations from greenhouse v e g e t a t i o n t r i a l s
conducted
f o r t h e min& (Noel 1990). Soil c r u s t i n g had been i d e n t i f i e d as
a p o s s i b l e f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g t o poor v e g e t a t i v e growth on
r ecl ai me d ar e a s a t t h e mine.
In t h e s e t r i a l s ,
incorporated
compost appeared to i n c r e a s e v e g e t a t i v e y i e l d s and p r e v e n t
soil
c r u s t i n g . The r a t e s of compost used in t h i s study were
based on recommendations from o t h e r s t u d i e s ,
( Plass
1982;
Vogel and RothwelI 1985; Seaker and Sopper 1988; Brandt and
Hendrickson 1991). EKO compost and t he Bozeman compost were
selected
f o r use in t h i s
study because they were t he only
composts a v a i l a b l e in t h e region surrounding t he Basin Creek
Mine,
and were produced
in
large
enough q u a n t i t i e s
t o, be
e f f e c t i v e in t he r ec l ama t i o n of a d i s t u r b e d mine s i t e .
Add! i c a t i o n Rates And Methods
Sewage sludge compost (EKO) i s produced commercially in
Mi s soul a, Montana. The compost o p e r a t i o n i s l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t
t o t h e municipal sewage t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t y and u t i l i z e s sewage
s l u d g e combined with wood product wastes and yard d e b r i s . The
t h r e e - p h a s e composting process i s completed in nine months.
The f i n a l product i s screened; I cm f o r gardeni ng, 2.2 cm f o r
mining and a double I cm s c r e e n i n g f o r hydromulchers. Mine
25
compost was t r a n s p o r t e d in cubic yard bags t o t h e mine s i t e .
EKO compost was a p p l i e d a t two r a t e s , 76 Mg/ha
and 152
Mg/ha. This i s e q u i v a l e n t t o compost being spread a t 1.25 cm
and 2. 5 cm t h i c k l a y e r over the s u r f a c e of t h e p l o t s . The two
EKO compost r a t e s
o f 76 Mg/ha and 152 Mg/ha were s u r f a c e
a p p l i e d and both r a t e s were i n c o r p o r a t e d to a depth of 10 cm
with a r o t o t i l l e r .
Bozeman Compost (BOZ) i s produced by t he m u n i c i p a l i t y of
Bozeman, Montana a t t h e local
l a n d f i l l . The compost used in
t h i s st udy was made up of an e s t i ma t e d 30% g r as s c l i p p i n g s ,
30% l e a v e s , and a 40% combination of s t r aw, hay, manure, hedge
trimmings, and wood c h i p s . Finished compost i s produced in 20
months and i s provided f r e e to ttie p u b l i c or used as a s o i l
amendment in r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t h e l a n d f i l l s i t e .
Bozeman compost, l i k e EK0, was ap p l i e d a t two r a t e s ; 76
Mg/ha and 152 Mg/ha. This i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e compost being
spread
1.25 cm
and 2 . 5 cm t h i c k over t he s u r f a c e o f t h e
p l o t s . The compost was i n c o r p o r a t e d t o a depth of 10 cm with
a rototiller.
No s u r f a c e a p p l i c a t i o n s were made with t h i s
amendment.
Mine Combo (MINE CMB0) i s t h e name given t o a combination
of amendments used by Basin Creek Mine. This mine a p p l i e s t h e
amendments with a hydromulcher f o r r e v e g e t a t i o n p r o j e c t s . A
hydromulcher was not a v a i l a b l e f o r t h i s s t u d y , cons equent l y
r e p l i c a t e d amendment r a t e s were b r o a d c a s t by hand.
Mine Combo amendments c o n s i s t of EK0 compost d o u b l e -
26
s c r e e n e d through a I cm mesh and hydromulched a t 9. 5 Mg/ha.
This i s e q u i v a l e n t t o compost being spr ead 1.6 mm over t h e
surface of the p lo ts.
Silva-Fiberr
a wood
Pro-Rich dehydr at ed p o u l t r y waste and
fiber
mulch,
were
combined
with
the
compost. A p p l i c a t i o n r a t e s were 112 kg/ha Pro-Rich dehydr at ed
poultry
waste
with
N-P2O5-K2O c o n t e n t
of
14-5-5
percent
r e s p e c t i v e l y and 2 . 2 Mg/ha o f S i l v a - F i b e r .
Rates o f n i t r a t e f e r t i l i z e r
total
Kjeldahl
Nitrogen
(TKN)
(FERT), were based on t h e
analysis
of
F e r t i l i z e r r a t e s were e q u i v a l e n t t o 0.7% t o t a l
EKO Compost.
n i t r o g e n by
w e i g h t , p r e s e n t in t h e two r a t e s o f EKO Compost, 76 Mg/ha and
152 Mg/ha, which were a p p l i e d in t h i s s t u d y . This r e s u l t e d in
f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e s o f 0.51 Mg/ha and 1.02 Mg/ha. The
g r a n u l a t e d f e r t i l i z e r was b r o a d c a s t by hand and raked i n t o t h e
soil surface.
Two c o n t r o l s (CONT) were used. CONT I had no amendments
o r seed and CONT I I was seeded with t h e Basin Creek seed mix.
No amendments were added t o CONT I I , however (Table I ) .
Seed Mix and Rate
The p l o t s were r o t o t i l i e d t o a depth o f 7 t o 10 cm f o r
seed bed p r e p a r a t i o n . Al I p l o t s were b r o a d c a s t seeded by hand
with t h e Basin Creek Mine seed mix (Table 2 ) . Seed was l i g h t l y
raked i n t o t h e amended s u r f a c e s o i l .
S
27
Table I . Treatments and amendment r a t e s a p p l i ed in June 1991.
TREATMENT
PLOT NUMBER AMENDMENT RATE
METHOD
EKO
II
11,21,29
2.5 cm (152 Mg/ha)
EKO
IS
5, 18, 30
2.5 cm (152 Mg/ha)
I nc o r po r a t e d
Surface
EKO .51
9,14, 26
1.25 cm (76 Mg/ha)
I nc o r po r a t e d
EKO . 5S
3,15,25
1.25 cm (76 Mg/ha)
Surface
BOZ
Il
2, 19, 33
2.5 cm (152 Mg/ha)
I nc o r po r a t e d
BOZ .51
7, 12, 24
1.25 cm (76 Mg/ha)
I nc o r po r a t e d
MINCMBO
1,16,23
Basin Reveg Mix
Surface
FERT
I
8, 17, 32
NH4NO3 1.02 Mg/ha
Surface
FERT .5
6,13,22
NH4 NO3 0.51 Mg/ha
Surface
CONT
10,27,31
No Amendments
No Seed
None
4, 20, 28
No Amendments
Seeded
None
I
CONT II
Soil and Comoost Samolina
Three
samples
of
salvaged
topsoil
and t h r e e
compost
samples used in t h i s s t u d y were c o l l e c t e d in June, 1991 a t t he
Basin Creek Mine. Samples were taken randomly from s t o c k - p i l e d
topsoil
and
bagged
compost.
Physical
and
chemical
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s e samples were analyzed by t he s o i l
l a b o r a t o r y a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y in Bozeman, Montana.
The parameters analyzed were pH ( a c i d i t y )
(McLean 1982), EC
( e l e c t r i c a l c o n d u c t i v i t y ) (Rhoades 1982), or gani c m a t t e r (Sims
and
Haby
1971),
K (potassium)
(Knudsen
et
al.
(phosphorus) (Olsen and Dean 1965), NO3 ( n i t r a t e )
1982),
(Simms and
P
Table 2. Basin Creek Mine seed mix and r a t e .
Common Name
S c i e n t i f i c Name1
streambank w h e a t g r a s s (v. Sodar)
Aaronvron r i p a r i urn Scri bn.
s l e n d e r w h e a t g r a s s (v. Revenue)
Elvmus trachvcaulurn fLink) Gould
2.80
redtop
meadow f o x t a i l
A q r o s t i s s t o l o n i f e r a L.
Alonecurus n r a t e n s i s L.
2.80
mountain brome
Bromus c a r i n a t u s Hook. & Am.
3.92
tufted hairgrass
Deschamnsia c a e s o i t o s a L.
t a l l fescue
sheep f e s c u e
3.92
1.40
Canada b l u e g r a s s
c i c e r mi I kvetch
Fest uc a ar u n d i n a c e a Schreb.
Fest uc a ovina L.
Poa comoressa L.
A s t r a a a l us c i c e r L.
birdsfoot trefo il
w h i t e dutch c l o v e r
Lotus c o r n i c u l a t u s L.
T r i f o l i u m reoens L.
1.40
2 (PLS) Pure Live Seed
Smith
7.84
.56
CO
CNJ
1 Rumely and Lavin 1991
&
CO
CNJ
Total
k g/ ha2
1.40
1.40
28.00
29
Jackson
1971),
and
TKN (Bremmer' and
Mulvaney
1982).
The
Modified Day Mechanical Technique was used in the t e x t u r a l
a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e samples (Day 1965).
Soil samples were c o l l e c t e d in September of 1992 on t h r e e
o f t h e amended study p l o t s which appeared t o have t he g r e a t e s t
v e g e t a t i v e cover and p r o d u ct i o n , ( P l o t 9, EKO 0.5 I; P l o t 11,
EKO I I;
Plot
19 BOZ I I ) .
Three s o i l
samples were a l s o
c o l l e c t e d in an ar ea a d j a c e n t to t h e study s i t e . This ar ea had.
been t o p s o i l e d but had not been amended. These samples were
taken from t h e s u r f a c e t o a depth of 10 cm.
Penet rometer Measurements
To q u a n t i f y s o i l c r u s t s t r e n g t h a t t he study s i t e , pocket
p e n e t r ome t e r measurements were made on J u l y 20 and August 31,
1992. Penet rometer s measure the r e s i s t a n c e of s o i l to v e r t i c a l
p e n e t r a t i o n in kilograms per square c e n t i m e t e r . T e n randomly
s e l e c t e d l o c a t i o n s per p l o t were sampled.
P r e c i p i t a t i o n Measurements
The Basin Creek Mine ma i n t a i n s a me t eor ol ogi c al s t a t i o n
a p pr oxi ma t el y
three
kilometers
from t he
st udy
site.
Mean
annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n between 1988 and 1992 was recorded a t
this station.
Daily r eco r d s and monthly summaries ,for 1988-
1992 ar e l o c a t e d in Appendix A. No s o i l mo i s t u r e i n f o r ma t i on
was g a t he r ed a t the time pen e t r o met e r r e a d i ng s were t aken.
30 .
