3. It is problematical whether within-plot variation would have been better de-* 

 fined by more intensive sampling. The decision to use four transects per plot was 

 primarily to provide a suitable workload for sampling a large number of replications"^ 



RESULTS OF TREATMENTS 'j 



Number of plants of all species ranged from 1 to 33 per square foot for the 2 

 years studied. In 1957 the average density for all treatments was 9.4 plants per 

 square foot; the next year the count was 10.7 plants per square foot if the 21 grazed' 

 plots are excluded, or 8.5 plants if the plots are included. The difference in counts 

 between years was not significant. The high count observed in the third growing • 

 season indicates that the reseeding trial as a whole was successful in establishing an» 

 adequate stand of grass under the current climatic conditions. The reseeding study 

 was conducted during a wet climatic period when growing-season moisture was probably^^^ 

 quite favorable for grass establishment, regardless of treatment. Thus, the conclu- 5 

 sions from this experiment might be different in years of drought. 



This performance fell below that reported by Bethlahmy (I) for the Cascade Range'' 

 of Oregon. There, on logging roads, where precipitation measures 110 inches per year,^* 

 an average count of 31 plants per square foot was observed. In northeastern Washingtoni 

 from adaptation tests of 18 forage species broadcast seeded, Evanko (3) found that -^.^V 

 counts ranged from 0.2 to 22 plants per square foot. His tests were not carried out on~' 

 logging roads, however, but in ashes of a freshly burned lodgepole pine stand on a -r-.^ 

 shallow, well-drained soil derived from granite. - 



Table 1 gives the average number of plants per square foot and percent of ground 

 cover for 1957 and 1958 data by scarification treatment, with and without wood-chip 

 mulch. This table shows, for example, the generally higher number of plants on north- 

 east aspect plots and on unmulched plots; and the s light ■ superiority of the scarify- 

 and-seed treatment over the other three. Two plots representative of low and high 

 average number of plants per square foot are shouTi in figures 1 and 2. 



Table 1. Average plant density and percent general cover according to treatment and 



aspect, Little Owl logging road 



Scarification and 

 other treatments^ 







Southwest aspect 









Northeast 



aspect 





iPlants 



per sq. 



ft. 



Percent ground 



cover . 



Plants per 



sq. 



ft. ; 



Percent 



ground cover 



: 1957 



: 1958 



1957 : 



1958 



1957 i 



1958 : 



1957 



i 1958 _ 



Seed (control) : 





























Without wood-chip 



























5.8 



mulch 



10 



3 



6 



.9 



7.0 



7.3 



11 



1 



8 



.6 



13 







With mulch 



6 



7 



6 



.9 



5.9 



5.2 



12 



8 



12 



.5 



7 



1 



5.4 



Seed, harrow: 





























Without mulch 



10 



7 



10 



.1 



7.6 



6.1 



11 



6 



9 



.4 



8 



5 



6.2 



With mulch 



5 



1 



5 



.6 



1.5 



5.2 



7 



1 



6 



.8 



4 



1 



2.4 



Seed, scarify: 





























Without mulch 



6 



5 



6 



.2 



5.2 



6.2 



11 







9 



.0 



19 



8 



5.S 



With mulch 



5 



9 



7 



.2 



5.5 



5.7 



7 



4 



8 



.1 



3 



8 



3.5 



Scarify, seed: 





























Without mulch 



10 



9 



13 



.5 



8.0 



7.5 



14 



.4 



11 



.3 



16 



9 



4.6 



With mulch 



8 







8 



.0 



2.8 



5.9 



10 



.4 



8 



.6 



4 



4 



3.3 



^Figures for treatments combine results for the treatment alone and the treatment plus fertiliser. 



4 



