Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Diagram of an electric transmission ROW divided into a wire zone and 2 border zones. Low-growing tree species and tall shrubs were retained only in border zones.
- Figure 2.
Stem-foliage sprayed ROW with hayscented fern in the wire zone (W) and witch-hazel in the border zones (B).
- Figure 3.
Deer days per hectare on treatment areas and in the adjoining forest for 1982 (pretreatment) and in 1983 and 1984 (post-treatment).
Tables
- Table 2.
White-tailed deer habitat factor ratings and habitat values on ROW treatment areas in 1982 (pretreatment) and in 1983 and 1984 (post-treatment). Each value is an average of 4,10m × 55m, transects on 2 treatment replications.
ROW Treatments Handcutting Summer basal Stem-foliage Pellet Frill & Squirt Adjoining Forest Habitat factors ’82 ’83 ’84 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’82 ’83 ’84 ’82 ’83 ’84 Direct factors rated 2-10 Food plant abundance 6.1 7.5 5.6 7.5 7.8 8.1 9.8 6.0 6.5* 9.0 6.5 5.9* 8.0 8.0 6.7 7.3 7.3 5.7 Food plant diversity 9.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 7.0 7.5 10.0 6.0 6.5* 10.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 7.0 7.8 6.6 7.5 Low plant cover 6.0 10.0 9.0* 10.0 10.0 9.0 7.0 10.0 10.0* 8.0 6.0 9.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.0 9.8 8.0 Tall shrub cover 9.0 6.0 7.5 5.0 6.0 4.5 7.0 6.8 4.5 6.0 4.0 5.0 8.0 8.0 5.5 4.0 5.2 5.7 Average 7.5 7.9 7.5 8.1 7.7 7.3 8.5 7.2 6.9 8.3 5.6 7.1 9.0 9.0 7.3 7.0 7.2 6.7 Indirect factors rated 1-5 External shrub borders 4.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 3.3 3.0 3.5 2.8 4.7 3.5 4.0 – – – Typeinterspersion 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.2 2.0 Stage in succession 5.0 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 2.4 2.4 2.0 Average 4.0 4.2 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.7 4.5 3.9 4.2 3.8 4.0 2.2 2.3 2.1 Habitat value1 7.7 8.1 7.5 8.1 7.8 7.5 8.3 7.8 7.3 8.0 6.7 7.3 8.8 8.5 7.5 6.1 6.3 5.9 Habitat class2 H H H H H H H H H H M H H H H M M M Percent browsed Value used 50% or more 70% 10 to 50% 30% 5 to 10% 5% trace to 5% 2.5% Cover percent Value used Less than 5% 2.5 5-25% 15.0 25-50% 37.5 50-75% 62.5 75-100% 87.5 - Table 3.
Deer browsing of woody and herbaceous vegetation and utilization factors in ROW wire and border zones of treatment areas and in the adjoining forest.
Wire zone Woody N. border zone S. border zone ROWav. Adjoining forest Treatment Woody Herb. Woody Herb. Woody Herb. Woody Herb. Woody Herb. Percent browsed Handcutting 10.6 2.5 5.0 2.5 4.4 2.5 6.7 2.5 11.3 2.5 Summer basal 3.8 2.5 4.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.6 2.5 10.6 2.5 Stem-foliage 16.9 3.3 12.5 2.5 10.0 2.5 13.1 2.8 9.4 2.5 Pellet 32.5 4.4 3.1 3.8 3.3 2.5 13.0 3.6 7.5 5.0 Frill & squirt 6.3 4.1 10.6 3.1 4.4 3.1 7.1 3.1 10.0 1.9 Average 14.0 3.2 7.1 2.9 4.9 2.6 8.7 2.9 9.8 2.9 Utilization factor1 Handcutting 544 85 407 56 248 35 400 59 452 75 Summer basal 114 128 209 128 128 116 150 124 398 63 Stem-foliage 169 33 104 150 288 172 187 118 435 53 Pellet 62 226 83 261 196 44 114 177 385 169 Frill & squirt 323 159 358 194 105 252 262 202 475 59 Average 242 126 232 158 193 124 223 136 429 84 1 Utilization factor = % browsed × % cover.
- Table 1.
Cost-effectiveness quotient (CEQ),1 based on application cost and stem reduction, for comparing ROW maintenance treatments
Treatment Application cost per 1000 stems $ Reduction of stem density % CEQ Stem-foliage 90 73 123 Summer basal 142 71 200 Pellet 239 80 299 Frill & squirt 143 43 333 Handcutting 143 23 622 ↵1 See text
Trees and shrubs Fruit Leaves and twigs Bear oak Bear oak Blackberry Blackberry Black cherry Black cherry Blueberry Blueberry Hawthorn Hawthorn Other oaks Teaberry Red maple Sassafras Sweetfern Witch-hazel Other oaks Herbaceous plants Stems and leaves Goldenrod Loosestrife Bracken Sedge Panic grass Fescue Sheep sorrel Wild sarsaparilla
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.