Veg e t at i v e Samolino
Seedl ing
intervals
density
in.July,
was
August,
examined
at
three
to
six
week
and September 1991. Density was
e s t i m a t e d by count ing s e e d l i n g numbers i n s i d e ten 20 by 50 cm
frames l o c a t e d a t p r e - s e l e c t e d p o i n t s along diagonal t r a n s e c t s
in
each
September
plot
( Figur e
1992.
3).
P l an t
Cover e s t i m a t e s
cover
was
determined
were made t o
t he
in
nearest
p e r c e n t . Cover was e s t i m a t e d in f i v e 20 by 50 cm frames p r e ­
s e l e c t e d along t r a n s e c t
(I) wi t h i n each p l o t .
Above-ground
■plant pr oduct i on was determined in September 1992 by c l i p p i n g
above-ground biomass in. f i v e 20 by 50 cm frames l o c a t e d along
t r a n s e c t (I) in each t e s t p l o t .
Tra n s e c t one ( I) was e s t a b l i s h e d by s t r e t c h i n g a s t r i n g
l i n e from t h e s o u t h e a s t t o the nor thwest c o r n e r of each p l o t .
Five p r e - s e l e c t e d p o i n t s were marked on t h e l i n e a t i n t e r v a l s
of 104 cm, 126 cm, 147 cm, 170 cm and 191 cm. T r a n s e c t two (2)
used
t he
same spacing
as
one
(I),
however,
the
line
was
s t r e t c h e d from t he n o r t h e a s t to t h e southwest co r ne r of each
plot. '
Nonseeded Pl ant s
Nonseeded p l a n t s p e c i e s were c o l l e c t e d from the s t u d y
plots
dur ing t h e
two f i e l d
se as o n s ,
1991 and
1992.
These
p l a n t s were not p a r t of t h e seed mix used a t t h e Basin Creek
Mine or in t h i s experi ment.
31
S t a t i s t i c a l An a l v s i s
All data s e t s were analyzed using a one-way a n a l y s i s of
variance
comparison
M u lt i p le
mean
test
comparison
on means
was
based
(Student-Newman-Keuls).
on
Least
Significant
Di f fe r e nc e s (LSD) a t a s i g n i f i c a n c e level of 0.05.
Figure 3. Vegetati ve t r a n s e c t design.
32
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soi I and Compost Samol I no
P r o p e r t i e s of Compost and ToosoiI
Data from compost samples had a h i ghe r t r e n d in pH, EC,
o r g a n i c m a t t e r and n u t r i e n t c o n t en t than t he t o p s o i l samples
(Table 3 ) . Several chemical d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the
two
composts.
Bozeman
compost
had
h i ghe r
pH,
EC,
and
potassium c o n t e n t than EKO compost. However, g r e a t e r or gani c
matter
content
and
phosphorus
levels
were
found
in
EKO
compost. These v a r i a t i o n s could be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s
in t h e composted m a t e r i a l s and p r o c e s s e s .
Table 3. P r o p e r t i e s of salvaged t o p s o i l and compost
amendments(mean of t h r e e s a m p l e s ) .
pH
Amendments
EC
Organic
Matter
mmhos/cm
%
Soil
K
mg/kg
Soil
P
mg/kg
NO3-N
TKN
mg/kg
%
Topsoil
4.9
0.03
2.5
117
12.6
<0.1
0.036
EKO
6.6
1.74
54.7
955
359.8
420.2
0.669
BOZ
7.4
2.50
9.2*
4080
207.5
444.0
0.563
* Normal v al u es ar e 30-60% Organic Matter.
33
P r o o e r t i es of Surface Soi Is
Soil
sample
data
from
compost
plots,
collected
in
September 1992, followed a tr end toward h i ghe r pH, EC, o r g a n i c
matter
and
nutrient
c o n t en t
than
t he
unamended
topsoil
samples. These d i f f e r e n c e s may be a t t r i b u t e d to the a d d i t i o n
of t he compost amendment to the t o p s o i l m a t e r i a l .
The most ap p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s between compost t r e a t m e n t s
were h i g h e r pH and phosphorus l e v e l s f o r the h e a v i e r r a t e of
i n c o r p o r a t e d Bozeman compost in comparison with the two EKO
compost t r e a t m e n t s
(Table 4). Composted EKO p l o t s , however,
had h ig h e r or ganic m a t t e r c o n t en t and s o i l potassium l e v e l s
than t h e Bozeman compost t r e a t m e n t . These v a r i a t i o n s are most
likely
the r e s u l t
of d i f f e r e n c e s
in m a t e r i a l s
and bulking
agent s used in the composting pr oces s (Table 4) .
Table 4. Physical and chemical p r o p e r t i e s of s u r f a c e m a t e r i a l s
(mean of t h r e e samples).
pH
Treatments
EC
Organic
Matter
mmhos/cm
%
Soil
K
mg/kg
Soil
P
mg/kg
NO3-N
TKN
mg/kg
%
EKO 0.51
5.8
0.11
19.47
174
139.3
2.5
0.467
EKO
II
5.8
0.12
19.19
194
137.6
1.8
0.431
BOZ
II
7.8
0.17
6.97
492
74.2
1.3
0.355
5.3
0.05
2.91
114
24.9
<.l
0.057
TOPSOIL
34
Text ur al A n a l v s i s
Prior
to
disturbance
the s o i l
at
the
study s i t e
was
c l a s s i f i e d as a Typic Cryoboralf , co a r s e loamy, mixed (Noel
1989). This s o i l was salvaged from t he s i t e and r e a p p l i e d to
a depth of
15 t o 20 cm.
Textural
an a l y s e s of the samples
(Table 5) i n d i c a t e d t h a t the compost t r e a t e d p l o t s had a loamy
texture,
and
the
unamended
topsoiled
ar ea
a
sandy
loam
t e x t u r e . The t o p s o i l samples had h i g h e r sand c o n t e n t and lower
silt
and
c l ay
content
than
the
compost
amended samples.
Textur al d i f f e r e n c e s between the unamended and amended t o p s o i l
m a t e r i a l may be a t t r i b u t e d to added compost.
Table 5. Textural a n a l y s i s of s o i l and compost samples.
Surf ace
Soil
Samples
Sand
%
Clay
%
Texture
I
EKO .5 I
48
36
16
I o am
EKO
I I
49
35
16
loam
BOZ
I I
45
38
17
loam
54
32
14
sandy loam
TOPSOIL
Silt
Soi I C r u s t i na
Minesoil
crusting
is
the
consolidation
of
surface
p a r t i c l e s due t o e x t e r n a l l y ap p l i e d f o r c e s . Crust formation
begins with minesoil breakdown due t o the f o r c e su p p l i ed by
r a i n d r o p impact. This impact causes t h e t r a n s l o c a t i o n of f i n e
p a r t i c l e s t o t h e upper I to 2 mm l a y e r . Radiant energy of t he
35
sun d r i e s
this
surface
l a y e r and cements t he t r a n s l o c a t e d
particles
into
a
crust
hard
(Dollhopf
and
Postle
1988,
McIntyre 1958).
I t was hypothesized t h a t s o i l c r u s t i n g a t t he Basin Creek
Mine c o n t r i b u t e d
to
poor
revegetative
success
on s e v e r a l
p r e v i o u s l y recl aimed s i t e s and t h a t a d d i t i o n of or ganic m a t t e r
could a l l e v i a t e t h i s problem.
green
house
studies
This hy p o t h e si s was based on
contracted
by t h e
mine
(Noel
1990),
■ l i t e r a t u r e review of r ecl ama t i o n problems a t h i g h - e l e v a t i o n
s i t e s , and o b s e r v a t i o n s made a t t h e . s t u d y s i t e during t h e 1991
f i e l d s e a s o n . Parady (1981) found t h a t o r g an i c m a t t e r a d d i t i o n
d ec r e as e d c r u s t s t r e n g t h by a i d i n g formation of s t a b l e s o i l
aggregates,
which
decreased
clay
adhesion
in
t he
sand
in
July
fraction.
Penet r ome t er Measurements
No
significant
differences
were
found
p en e t r ome t e r measurements which would i n d i c a t e a t r e n d towards
weaker c r u s t s with t h e a d d i t i o n o f a compost amendment (Table
6) .
In
August
t he
EKO 2.5
cm s u r f a c e
and
incorporated
t r e a t m e n t s did have s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s c r u s t s t r e n g t h than a l l
other
treatments.
Al I
compost
treatments
p'
had
less
crust
■
s t r e n g t h than t he f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t s and c o n t r o l s with t h e
e x ce p t i on o f t h e Mine Combo t r e a t m e n t . No c o r r e l a t i o n s were
found by r e g r e s s i n g penetrometer, r ea d i ng s a g a i n s t v e g e t a t i v e
d e n s i t y , co v e r , or product i on d a t a .
36
Table 6. Mean pen e t r o met e r r eadi ngs from J u l y and August 1992
in kg/cm2. (N=30)
Treatment
J u l y Mean
± I S.D.
August Mean
± I S.D.
II
3 . 7 3 a1
0.98
3.80a1
MINECMB
3.56ab
0.95
4.03a
0.95
0.74
EKO
.5$
3 . 38ab
1.07
3.04a
0.97
BOZ
II
3.08ab
0.97
3.18a
1.09
I
3 . 06ab
1.09
3.49a
1.11
BOZ
.51
2.93bc
0.90
3.43a
0.94
EKO
.51
2.89bc
0.77
3.00a
0.96
CONT
I
2.86bc
1.13
3.64a
0.93
FERT
.5
2.83bc
1.14
3.51a
1.07
EKO
II
2.28c
0.79
2.04b
0.82
EKO
IS
2.24c
0.79
1.75b
0.74
CONT
FERT
Means followed by t he same l e t t e r in t he
i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ( P= 0 . 0 5 ) .
same column
Penetrometer means f o r August were c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r
than J u l y r e a d i n g s. Parady (1981) found t h a t c r u s t s t r e n g t h
i n c r e a s e d with d e c r e a s i n g moi s t ure c o n t e n t . No s o i l mo i s t u r e
i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t he r ed a t t he time penet r omet er r ea d i ng s
were t a k e n .
However,
d a i l y p r e c i p i t a t i o n d at a
(Appendix A)
from t h e Basin Creek Mine i n d i c a t e s l e s s p r e c i p i t a t i o n f e l l in
t h e time period p r i o r t o t he August penetr ometer r eadi ngs than
in t he same time per i o d p r i o r to t he J u l y r e a d i n g s .
37
Precipitation
Forty
three
days
elapsed
between
penetrometer
measurements taken on J u l y 20th and August 31, 1992. During
t h a t per i o d o f time 36. 8 mm of p r e c i p i t a t i o n were recorded. In
t h e 43 days p r i o r t o J u l y 20,
precipitation
fell
at
precipitation
between
t he
the
1992 a t o t a l
mine
time
site.
o f 198.1 mm of
This
periods
variation
when
in
penetrometer
r ea d i ng s were taken may expl ai n the changes in c r u s t s t r e n g t h .
