Table 21 — Analysis of variance and nnultiple comparisons for relative cover after trampling and after 1 year 

 of recovery in North Carolina's Great Smoky Mountains 



After trampling After 1 year 



Source df F p df F p 



Number of passes 



3 90.0 0.0001 



3 



10.5 0.0001 



Vegetation type 



3 43.4 .0001 



3 



4.7 .005 



Interaction 



9 1.4 .19 



9 



0.8 .60 





Significantly different treatments 







Number of passes 



25>75>200>500 





25>200,500; 75>500 



Vegetation types^ 



C>A,P>D 





D>A 



^Vegetation types: C = Car ex, A = Amphicarpa, P = Panicum, D = Dryopteris. 



betv^^een vegetation types were similar to those in New 

 Hampshire and less pronounced than in Washington 

 and Colorado. 



One year after trampling, vegetation loss remained 

 most pronounced in the Amphicarpa type. Relative 

 cover was 50 percent on the 500-pass lanes and 71 per- 

 cent on the 25-pass lanes. The only other lanes on 

 which relative cover remained substantially reduced 

 were the 200- and 500-pass lanes in Carex. All other 



lanes had relative cover of 70 percent or more. Al- 

 though relative cover was greatest in the Dryopteris 

 type, this measure of recovery is misleading. Much 

 of the increase in cover came from the fronds of ferns 

 rooted outside of the trampling lanes leaning over the 

 lanes. A visual assessment after the year of recovery 

 would suggest that damage was least in the Potentilla 

 type. 



(A) T Carex pensylvanica 



1 year after trampling 

 ^— After trampling 



(B) Potentilla simplex 



100 200 300 400 500 100 



Number of Passes 



Figure 29 — Relative vegetation cover after trampling and after 1 year of recov- 

 ery in four vegetation types in North Carolina's Great Smoky Mountains. Verti- 

 cal bars represent 1 standard error above and below the mean. 



39 



