Skip to main content
Journal ArticleOPEN ACCESS

Strategies for Restoring Native Riparian Understory Plants Along the Sacramento River: Timing, Shade, Non-native Control, and Planting Method

  • et al.
San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science (2011) 9(2)
DOI: 10.15447/sfews.2011v9iss2art1
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Nowhere are tensions between motorists, bicyclists and buses higher than in San Francisco, the birthplace of the freeway revolts, the Transit First ordinance, and Critical Mass. In Street Fight, geographer Jason Henderson offers a fresh perspective into the battle for limited urban road space, delving into the ideologies underlying the politics of mobility. Released this spring, his first book proves a provocative read for those engaged in sustainability and urban livability debates

Figures

  • Table 1 Study species including their growth and dispersal forms, seeding rates in the canopy-herbicide experiment, and shadehouse germination. Nomenclature follows Hickman (1993).
  • Figure 1 Percent cover of unplanted understory vegetation in new open, old open, and old canopy plots with (herbicide) and without (control) GSH. Error bars are 1 SE of total unplanted understory cover. Other includes sedges, rushes, and shrubs. The vast majority (>98% in all treatments) of unplanted grass and forb cover was non-native.
  • Figure 2 Percent survival of seedlings planted in the new open, old open, and old canopy treatments 2.5 years after planting (May 2008). Error bars are 1 SE. Means of the same species with the same letter are not significantly different across treatment using Tukey’s mean comparison procedure. N = 22 to 24 plots per treatment. Full species names are listed in Table 1.
  • Figure 3 Total foliar cover of individual seedlings planted in the new open, old open, and old canopy treatments 2.5 years after planting (May 2008). Error bars are 1 SE. Means of the same species with the same letter are not significantly different across treatment using Tukey’s mean comparison procedure. Numbers on x-axis are number of plots (out of 22 for new open and 24 for other treatments) with seedlings surviving to compare cover value; nd = no data for cover because there were no surviving seedlings. Full species names are listed in Table 1.
  • Figure 4 Number of seedlings/number of viable seeds in seeding plots in June 2007 (A) and May 2008 (B) in the new, old open, and canopy treatments. Error bars are 1 SE. Means of the same species with the same letter are not significantly different across treatment using Tukey’s mean comparison procedure. Full species names are listed in Table 1. Euthamia and Carex data are not shown because of insufficient germination.
  • Table 3 Percentage of seedlings planted in 2006 and 2007 surviving in four shade treatments by May 2008. X2 (4 levels) compares all four PAR reduction levels. X2 (open vs. shade) compares 0% PAR reduction with all other levels combined.

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Moore, P. L., Holl, K. D., & Wood, D. M. (2011). Strategies for Restoring Native Riparian Understory Plants Along the Sacramento River: Timing, Shade, Non-native Control, and Planting Method. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15447/sfews.2011v9iss2art1

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘16‘18‘19‘20‘21‘2300.751.52.253

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

71%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

14%

Researcher 1

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Environmental Science 8

62%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4

31%

Engineering 1

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0