P r e c i p i t a t i o n was below the f i v e y e a r average f o r the two
y e a r s in which t h i s st udy was conducted (Table 7).
Extreme
v a r i a b i l i t y in c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s over t h e s h o r t d u r at i o n of
this
study
make
precipitation
it
extremely
and p l a n t growth.
difficult
Brown e t
to
al.
correlate
(1984)
found
s t r o n g v a r i a b i l i t y in c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s a t a h i g h - e l e v a t i o n
site
from y e a r
variation
in
to y e a r .
These r e s e a r c h e r s
precipitation,
snowpack
suspected
that
accumulation,
and
t e mp e r a t u r e during t h e growing season had a g r e a t e r i n f l u e n c e
on v e g e t a t i v e
growth than the f e r t i l i z e r
treatments
being
applied.
Table 7. Mean annual p r e c i p i t a t i o n from 1988-1992 in mm.
Year1
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Precip.
672
818
582
536 .
435
5 Year/Mean
594
38
Nonseeded Pl ant s
These
i nt r oduced
weedy
species
could
have
been
t r a n s p o r t e d to the s i t e through a v a r i e t y of means (Table 8 ) .
The s t u d y s i t e i s a reclaimed haul road with an a c t i v e haul
road 30 m from the s t udy p l o t s .
Passing v e h i c l e s and heavy
equipment working on t h e mine may have d i s p e r s e d the s e e d s .
The commercial seed mix or Bozeman and EKO composts could a l s o
be s o u r ce s of cont ami nat i on.
The d e s t r u c t i o n of weed seeds and p l a n t pathogens in t h e
composting process i s dependent on t h e heat of decomposition
g e n e r a t e d by the composting o p e r a t i o n . Compost must be exposed
to high t e mper at ur es
( 6 6 - 7 1 °C) in t h e i n t e r i o r of the p i l e
long enough to d e s t r o y v i a b l e weed seeds. Since a l l p a r t s of
the
pile
may
not
achi eve
this
temp er at u r e
range,
the
i n t r o d u c t i o n of l a r g e q u a n t i t i e s of weedy p l a n t s i n t o compost
p i l e s should be avoided (Rosen e t a l . 1989).
Table 8. Nonseeded p l a n t s (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1974).
Common Name
S c i e n t i f i c Name
Plot
Treatment
cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum I.
12
BOZ .5 I
cheatgrass
Bromus tectorum L.
19
BOZ
mustard
D e s c u r a i n i a soohia L.
07
BOZ .5 I
p a l e alyssum
Alvssum a l v s soi des L.
12
BOZ .5 I
pennycress
Thlasoi arvense L.
24
BOZ .5 I
bull t h i s t l e
Cir s i urn v u l o a r e
30
EKO
I I
pigweed
Amaranthus r e t r o f l exus L.
30
EKO
I I
Savi.
I I
39
Densi t v
In
September
1991,
the
MINECOMBO
t r e a t me n t
had
s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r g r a s s and f o r b s e e d l i n g d e n s i t i e s than
a l l o t h e r t r e a t m e n t s . Al I compost amendments had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
g r e a t e r g r a s s and forb s e e d l i n g d e n s i t i e s than the c o n t r o l s
and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t s (Table 9) .
Table 9. Mean s e e d l i n g d e n s i t y (m2) in September, 1991 (N=15).
Grass S e e d l ings
Forb Seedl ings
Treatment
Mean1
Mean1
MINECOMBO
301a
19.4
94a
12.4
BOZ
II
233b
13.9
54b
4.4
EKO
II
218b
12.1
33b
2.8
EKO .55
190b
9.4
48b
6.1
EKO .51
185b
12.1
40b
4.7
EKO
IS
178b
12.9
15b
2.1
BOZ .51
170b
10.8
41b
3.6
CONT II
97c
5.1
5b
0.6
FERT .5
41c
2.7
Ob
0.0
CONT
I
33c
2.3
Ob
0.0
FERT
I
30c
3.5
Ob
0.0
± I S.D.
± I S.D.
Means followed by t h e same l e t t e r in t he same column have
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (P=0.05).
Cover
Cover i s an impor t ant f a c t o r in su c c e s s f u l r e v e g e t a t i o n .
I t i s an i n d i c a t o r of how much e r o s i o n p r o t e c t i o n the s u r f a c e
r e c e i v e s from p l a n t l e a v e s . Cover d a t a c o l l e c t e d in September
40
1992
ar e p r e s e n t e d in Table 10. P l o t s t r e a t e d with Bozeman
compost y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t o t a l cover than o t h e r
t r e a t m e n t s when a p p l i e d a t a r a t e of 2. 5 cm and i nc or p o r a t e d
7 t o 10 cm. Total g r a s s cover on p l o t s in which 2.5 cm of EKO
compost were i n c o r p o r a t e d was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than on t he
other plots.
Total
f or b cover was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r on
plots
2.5
cm
with
of
incorporated
Bozeman
compost.
I nc o r po r a t e d compost t r e a t m e n t s produced g r e a t e r cover than
s u r f a c e ap p l i e d compost, f e r t i l i z e r ,
and co n t r o l
treatments
(Table 10).
Table 10. P l a n t cover in September, 1992 (N=15).
Treatment
BOZ II
EKO II
EKO .51
BOZ .51
EKO IS
MINECMB
(Z)
m
O
LU
FERT .5
FERT I
CONT II
CONT I
Total
Cover(%)
50.5a1
40.lab
28.9bc
26.6bc
25.3bc
21.Obcd
19.Zbcd
11.Zed
Z.9cd
4.5cd
0.6d
±I
S.D.
24.3
12.Z
20.9
1Z.2
15.9
18.9
9.3
5.8
9.0
4.5
2.1
Grass
Cover(%)
20.6bc
39.1a
26.lab
15.3bc
25.lab
20.Ibc
18.9bc
ll.Sbc
Z.9bc
4.5bc
0.6c
I
S.D.
12.1
13.8
19.2
8.2
15.8
18.3
8.8
5.9
9.0
4.5
2.1
±
Means followed by t he same l e t t e r in t h e
i n d i c a t e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (P=0.05)
Forb
Cover(%)
29.9a
1.5b
2.8b
11.4b
0.0b
0.8b
0.3b
0.1b
0.0b
0.0b
0.0b
±I
S.D.
28.Z
3.0
6.Z
15.0
0.5
1.8
1.5
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
same column
41
The f ol l o wi n g f o u r g r as s s p e c i e s had h i g h e r cover v a l u e s
and were p r e s e n t in a wider range of t r e a t m e n t and amendment
rates
than
all
arundinacea.
compressa.
other
Festuca
g r as s
ovina.
Forb cover was
species
planted;
Elvmus
low in a l l
Festuca
trachvcaulurn.
Poa
t r e a t m e n t s with
the
e x c e p ti o n of T r i f olim r e o e n s . This s p e c i e s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
higher
percent
cover
in
Bozeman compost
I
and 0.5
rates
i n c o r p o r a t e d , than in o t h e r t r e a t m e n t s (Table 11).
Production
Bozeman
compost
a p p l i ed
at
the
2. 5
cm
rate
had
s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t o t a l product i on in September 1992 than
any o t h e r t r e a t m e n t (Table 12). There was a general t r e n d in
t h e d a t a with i n c o r p o r a t e d compost t r e a t m e n t s y i e l d i n g g r e a t e r
p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n than s u r f a c e a p p l i e d compost, f e r t i l i z e r , and
control p l o t s .
The
f ol l owi ng
four
g r as s
species
had
the
highest
p r o d u c t i o n and were p r e s e n t in a wider range of t r ea t me n t and
amendment r a t e s than a l l o t h e r g r a s s s p e c i e s p l a n t e d ; Festuca
a r u n d i n a c e a . Elvmus trachvcaulurn. Poa compressa. Festuca ovina
. Forb
pr o d u ct i o n
treatments.
was
low
for
T r i f o l i urn r e o e n s .
all
species
however,
had
and
in
all
significantly
g r e a t e r pr o d u ct i o n in p l o t s t r e a t e d with i n c o r p o r a t e d Bozeman
compost a t t h e I and 0. 5
r a t e s (Table 13). Two gr ass s p e c i e s
42
■p r e s e n t in t h e seed mix, Alooecurus o r a t e n s i s and Deschampsla
caespitosa,
c a r i nat us
were
and
the
not
found
forb
growing
on t h e
Astragal us. ci c e r
growing in t h e p l o t s , but in low numbers.
plots.
were
Bromus
identified
Table 11. P e r ce n t cover by s p e c i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s in September, 1992 (N=15).
Treatment
Agri
Eltr
Agst
Alpr
Brca
Deca
Fear
Feov
Poco
Asci
Loco
Trre
EKO II
5.3
7.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
15.8
3.6
6.1
0.0
0.5
0.8
EKO .51
2.2
2.6
4.9
0.0
0.2
0.0
6.7
6.1
3.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
EKO IS
1.6
5.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
1.6
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
EKO .55
0.6
3.6
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.0
5.7
5.2
1.2
0.0
0.8
0.0
BOZ II
0.1
2.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.1
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.7
28.1
BOZ .51
0.1
2.8
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.9
1.1
1.6
0.5
0.0
9.7
MINECMB
0.0
0.9
5.8
0.0
0.7
0.0
5.0
3.6
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
FERT I
0.0
3.4
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
FERT .5
0.0
1.4
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
2.7
5.3
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.0
CONT I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CONT II
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
3.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
9.9
29.9
14.5
0.0
1.6
0.0
71.8
33.5
25.1
0.5
5.4
38.7
44
Table 12. Total p l a n t p r o d u c t i o n (kg/ha oven d r i e d weight)
c o l l e c t e d in September 1992 (N=15).
P l a n t Production
Treatment
kg/ha
± I S.D.
EKO
II
534ab
2.6
BOZ 1/21
391bc
3.9
EKO
IS
265bc
EKO 1/21
251bc
2.7
2.2
MINECMB
173c
2.0
EKO 1/2S
150c
1.4
FERT 1/2
75c
0.8
FERT
I
67c
1.3
CONT
II
9c
0.2
CONT
I
3c
0.1
1
Total p l a n t pr o d u ct i o n v al u es followed by t h e same l e t t e r
the same column i n d i c a t e s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
(P=O. 0 5 ) .
in
Table 13.
