File:Hartema et al 2018 willow pole diameter in reed canarygrass.pdf

Document

A document is a written record related to an effort or topic

Last Ten Documents

• Hanson et al. 2021 seasonal diet killer whale
• Tuohy et al. 2018 chum non-natal habitat use.pdf
• Koski 2009 coho nomads
• Hayes et al. 2019 non-natal marine basin use
• Glasgow and Jorgenson 2022 eDNA identifies non-natal fish use.pdf
• ESA et al. 2022 coastal stream and embayment fish access framework.pdf
• Bloch et al. 2019 coastal stream and embayment restoration prioritization.pdf
• Bennett et al. 2014 early coho outmigrants contribute to adult spawning
• Apgar et al. 2020 range-wide subyearling chinook alternative strategies
• Science Sprint Fact Sheet.pdf

• Google scholar search

Wiki Rules

• Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
• Please adhere to our social contract
• Complain here, and be nice.

What Links To This Page?

• Documents ‎ (← links)
• Restoration ‎ (← links)
• Cutting and Livestake Production, Processing and Installation (file link) ‎ (← links)
• Vegetation and Revegetation ‎ (← links)
• Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass) (file link) ‎ (← links)

Hartema, L, J. Latterell, P. Adler, and C. Toal. 2018. Effect of pole diameter on willow performance over five years in wetlands dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea). King County Water and Land Resources Division. Seattle, WA.

Notes

• While thicker cuttings provided coverage faster, after 5 years both 1/2" cuttings and 2" provided canopy closure with 6' poles at 3' spacing.
• Reed canarygrass was not suppressed under willow canopy after 5 years.