TREATMENT
EKO
Biomass p r o d u c t i o n by s p e c i e s f o r d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s in kg/ha
Agri
Eltr
Agst
Al pr Brca Deca
Fear
Feov
Poco Asci
Loco
Trre
II
95.6
116.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
251.9
8.5
60.3
0.0
22.3
1.2
EKO .5 I
19.6
30.7
66.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
78.1
22.7
22.3
0.0
11.0
0.0
EKO
IS
10.4
52.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
140.0
7.5
54.1
0.0
3.7
0.0
EKO . 5 S
2.3
41.2
13.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
52.6
38.6
1.8 0.0
0.0
0.0
BOZ
II
0.0
29.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
250.9
0.0
31.2
0.0
0.0
425.8
BOZ . 5 I
0.0
54.7
4.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
147.8
2.9
10.5 0.0
0.0
167.1
MINECMBO
0.0
7.7
37.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.8
22.3
47.9 0.0
0.0
0.0
FERT
I
0.0
38.8
7.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.3
4.7 0.0
0.0
0.0
FERT .5
0.0
11.4
1.7
0.0
1.3
0.0
24.1
28.8
6.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
CONT
I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
CONT II
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
127.9
382.9
130.7
0.0
1.3
0.0
1003.2
159.3
238.9 0.0
37.0
594.1
TOTAL
.46
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The EKO compost and Bozeman municipal lawn waste compost
produced
beneficial
effects
on p l a n t
density,
cover,
and
p r o d u c t i o n a t a high e l e v a t i o n mine s i t e . P l o t s t r e a t e d with
t
two heavy r a t e s o f commercial n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r and p l o t s
r e c e i v i n g unamended top s o i l
had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
lower p l a n t
d e n s i t y , c o v e r , and p r o d u c t i o n . I n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e compost 10
cm
into
vegetative
the
surface
growth
applications.
horizon
dur i n g
the
generally
second
produced
season
than
greater
surface
Pen et r o me t er t e s t s in J u l y and August o f 1992
i n d i c a t e d a general t r e n d towards l e s s s o i l
c r u s t f ormat i on
with t h e a d d i t i o n o f compost.
Total
grass
cover
and
production
were
significantly
g r e a t e r on p l o t s amended with 2 . 5 cm of EKO compost and then
i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o t h e s o i l s u r f a c e . Forb cover and p r o d u c t i o n
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r on p l o t s in which 2 . 5 cm of Bozeman
compost were i n c o r p o r a t e d . An a l y s i s of s o i l samples from t h e
most v e g e t a t i v e l y p r o d u c t i v e p l o t s and an a d j a c e n t , unamended,
topsoiled
area
indicated
differences
in
pH,
EC,
nutrient
c o n t e n t , o r g a n i c m a t t e r l e v e l s , and s o i l t e x t u r e . D i f f e r e n c e s
in chemical and ph y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s between t h e two composts
and t h e , sal vaged
topsoil
utilized
in t h i s
s t u d y may have
c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e v a r i a t i o n in g r a s s and f o r b growth on t h e
plots.
47
Fest uca a r u n d i n a c e a . Elvmus trachvcaulurn. Poa comoressa.
and Festuca ovina had t h e h i g h e s t p r oduct i on and cover of a l l
t h e g r a s s e s p l a n t e d . They a l s o were p r e s e n t in a wider range
o f t r e a t m e n t and amendment r a t e s than a l l o t h e r gr ass s p e c i e s .
Forb p r o d u c t i o n and cover were low in a l l t r e a t m e n t s with t he
e x ce p t i on o f T r i f o l i urn r e o e n s . which had s i g n i f i c a n t growth in
p l o t s amended with Bozeman compost.
Several p l a n t s of i n t r o d u ce d weedy specie's not found on
t h e mine s i t e were observed growing on t h e study p l o t s . These
plants
could have been t r a n s p o r t e d t o t h e s i t e by s e v er al
means, one o f which was contaminated compost. The m a j o r i t y of
weedy p l a n t s were found on p l o t s amended with Bozeman compost.
Al I amendments t r a n s p o r t e d to h i g h - e l e v a t i o n s i t e s should be
c l a s s i f i e d weed f r e e t o p r ev en t i n t r o d u c t i o n of weedy s p e c i e s .
Results
municipal
from t h i s
wastes
field
enhance
t he
s t udy s u g g e s t
establishment
that
composted
and growth
herbaceous cover on t h i s d i s t u r b e d high e l e v a t i o n s i t e .
of
The
use of composted m a t e r i a l s f o r r e c l ama t i o n i s in i t s i nf a n c y .
F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed t o understand how d i f f e r e n t types
and r a t e s of composted municipal wastes can be u t i l i z e d as an
ammendment in t h e s u c c e s s f u l
disturbances.
r e c l ama t i o n of h i g h - e l e v a t i o n
48
LITERATURE CITED
49
Al p e r t , J . and L. Segal 1 , 1990. Compost Marketing S t r a t e g y .
BioCycle 31:38-43.
Berg, W. A. and E. M. Barrau. 1978. Management approaches to
n i t r o g e n d e f i c i e n c y in r e v e g e t a t i o n o f subal pi ne
disturbances.
pp.
174-181.
In: S.T.
Kenny
ed.
Proceedi ngs: High A l t i t u d e Revegetati on Workshop, No. 3.
Colorado Water Resources Research I n s t i t u t e . Colorado
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ft. C o l l i n s , Colorado.
B i l l i n g s , W. D. 1974. Adaptations and o r i g i n s of a l pi ne
p l a n t s . A r c t i c Al pine Research .6:129-142.
Bradshaw, A.D. and M. J . Chadwick. 1980. The r e s t o r a t i o n of
land.
University
of
C a liforn ia Press.
Berkeley,
C a l i f o r n i a . 317 pp.
Brandt, C.A. and P.L. Hendrickson. 1991. Use of composts in
. r e v e g e t a t i n g a r i d lands. U.S. Department of Energy, '
P a c i f i c Northwest Laboratory. Co n t ra c t DE-AC06-76RL0 1830 ■
PNL 7833. pp. 1-37.
\
Bremmer, J.M. and C.S. Mulvaney. 1982. N i t r og e n - To t a l , pp.
595-618. In: A.L. Page, R. H. M i l l e r and .D. R. Keeney
eds. Methods of Soil Anal ys i s, Number 9 ( P a r t 2) Agronomy
- s e r i e s . American Society of Agrohomy, Inc. Madison,
Wisconsin.
Brink, V.C., J . R . MacKay, S. Freyman, and D.G. Pearce. 1967.
Needle i c e and s e e d l i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t in southwestern
B r i t i s h Columbia. Can. J . P l a n t Science 47:135.
Brown, L. F. 1976. Reclamation a t Climax, Urad and Henderson
Mines. Mining Congress Journal 62:47-51.
Brown, R. W., R. S. J o h n s t o n , and J . C. Chambers. 1984.
Response of seeded n a t i v e g r a s s e s t o r e p e a t e d f e r t i l i z e r
a p p l i c a t i o n s on a c i d i c a l p i n e mine s p o i l s , pp. 200-214.
In: T. Colber ed. Proceedings: High A l t i t u d e Revegetation
Workshop No. 7. Colorado Water Resources Research
Institute.
Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ft. C o l l i n s , .
Colorado.
Brown, R. W., R. S. J o h nst on, and D. A. Johnson. 1978.
R e h a b i l i t a t i o n o f a l p i n e tundra d i s t u r b a n c e s . J . of Soil
and Water Conservation 33:154-160.
Caldwell , M.M. 1968. S o l a r u l t r a v i o l e t r a d i a t i o n as an
e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r f o r a l p i n e p l a n t s . E c o l . Monographs 38:
243-268.
50
Chambers, J . C . , R.S. Brown, and D.A. Johnson. 1987. A
comparison of s o i l and v e g e t a t i o n p r o p e r t i e s of seeded
and n a t u r a l Iy r e v e g e t a t e d p y r i t i c a l p i n e mine s p o i l and
r e f e r e n c e s i t e s . Landscape and Urban Planning 14:507-519.
Chambers, J . C . , J.A. Macmahon, and R.W.. Brown. 1988. Seed l i n g
establishment
in
disturbed
alpine
ecosystems:
I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e v e g e t a t i o n . Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
Ft. C o l l i n s Colorado, Colorado I nformat ion S e r i e s No.
59:173-191.
Chapin, F. S . , 1980. The mineral n u t r i t i o n of wild p l a n t s ,
Annual Review of Ecology and S y s t e m a t i cs 11:233-260.
Cochran,
P.
H.
1969. . Thermal
properties
and s u r f a c e
t e mp e r at u r es of seedbeds. United S t a t e s Department of
A g r i c u l t u r e , For e st S er vi c e , P a c i f i c Northwest F o r e s t and
Range Experiment S t a t i o n . C o r v a l l i s , Oregon. Docs A
13. 66/12:T 34:19 pp.
Day, P.R. 1965. Hydrometer method of p a r t i c l e s i z e a n a l y s i s ,
pp. 562-567. In: C.A. Black e t . a l , eds. Methods of Soil
A n a l y s i s . Number 9 ( Pa r t I) Agronomy S e r i e s . American
S o c i e t y of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin.
Dollhopf , D.J. and R.C. P o s t ! e. 1988. Physical Parameters That
I n f l u e n c e Successful Minesoil Reclamation, pp. 81-104.
In: L.R. Hossner e d . , Reclamation of Surface-Mined Lands
V. I , CRC Press I n c . , Boca Raton, F l o r i d a .
F a u s t , R. A. and T . J . N i m l o s . 1968. Soil microorganisms and
s o i l n i t r o g e n of t h e Montana a l p i n e . Northwest S c i .
42:101-107.
Fresquez, P . R. , R.E. F r a n ci s and G.L. Dennis. 1990. Soil and
v e g e t a t i o n r esponses t o sewage sludge on a degraded
. semi a r i d broom snakeweed/blue grama p l a n t community.
J . o f Range Management 43:325-331.
Fresquez, P.R. and W.C. Lindemann. 1982. Soil and r h i z o s h p e r e
microorganisms in amended coal mine s p o i l s . J . Soil
Science Soci e t y of America 46:751-755.
Garvey, D. and P. Donovan. 1992. Wastewater sludge used a t a
superf und s i t e . Water Environment and Technology 4 : 9 - 1 2 .
Glenn J . 1988.
29:49-52.
Encouraging Yard Waste U t i l i z a t i o n Bi ocycl e
G o l d s t e i n , N. and D. Ri ggle. 1989. Healthy f u t u r e f o r sl u d g e
composting. Biocycle 30:28-34.
51
G o l d s t e i n , N. and R. S t e u t e v i l i e . 1992. Solid waste composting
in t h e United S t a t e s . BioCycle 33:44-47.
Guillaume, M. 1984. The e f f e c t of seed s o u r ce , mulches,
t o p s o i l , and f e r t i l i t y on a l p i n e r e v e g e t a t i o n . Masters
thesis.
Department
of
Agronomyy Colorado
State
U n i v e r s i t y , Ft. C o l l i n s , Colorado. 145 pp.
Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cfonquis t . 1974. Flora o f t he P a c i f i c
Northwest. U n i v e r s i t y of Washington P r e s s . S e a t t l e ,
Washington. 740 pp.
H o r t e n s t i ne, C. C. and D. F. Rothwel1 . 1972. Use of municipal
compost in r ec l ama t i o n of phosphate-mining sand t a i l i n g s .
J . of Environmental Q u a l i t y 4:415-418.
Johnson, R. S. , R. W. Brown, and J . Cravens. 1975. Acid mine
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n problems a t high e l e v a t i o n s . In: Proc
Watershed Manage. Symp. Am. Soc. Civil Eng. , New York,
N.Y. p p . 66-79.
J o o s t , R. E., F. J . Olsen, and J . H. Jones. 1987. R e v e g e t a t i on
and minespoiI development of coal r e f u s e amended with
sewage sludge and l i me s t on e . J . of Environmental Q u a l i t y
16:65-68.
K h a l e e l , R., K. R. Reddy, and M.R. Overcash. 1981. Changes in
soil
physical
properties
due
to
o r ga n i c
waste
a p p l i c a t i o n s . J . o f Environmental Q u a l i t y 10:133-141.
Knudsen, K. D., G. A. P e t e r s o n , and P. F. P r a t t . 1982.
Lithium, sodium and potassium, pp. 228-231. In: A. L.
Page, R. H. M i l l e r , and D. R. Kenney eds. Methods of Soil
A n al y s i s . Number 9 ( P a r t 2) Agronomy s e r i e s . American
S o c i e t y of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin.
Ludwick, A. E. 1990. Western f e r t i l i z e r h a n d b o o k - h o r t i c u l t u r e
e d i t i o n . I n t e r s t a t e P u b l i s h e r s , Inc. D a n v i l l e , I l l i n o i s .
279 pp.
Marr, J . W. and B.E. W i l l a r d . 1970. P e r s i s t i n g v e g e t a t i o n in
an a l p i n e r e c r e a t i o n ar ea in t he southern Rocky
Mountains. Colorado. Bi ol . Conserv. 2:97-104.
M a r r s , R. H. and A. D. Bradshaw. 1982. Nitrogen Accumulation,
Cycling and t he Reclamation of China Clay Wastes. J . of
Environmental Management 15:139-157.
McIntyr e, D.S. 1958. Soil s p l a s h and t he formation of s u r f a c e
c r u s t s by r a i n d r op impact. Soil S c i . 85:261-266.
52
McLean, E. 0. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirements., pp. 206-209
In: A. L. Page, R. H. M i l l e r , and D. R. Keeney eds.
Methods of Soil An al y s i s . Number 9 ( P a r t 2) Agronomy
s e r i e s . American S o ci e t y of Agronomy, Inc. Madison,
Wisconsin.
M i l l e r , R. M. 1984.
Di st ur bed Arid
of Di st ur bed
Department of
Microbial Ecology and N u t r i e n t Cycling in
Ecosystems. pp. 1-29 In: Ecological S t u d i e s
Landscapes.
A. J . Dvorak ed. U. S.
Energy, Washington D. C.
Noel, D. 1989. Soil survey f o r Pangea Mining I n c . , Lewis and
Clark and J e f f e r s o n Count ies, Montana. P r e p a r e d . f o r
Pangea Mining I n c . , Helena, Montana. 15 pp.
(Not
Published).
Noel, D. 1990. Basin Creek Mine Vegetati on T r i a l s . Prepared
f o r Basin Creek Mine by Grass-Land, Helena, Montana. .9
pp. (Not Publi s h e d ) .
Norland, M.R., D.L. Vei t h, and S.W. Dewar. 1991. The e f f e c t s
of compost age on t h e i n i t i a l v e g e t a t i v e cover on co a r s e
t a c o n i t e . t a i l i n g on Minnesot a' s Mesabi Iron Range.
Proceedi ngs 1991 N a t 'I Meeting of American Soci e t y of
Sur f ac e Mining and Reclamation, Durango, Colorado, pp.
331-341.
Olen, S. R. and L.A. Dean. 1965. Phosphorous, pp. 1035-1049.
In: C.A. Black e t a l . ed. Methods of s o i l a n a l y s i s .
Number 9 ( P a r t 2) Agronomy s e r i e s . American Soci e t y of
Agronomy, I he. Madison, Wisconsin.
P ar ady, F. E. 1981. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of s e l e c t e d Berkeley p i t
overburden as a medium f o r p l a n t growth. Masters t h e s i s ,
Land r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , . Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman,
' Montana. 83 pp.
P l a s s , W.T. 1982. Organic and i n o r g a n i c amendments a f f e c t
v e g e t a t i o n growth on an a c i d i c mineso.il. U.S.D.A. F o r e s t
S e r v i c e , N o r t h eas t er n For e st Experiment S t a t i o n , Research
Paper NE-502. BroomalI , PA. pp. 1-7.
Reeder, J. D. 1985. Fate of Nit r o g e n - 1 5 - 1 abeled f e r t i l i z e r
n i t r o g e n in r e v e g e t a t e d Cretaceous coal s p o i l s . J . of
Environmental Q u a l i t y 14:126-131.
Reeder, J . D . 1990. Nitrogen c y c l i n g in d i s t u r b e d lands, pp.
122-137. In: W. R. Keammerer and J . Todd. Proceedings:
High A l t i t u d e Revegetati on Workshop No.9 . Colorado Water
Resources I n s t i t u t e . Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ft.
C o l l i n s , Colorado.
53
Reeder t J . D. and B. Sabey. 1987. Ni t r o g e n , pp. 155-184. In:
Williams R. D . , G. E. Schuman ed. 1987. Reclaiming mine
s o i l s and overburden in t h e west ern United S t a t e s . Soil
Co n s er v at i o n S o c i e t y o f America, Ankeny, .Iowa.
Rennickf R. B., P. J . Hertzog, and F. F. Munshower. 1984.
Nati ve s p e c i e s r es p o n s e t o f e r t i l i z e r s on s u r f a c e mined
land.
Reclamation Research
Un i t ,
Montana
State
U n i v e r s i t y , Speci al Report 11. 86 pp.
R e t z e r , J . L . 1974. Alpine s o i l s , pp. 771-802. In: J . D . ^ I v es
and R. G. Barry eds. A r c t i c and Alpine Environments.
Methuen and C o . , L t d . , London, England.
Rhoades, J . D. 1982. Cation exchange c a p a c i t y , pp. 149-157.
In: A. L. Page, R. H. M i l l e r and D. R. Keeney eds .
Methods o f Soil A n a l y s i s . Number 9 ( P a r t 2) Agronomy
s e r i e s , American S o c i e t y o f Agronomy I nc. Madison
Wisconsin.
Roach, D. A. and P. J . Marchand. 1984, Recovery o f a l p i n e
d i s t u r b a n c e s : e a r l y growth and s u r v i v a l in p o p u l a t i o n s o f
n a t i v e s p e c i e s . A r c t i c and Alpine Research 16:37-270.
Rosen, C. , N. Schumacher, R. Mugaas, and I . Hal bach. 1989.
Composting and mulching: A guide t o managing o r g a n i c y ar d
w a s t e s . U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Extension S e r v i c e , Pub.
No. AGFO-3296 S t . Paul, Minnesota.
Rumely, J . H. and M. Lavin. 1991. The Grass F l o r a of Montana.
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Herbarium,
Montana S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, Montana. 81 pp.
Sabey, B. R., W. A. Berg, and M. K. Corwin. 1980. Long term
f e r t i l i t y s t u d y on land d r a s t i c a l l y d i s t u r b e d by o i l
s h a l e development. In: W. C. Cook and E. F. Redente ed s .
Reclamation s t u d i e s on o i l s h a l e lands in n o r t h w e s t e r n
Colorado. Report t o USDOE, Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
Range Sci ence Dept. Ft. C o l l i n s Colorado. 54 pp.
Sabey, B. R., R. L. Pendl e t on, and B. L. Webb. 1990. E f f e c t o f
municipal sewage sl u d g e a p p l i c a t i o n on growth o f two
r e c l a m a t i o n shrub s p e c i e s in copper mine s p o i l s . J . o f
Environmental Q u a l i t y 19:580-586.
Schuman, G. E. and S. E. Belden. 1991. Decomposition o f
Wood-Residue Amendments in Revegetated B e n t o n i t e Mine
S p o i l s . Soil Science S o c i e t y o f America Jo u r na l 55: 76- 80.
Schuman, G. E. and J . F. Power. 1981. Topsoil management on
mined l a n d s . J . of Soil and Water Co n s e r v a t i o n 36: 77- 78.
54
S c o t t , D. and W. D. B i l l i n g s . 1964. E f f e c t s o f environmental
f a c t o r s on s t a n d i n g crop and p r o d u c t i v i t y of an a l p i n e
t u n d r a . E c o l . Monographs 34:243-270.
Seaker, E. M. and W.E. Sopper. 1988\ Municipal sludge f o r mine
s p o i l r e c l a m a t i o n : II E f f e c t s on o r ga n i c m a t t e r . J . of
Environmental Q u a l i t y 17:598-602.
Si kor a, L. J . and M. A. Sowers. 1985. E f f e c t o f t e m p e r a t u r e ,
c o n t r o l on t h e composting p r o c e s s . J . o f Environmental
Q u a l i t y 14:434-439.•
Sims, J . I . 1990. Nitrogen m i n e r a l i z a t i o n and elemental
a v a i l a b i l i t y in s o i l s amended with cocomposted sewage
s l u d g e . J . of Environmental Q u a l i t y 19:669-675.
Sims,
J . R. and V. A. Haby. 1971. S i m p l i f i e d c h l o r i m e t r i c
d e t e r m i n a t i o n of s o i l o r g a n i c m a t t e r . Soil Science
112:137-141.
Sims, J . R. and G. D. Jackson. 1971. Rapid a n a l y s i s of s o i l
n i t r a t e with chromotropic a c i d . Soil Science Soci e t y of
America P r o c . 35:603-606.
Skousen, J. G. 1988. E f f e c t s of sewage sludge a p p l i c a t i o n on a
r e v e g e t a t e d minesoil in West V i r g i n i a . No r t h eas t er n
F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n , Bearea, KY. Bureau of Mines
I nfor mat i on C i r c u l a r IC 9184. pp. 214-220.
Smith, P. L., E.F. Redente, and E. Hooper. 1987. Soil o r ga n i c
m a t t e r , pp. 185-214. In: Williams R. D. and G. E. Scnuman
eds. Reclaiming mine s o i l s and overburden in the west ern
United S t a t e s . Soil Conservation S o c i e t y of America,
Ankeny, Iowa.
Sopper, W. E. and S. N. Kerr. 1981. Revegetati ng Strip-Mined
Land with Municipal Sewage Sludge. U. S. Environmental
P r o t e c t i o n Agency. Municipal Environmental Research
Labor ator y. C i n c i n n a t i , OH. 600/S2-81-182. 7 pp.
S t e u t e v i l i e , R. 1992. What's new in t he waste stream.
BioCycle 33:40-41.
T a y l o r , A. C. 1989. Study and assessment of e i g h t yard waste
composting programs across t h e United S t a t e s . U. S .
Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency. O f f i c e o f Cooperative
Environmental Management. Washington, D.C. No. 530-SW-89038. 47 pp.
Ti I man, D. 1982. Resource competi tion and community s t r u c t u r e .
P r i n c t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press. P r i n c t o n , New J e r s e y . 296 pp.
55
T i s d a l e , S. L and W. L. Nelson. 1985. Soil f e r t i l i t y and
f e r t i l i z e r s . 4th E d i t i o n . Macmillan P u b l i s h i n g . New York,
New York. 634 pp.
Vogel, W. G. and F. M. RothwelI . 1985; Mushroom compost and
papermi11 sludge i n f l u e n c e development o f v e g e t a t i o n and
endomycorrhizae on ac i d coal-mine s p o i l s . N o r t he a s t e r n
F o r e s t Experiment S t a t i o n , Bearea, KY. Bureau of Mines
I nfor mat ion C i r c u l a r 9184. pp 206-213.
Whitford W. G. , E. A. Al don, D. W. Freckman, Y. Stei n b e r g e r ,
and L. W. Parker. 1990. E f f e c t s of o r g an i c amendments on
s o i l b i o t a on a degraded rangelartd. J . of Range
Management 4 3 : 6- 9.
Wi l l i a ms, S. E. 1979. V e s t i c u l a r - a r b u s c u l ar mycorrhizae
associated
with - a C t i nomycete-nodulat ed
shrubs.
Cercocarpus montanus Raf. and Purshia t r i d e n t a t a (Pursh)
D. C. Bot. Gaz. 140:5115-5119.
Woodmansee, R. G., J. D. Reeder, and W.A. Berg. 1978. Nitrogen
in d r a s t i c a l l y d i s t u r b e d l a n d s , pp. 376-392. In: C.T.
Youngberg ed. F o r e s t and Soil Land Use. Department of
F o r e s t and Wood S c i e nc e s , Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Ft.
Col I i n s , Colorado.
APPENDICES
57
APPENDIX A
ABBREVIATIONS
58
Table 14. P l a n t s p e c i e s a b b r e v i a t i o n s .
S c i e n t i f i c Name1
Aaroovron r i pari urn Scri bn. & Smith
Abbrevia t i on
Elvmus trachvcaulurn CLinkl Gould
AGRI
ELTR
A a r o s t i s s t o l o n i f e r a L.
AGST
Alooecurus o r a t e n s i s L.
ALPR
Bromus c a r i n a t u s Hook. & Am.
BRCA
Deschamosia c a e s o i t o s a L.
DECA
Festuca ar undinacea Schreb.
FEAR
Festuca ovina L.
FEOV
Poa compressa L.
POCO
Ast r a a a l us c i c e r L.
ASCI
Lotus c o r n i c u l a t u s L.
LOCO
T r i f o l i u m reoens L.
TRRE
1 Rumely and Lavin 1991
59
APPENDIX B
PRECIPITATION
Table 15. Monthly p r e c i p i t a t i o n d a t a in cm from the Basin Creek Mine (1988-1992).
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
1988
3. 2
3.5
8.9
8.5
2. 7
1.7
1.5
0.0
7.9
1989
4. 1
2.1
7.1
2.2
4. 9
6.3
4.9
7.5
1990
1991
3. 5
7.0
2. 2
3. 2
4.2
8.2
5. 4
16.1
8.1
11.2
5.8
7. 6
2.9
2.6
1992
4. 3
1.9
4. 9
6. 2
4.0
16.5
5.3
Apr
May
Oct
Nov
Dec
0. 0
6.0
0. 0
3.2
4.5
2.4
4.6
8.3
2.0
0. 9
5.1
6.1
3. 0
8.2
7.6
2.8
8.0
2.6
2. 3
10.9
4.7
3.7
CTl
O
APPENDIX C
DATA
62
Table 16. Analysis o f variance for penetrometer readings.
Month
Source
DF
MS
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
July
Treatment
10
6.4
7.25
0.0001
July
Plot
2
1.6
1.85
0.0127
August
Treatment
Pl ot
10
2
1.5
9.96
2.06
0.0001
0.1535
August
0.3
Table I:7. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r p l a n t d e n s i t y .
Pl ant
Source
DF
MS
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
Grass
Treatment
10
243.7
22.08
0.0001
Grass
Pl ot
2
30.8
2.79
0.0855
Forb
Treatment
10
26.4
6.69
0.0001
Forb
Plot
2
0.2
0.04
0.9599
Table 18. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r cover in 1992.
Cover
Source
DF
MS
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
Total
Treatment
10
691.9
8.09
0.0001
Total
Pl ot
2
45.0
0.53
0.5985
Grass
Treatment
10
361.2
6.00
0.0003
Grass
Plot
2
34.1
0.57
0.5759
Forb
Treatment
10
248.0
6.35
0.0002
Forb
Pl ot
2
18.8
0.48
0.6249
Table 19. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r t o t a l p l a n t p r od u c t i o n .
Pro d u c t i o n
Source
DF
MS
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
Total
Treatment
10
16.8
7.75
0.0001
Total
Plot
2
1.8
0.85
0.4417
Table 20. Analysis of v a r i a n c e f o r p l a n t cover by s p e c i e s .
Species
Source
DF
MS
Agri
Treatment
10
Agri
Pl ot
2
8.18
7.33
Eltr
Treatment
10
Eltr
Plot
Agst
Treatment
Agst
Pl Ot
Brca
Treatment
Brca
Plot
Fear
Treatment
Fear
Pl Ot
Feov
Treatment
Feov
Plot
Poco
Treatment
Poco
Pl Ot
Asci
Treatment
Asci
Plot
Loco
Treatment
Loco
Plot
Trr e
Treatment
Trre
Pl Ot
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
3. 52
3. 16
0.0080
0.0643
15.79
4.14
0.0033
2
1.11
0.29
0.7516
10
12.49
1.40
0.2512
2
0.64
0.07
0.0937
10
0.16
1.06
0.4370
2
0.12
0.81
0.4604
10
107.45
5.48
0.0006
2
44.74
2.28
0.1280
10
11.40
1.85
0.1162
2
3.07
0.05
0.6146
10
13.75
1.90
0.1071
2
9.00
1.24
0.3103
10
0.08
1.01
0.4681
2
0.09
1.11
0.3475
10
2.54
1.05
0.4395
2
0.91
0. 38
0.6915
10
225.0
7.75
0.0001
2
26.34
0.91
0.4196
Table 21.
species.
Analysis
of
va r i a n c e
for
plant
pr oduction
Speci es
Source
DF
MS
F - v a l ue
P - v a l ue
Agri
Treatment
10
0.24
3.23
0.0123
Agri
Pl ot
2
0.13
1.75
0.1989
Eltr
Treatment
10
0.33
2.42
0.0447
Eltr
Pl o t
2
0.08
0.63
0.5410
Agst
Treatment
Plot
0.13
0.05
0.92
Agst
10
2
0.36
0.5373
0.7002
Brca
Treatment
10
0.01
0.94
0.5207
Brca
Pl Ot
2
0.01
0.32
0.7272
Fear
Treatment
10
2.67
6.11
0.0003
Fear
Pl ot
2
1.16
2.66
0.0945
Feov
Treatment
10
0.05
1.85
0.1158
Feov
Pl Ot
2
0.03
1.03
0.3760
Poco
Treatment
10
0.16
1.98
0.0933
Poco
Pl Ot
2
0.28
3.46
0.0512
Asci
Treatment
10
0.00
0.00
0.0000
Asci
Pl Ot
2
0.00
0.00
0.0000
Loco
Treatment
10
0.02
3.07
0.0158
Loco
Pl Ot
2
0.01
0.81
0.4570
Trre
Treatment
10
5.31
6.43
0.0002
Trre
Plot
2
0. 68
0.82
0.4535
by
Table 22.
TREATMENT
EKO II
EKO .5 I
EKO IS
EKO .5 S
BOZ II
BOZ .5 I
MINECMBO
FERT I
FERT .5
CONT I
CONT 11
Standard de v i a t i o n f or biomass production by s p e c i e s and treatments.
Agri
1.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eltr
1.4
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.2
1.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
Agst
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
Alpr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brca
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Deca
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fear
2.6
0.9
2.9
1.3
2.1
1.6
0.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
Feov
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.2
Poco
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.1
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
Asci
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Loco
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trre
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 23. Standard d e v i a t i o n for cover by s p e c i e s and treatments.
Treatment
EKO II
EKO .51
EKO IS
EKO .55
BOZ II
BOZ .51
MINECMB
FERT I
FERT .5
CONT I
CONT II
Agri
8.6
3.0
2.3
1.7
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Eltr
6.7
4.4
5.6
2.2
3.4
3.7
1.6
8.9
3.9
0.0
0.0
Agst
0.0
8.3
1.0
2.9
0.6
1.8
10.2
2.2
1.3
0.0
0.3
Al pr
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Brca
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Deca
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Fear
13.1
9.6
15.0
7.0
12.1
9.6
8.4
0.3
4.8
0.0
0.3
Feov
2.8
9.0
2.5
5.7
1.3
2.1
4.3
4.6
5.5
2.1
3.6
Poco
6.6
3.2
8.1
1.7
2.1
2.3
4.6
2.1
2.4
0.0
1.2
Asci
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Loco
1.0
6.7
0.0
1.6
2.6
2.6
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Trre
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
29.2
14.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
cn
CTl
67
Table 24. Grass cover(%) in September 1992.
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
I
0.5
32.0
12.0
3.0
8.0
4.0
13.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
45.0
18.0
3.0
15.0
16.0
2.0
3.5
19.0
26.0
1.0
18.0
21.0
30.0
24.0
10.0
13.0
0.0
16.0
48.0
14.0
0.0
6.5
22.0
2
18.0
20.0
30.0
1.5
36.0
15.0
11.5
5.0
45.0
0.0
39.0
10.0
15.0
36.0
15.0
23.0
14.0
52.0
6.0
1.5
20.0
11.0
7.0
9.0
24.0
11.0
0.0
8.0
39.0
25.0
0.0
3.0
42.0
Frame
3
35.0
30.0
14.0
8.0
15.0
4.0
12.0
4.0
16.0
0.0
38.0
17.0
14.0
38.0
34.0
29.0
16.0
20.0
15.0
1.5
42.0
20.0
70.0
38.5
25.0
10.0
0.0
6.0
57.0
54.0
0.5
4.5
10.0
4
2.0
45.0
8.0
1.0
23.5
16.0
22.0
2.0
65.0
0.0
30.0
6.0
6.0
32.0
32.0
22.0
2.0
30.5
16.0
3.0
23.0
13.0
27.0
17.0
9.0
7.0
0.0
11.0
52.0
30.0
0.0
35.0
10.0
5
1.0
15.0
20.0
4.0
1.0
15.0
12.0
11.5
59.0
0.0
68.0
8.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
26.0
11.0
7.0
8.0
1.5
32.0
9.0
8.5
11.0
25.0
7.0
0.0
1.0
35.0
42.0
8.0
0.5
12.0
68
Table 25.
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Forb cover(%) in September 1992.
Frame
I
2
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
25.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
40.0
76.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
4.0
25.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
70.0
12.0
8.0
4
0.0
15.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
44.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
90.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.0
0.0
7.0
4.0
2.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
34.0
69
Table 26.
Cover(%) by spec i es for each frame.
Species
Plot
frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
I
2
0
0
2
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
18.0
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Total
I
3
0
2
I
0
4
32
0
0
0
0
35.0
I
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2.0
I
5
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
1.0
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
14
4
0
50.0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
10
0
0
30.0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
30.0
60.0
2
4
0
0
0
0
2
35
8
15
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
3
10
2
0
0
0
15.0
3
I
0
0
0
0
4
8
2
0
0
0
12.0
3
2
0
7
0
3
20
0
0
0
0
0
30.0
3
3
0
4
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
14.0
3
4
0
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
0
0
8.0
3
5
0
4
0
0
12
4
0
0
0
0
20.0
0
0
0
0
2
I
0
0
0
0
3.0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
8.0
4
I
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
4
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
4.0
5
I
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8.0
5
2
3
3
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
36.0
5
3
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.0
0
0
0
23.0
5
4
0
12
0
0
I
10
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
1.0
6
I
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
4.0
15.0
6
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4.0
6
4
0
0
0
0
4
12
0
0
0
0
16.0
6
5
0
0
0
0
I
14
0
0
0
0
15.0
7
I
0
8
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
13.0
7
2
0
I
7
0
2
0
I
0
0
0
18.0
7
3
0
5
0
0
0
7
0
25
0
0
37.0
7
4
0
7
0
0
0
15
0
32
10
0
64.0
7
5
0
10
0
0
I
0
I
0
3
0
15.0
0
0
0
0.0
0
0
0
5.0
8
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.0
8
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.0
8
5
0
0
0
0
10
I
0
0
0
0
11.0
9
I
8
0
10
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
30.0
9
2
0
8
30
0
4
0
3
0
4
0
49.0
9
3
0
0
8
0
4
0
4
0
25
0
41.0
9
4
3
0
5
0
12
35
10
0
0
0
65.0
9
5
7
15
15
0
12
0
10
0
10
0
69.0
10
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
10
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
70
Table 26. - Continued.
P lot
frame
AGRI
0
10
5
I
25
11
0
11
2
3
8
11
4
0
11
11
5
15
I
12
I
12
2
0
0
'12
3
4
12
0
12
0
5
0
13
I
0
13
2
0
13
3
4
0
13
0
13
5
14
I
2
14
2
2
14
4
3
14
4
7
14
5
0
15
I
0
15
2
0
0
15
3
4
15
0
15
5
5
15
5
5
16
0
I
16
2
0
16
3
0
0
16
4
16
5
0
0
17
I
17
2
0
17
3
0
0
17
4
17
5
0
18
I
5
18
2
2
18
3
2
18
4
2
18
5
2
19
I
2
19
2
0
0
19
3
4
19
0
0
19
5
20
I
0
0
20
2
0
20
3
ELTR
0
5
15
0
0
20
2
8
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
4
4
5
5
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
4
5
5
5
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
AGST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
22
3
2
I
4
0
0
8
0
0
0
I
0
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
BRCA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FEOV
0
0
4
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
2
3
I
24
28
4
2
8
6
12
5
0
0
0
8
0
6
8
2
2
16
2
3
0
0
7
7
0
4
0
0
0
0
I
I
I
FEAR
0
0
0
25
30
15
15
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
18
0
4
0
15
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
4
2
2
15
I
15
10
8
0
0
0
POCO
0
15
20
0
0
5
0
I
2
4
8
0
0
2
3
0
4
2
0
3
2
0
6
3
2
0
0
2
0
4
8
8
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
15
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
TRRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
40
75
40
20
0
0
0
LOCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
4
4
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
ASCI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0.0
45.0
39.0
38.0
30.0
58.0
18.0
50.0
17.0
10.0
48.0
2.0
15.0
14.0
6.0
6.0
16.0
36.0
36.0
32.0
8.0
20.0
19.0
36.0
36.0
10.0
12.0
2.0
20.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
3.0
14.0
16.0
2.0
11.0
19.0
52.0
20.0
30.0
7.0
36.0
46.0
91.0
60.0
33.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
71
T ab le
P lo t
26.
- C o n tin u ed .
fram e
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
LOCO
ASCI
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
P0C0
TRRE
0
I
0
0
0
T o ta l
1 .0
4
0
0
0
0
0
20
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .0
21
I
0
8
0
0
7
3
0
0
2
0
2 0 .0
20
21
2
0
15
0
0
0
5
0
8
0
0
2 8 .0
21
3
20
4
0
0
4
4
10
0
2
0
4 4 .0
21
4
0
5
0
0
2
8
8
0
0
0
2 3 .0
3
4
3
0
3 9 .0
2 1 .0
21
5
12
5
0
0
0
12
22
I
0
3
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
1 1 .0
0
4
8
0
8
0
0
0
2 0 .0
22
2
0
22
3
0
0
22
4
0
0
0
0
5
8
0
0
0
0
1 3 .0
22
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
1 3 .0
23
I
0
0
15
0
0
5
10
0
0
0
3 0 .0
7 .0
23
2
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7 2 .0
3 3 .0
23
3
0
0
35
2
15
8
10
23
4
0
2
2
0
3
8
12
2
4
0
I
0
8
0
0
0
8 .0
12
4
20
0
0
4 4 .0
23
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
24
I
24
2
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
25
0
0
3 1 .0
24
3
0
0
0
0
I
35
3
4
0
0
4 2 .0
0
0
1 7 .0
1 3 .0
1 0 .0
24
24
4
5
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
2
I
15
10
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
25
I
0
2
5
0
I
I
0
0
25
2
0
4
0
0
I
18
I
0
0
0
2 4 .0
8
0
2
0
0
0
2 3 .0
25
3
0
5
8
0
25
4
0
4
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
9 .0
0
4
5
I
0
0
0
2 5 .0
25
5
0
7
8
26
I
0
0
3
0
I
8
I
0
I
0
1 3 .0
26
2
0
3
0
0
0
5
I
0
I
0
1 0 .0
26
3
0
2
0
0
0
6
I
0
0
0
9 .0
26
4
0
0
I
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
5 .0
0
0
7 .0
26
5
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
0
0
0
0 .0
27
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
27
4
0
0
0
0
27
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
12
0
3
0
0
0
1 6 .0
28
I
0
0
I
0
28
2
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
0
0
0
7 .0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
5 .0
1 0 .0
28
3
0
0
0
28
4
0
0
0
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
28
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .0
29
I
0
2 .
0
0
4
40
2
0
0
0
4 8 .0
29
2
0
5
0
0
5
25
4
0
0
0
3 9 .0
30
15
0
I
0
5 8 .0
10
0
0
0
5 2 .0
3 5 .0
29
3
0
3
0
I
8
29
4
0
4
0
0
8
30
29
5
0
20
0
I
4
10
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
0
0
0
1 4 .0
0
0
18
0
0
0
2 5 .0
30
I
0
2
0
30
2
0
7
0
0
30
3
0
15
4
0
0
20
5
0
0
0
5 4 .0
0
0
3
2
25
0
0
0
3 0 .0
30
4
0
0
72
Table 26. - Continued.
Plot frame
AGRI
0
30
5
0
I
31
0
2
31
0
3
31
0
4
31
0
5
31
0
I
32
0
2
32
0
3
32
0
4
32
0
5
32
0
I
33
0
2
33
0
33
3
0
33
4
0
33
5
ELTR
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
35
1
12
2
0
0
5
AGST
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BRCA
0
FEOV
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FEAR
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
40
10
10
I
POCO
10
0
0
0
0
0
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TRRE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
70
90
27
LOCO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
4
0
0
4
ASCI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
42.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
7.0
3.0
4.0
35.0
1.0
30.0
54.0
80.0
100.0
46.0
73
Table 27. Grass d e n s i t y .
Frame
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
I
29
42
14
5
25
3
18
14
12
I
24
16
5
22
12
20
I
21
29
5
22
3
33
24
18
34
5
5
34
24
3
I
16
2
31
24
9
17
3
3
16
4
16
8
44
24
2
22
34
52
4
34
42
5
19
5
48
39
34
27
2
7
24
25
2
3
17
3
94
13
15
18
32
I
13
0
23
I
44
18
5
60
30
37
5
32
38
6
20
6
62
49
42
25
0
10
55
38
6
I
52
4
42
46
16
14
18
0
17
3
8
6
14
32
2
32
28
24
5
44
36
4
42
2
40
35
39
18
6
12
20
32
2
0
38
5
4
18
12
9
9
10
12
0
4
6
9
10
3
30
13
11
2
6
5
9
I
5
18
3
15
8
8
6
16
32
3
I
16
74
Table
28. Forb d e n s i t y .
Frame
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
I
17
5
5
I
3
0
2
0
8
0
8
4
0
2
0
7
0
3
12
0
I
0
5
11
12
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
2
7
5
5
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
0
14
25
4
0
4
8
I
2
0
15
18
8
4
0
0
6
3
0
0
2
3
64
8
3
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
4
2
0
8
17
17
0
0
18
I
7
0
24
7
10
7
0
0
3
I
0
0
8
4
4
7
3
I
3
0
4
0
I
0
3
6
0
12
16
4
0
0
10
I
3
0
16
8
0
2
0
I
2
2
0
0
5
5
0
3
I
I
0
0
4
0
0
0
I
0
0
9
3
0
0
2
I
0
I
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
3
75
Table 29.
Grass density along transect 2.
Frame
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
I
29
42
14
5
25
3
18
14
12
I
24
16
5
22
12
20
I
21
29
5
22
3
33
24
18
34
5
5
34
24
3
I
16
2
31
24
9
17
3
3
16
4
16
8
44
24
2
22
34
52
4
34
42
5
19
5
48
39
34
27
2
7
24
25
2
3
17
3
94
13
15
18
32
I
13
0
23
I
44
18
5
60
30
37
5
32
38
6
20
6
62
49
42
25
0
10
55
38
6
I
52
4
42
46
16
14
18
0
17
3
8
6
14
32
2
32
28
24
5
44
36
4
42
2
40
35
39
18
6
12
20
32
2
0
38
5
4
18
12
9
9
10
12
0
4
6
9
10
3
30
13
11
2
6
5
9
I
5
18
3
15
8
8
6
16
32
3
I
16
76
Table
30.
Forb d e n s i t y along t r a n s e c t 2.
Frame
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
I
17
5
5
I
3
0
2
0
8
0
8
4
0
2
0
7
0
3
12
0
I
0
5
11
12
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
2
7
5
5
2
I
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
0
14
25
4
0
4
8
I
2
0
15
18
8
4
0
0
6
3
0
0
2
3
64
8
3
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
4
2
0
8
17
17
0
0
18
I
7
0
24
7
10
7
0
0
3
I
0
0
8
4
4
7
3
I
3
0
4
0
I
0
3
6
0
12
16
4
0
0
10
I
3
0
16
8
0
2
0
I
2
2
0
0
5
5
0
3
I
I
0
0
4
0
0
0
I
0
0
9
3
0
0
2
I
0
I
0
7
0
3
0
0
0
2
10
0
0
3
Table 31.
Production by species.
S p ecie s
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
I
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .5 0
I
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 8
0 .0 0
0 .1 8
0 .8 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
I
3
0 .0 0
0 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .1 8
2 .2 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
I
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
I
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .3 2
0 .0 0
1 .0 5
0 .7 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .9 1
0 .0 0
0 .9 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .8 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
4 .0 5
1 .6 8
2 .1 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3
2
0 .0 0
1 .3 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3
5
0 .0 0
1 .0 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
4
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
4
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .5 0
4
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
4
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
4
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5
I
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8 .2 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5
3
0 .0 0
0 .7 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5
4
0 .0 0
1 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
Table 31.
Plot
-Continued
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
6
I
0 .0 0
6
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .2 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
6
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
6
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
6
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7
I
0 .0 0
1 .5 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7
3
0 .0 0
0 .8 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .7 6
0 .0 0
4 .3 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7
4
0 .0 0
3 .2 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .7 7
0 .0 0
5 .4 7
0 .5 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7
5
0 .0 0
0 .7 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2
0 .0 0
0 .2 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8
8
.
8
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .3 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
9
I
1 .2 6
0 .0 0
2 .5 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .3 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
9
2
0 .0 0
0 .9 1
5 .4 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
9
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .8 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
9
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 2
2 .6 0
0 .7 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
9
5
0 .6 2
3 .2 8
1 .1 7
0 .0 0
0 .3 4
0 .0 0
1 .5 3
0 .0 0
0 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
10
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
10
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
10
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
10
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
10
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
11
I
5 .4 0
0 .7 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .3 9
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
Table 31
Continued.
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
11
2
0 .0 0
2 .5 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .6 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
11
3
1 .3 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 0
5 .6 0
11
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8 .1 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
11
5
2 .4 4
5 .3 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .5 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 0 .0 0
12
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .8 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7 .3 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
12
2
0 .0 0
1 .8 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
12
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .7 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
12
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
12
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
13
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
13
2
0 .0 0
1 .6 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
13
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .7 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
13
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
13
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
14
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .9 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
14
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .9 1
1 .4 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
14
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .9 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
14
4
1 .0 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .7 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
14
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
15
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
15
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .4 9
0 .0 0
0 .3 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
15
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .9 9
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
15
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 3
4 .7 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
15
5
0 .2 1
0 .9 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
15
5
0 .2 1
0 .9 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
16
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
Table 31.
Continued
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
16
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 5
0 .0 0
0 .5 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
16
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .3 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
16
4
0 .0 0
0 .9 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 8
0 .0 0
0 .9 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 0
0 .6 7
0 .8 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
16
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
17
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
17
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .7 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
17
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .9 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
17
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
17
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
18
I
1 .0 7
3 .1 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
18
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
8 .7 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
18
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
18
4
0 .0 0
0 .2 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 2
0 .0 0
1 .4 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
18
5
0 .0 0
0 .2 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
19
I
0 .0 0
. 1 .0 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .4 6
0 .0 0
1 .01
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
19
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
5 .4 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
19
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .2 4
0 .0 0
1 2 .9 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
19
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 5
0 .0 0
5 .0 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
19
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 5
0 .0 0
4 .8 0
0 .8 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
20
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
20
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
20
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
20
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
20
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
21
I
0 .0 0
0 .7 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
21
2
0 .0 0
1 .6 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 6
0 .0 0
0 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
Table 31.
- Continued
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
21
3
4 .1 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0.51
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
21
4
0 .0 0
0 .7 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 5
0 .7 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
21
5
1 .0 9
1 .0 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .9 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
22
I
0 .0 0
0 .1 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .7 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
22
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 5
0 .0 0
0 .1 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
22
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .1 9
0 .4 7
0 .0 0
0 .7 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
22
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 5
0 .3 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
22
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
23
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .2 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .8 5
1 .3 0
23
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
23
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .3 4
0 .0 0
1 .0 5
2 .7 5
1.6 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
23
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .2 2
1 .8 3
23
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 9
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
24
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .4 4
1 .0 6
0 .3 7
2 .6 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
24
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 2
0 .0 0
5 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
24
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .9 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
24
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
6 .5 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
24
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .6 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
25
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
25
2
0 .0 0
0 .5 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .1 5
25
3
0 .0 0
0 .5 6
0 .8 8
0 .0 0
0 .4 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
25
4
0 .0 0
0 .4 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
25
5
0 .0 0
0 .6 4
0 .8 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
26
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .1 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
26
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .7 9
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
26
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .6 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
Table 31.
C o n t inued.
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
26
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
26
5
0 .0 0
0 .4 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
27
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
1 .1 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
27
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
27
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
27
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
27
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
1 .0 0
28
1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .5 1
0 .0 0
28
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .1 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
28
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
28
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 9
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
28
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
29
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7 .0 7
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
29
2
0 .0 0
1 .2 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .2 5
0 .8 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
29
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 4
2 .4 8
3 .0 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
29
4
0 .0 0
0 .8 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .3 1
3 .2 8
0 .8 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
29
5
0 .0 0
2 .7 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
30
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .2 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
30
2
0 .0 0
0 .4 1
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
30
3
0 .0 0
2 .0 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .4 8
0 .6 6
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
30
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .1 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
30
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .2 1
1 .1 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .0 0
31
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
31
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
31
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
31
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
Table 31.
- Continued.
Plot
Frame
AGRI
ELTR
AGST
BRCA
FEOV
FEAR
POCO
TRRE
LOCO
ASCI
Unkn
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
31
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .4 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
32
I
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .2 4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
32
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
32
3
0 .0 0
0 .6 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
32
4
0 .0 0
4 .9 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
32
5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
33
I
0 .0 0
2 .3 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
2 .2 3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .8 8
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
33
2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
7 .9 3
0 .0 0
1.01
0 .5 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
1 2 .2 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
33
3
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .4 2
0 .0 0
33
4
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .3 3
0 .0 0
33
5
0 .0 0
1 .0 5
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .8 0
1 4 .5 2
0 .0 0
0 .0 0
0 .4 0
0 .0 0
3 .0 0
OO
CO
84
Table
32.
Penetrometer July
1992.
Random location number
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I
3 .7 5
1 .7 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .7 5
3 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2
2 .2 5
4 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .7 5
1 .7 5
4 .0 0
2 .7 5
4 .0 0
3 .7 5
3 .5 0
4
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
4 .0 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
5
1 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
1 .2 5
2 .0 0
6
2 .5 0
1 .2 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
7
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
2 .7 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
8
2 .2 5
1 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
9
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
1 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3 .0 0
10
5 .0 1
0 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
11
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
2 .0 0
3 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
2 .2 5
4 .2 5
12
3 .2 5
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .0 0
13
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
14
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
4 .2 5
3 .2 5
15
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .2 5
4 .5 0
16
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .2 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
4 .2 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
3 .0 0
4 .5 0
3 .5 0
17
2 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
18
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
19
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
20
1 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
21
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
22
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
3 .7 5
3 .5 0
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
23
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
24
2 .5 0
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
25
3 .7 5
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .2 5
26
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
3 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
27
3 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
28
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .7 5
3 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
29
3 .2 5
3 .0 0
1 .0 0
1 .7 5
3 .0 0
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
30
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .2 5
4 .0 0
3 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .5 0
31
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
32
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
33
3 .7 5
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
3 .5 0
85
Table 33.
Penetrometer August 1992.
Random location number
Plot
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 .7 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .7 5
3 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
I
3 .7 5
2
2 .2 5
4 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .7 5
1 .7 5
4 .0 0
2 .7 5
4 .0 0
3 .7 5
4
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
4 .0 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
1 .2 5
2 .0 0
5
1 .5 0
6
2 .5 0
1 .2 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
7
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
2 .7 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
8
2 .2 5
1 .5 0
4 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
3 .0 0
9
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
1 .5 0
10
5 .0 1
0 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
1 .7 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
11
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
1 .5 0
2 .0 0
3 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
1.50
2 .2 5
12
3 .2 5
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .0 0
4 .2 5
13
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .7 5
1 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
4 .2 5
3 .2 5
3 .2 5
4 .5 0
14
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .7 5
15
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .0 0
16
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .2 5
3 .2 5
2 .7 5
4 .2 5
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
3 .0 0
17
2 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .5 0
18
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
19
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
20
1 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
2 .5 0
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
21
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
1 .7 5
1 .7 5
22
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
3 .7 5
3 .5 0
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
23
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
24
2 .5 0
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .2 5
25
3 .7 5
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
2 .2 5
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
26
2 .7 5
3 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .5 0
1 .75
3 .0 0
2 .2 5
2 .7 5
2 .7 5
4 .5 0
27
3 .2 5
1 .7 5
2 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .7 5
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
2 .5 0
28
4 .5 0
4 .2 5
1 .7 5
3 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
29
3 .2 5
3 .0 0
1 .0 0
1 .7 5
3 .0 0
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .7 5
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
30
2 .0 0
1 .5 0
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
2 .2 5
1 .2 5
31
4 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .0 0
3 .0 0
2 .0 0
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
3 .5 0
2 .5 0
4 .5 0
32
4 .5 0
3 .2 5
2 .0 0
4 .5 0
2 .5 0
2 .5 0
1 .7 5
4 .5 0
3 .0 0
2 .2 5
33
3 .7 5
2 .5 0
2 .2 5
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
4 .0 0
4 .5 0
1 .5 0
3 .5 0
2 .5 0
3 1762
*
I