266 Yahner and Hutnik: Integrated Vegetation Management on ROW Table 2. Cover type in wire zones and border zones of ten treatment units at the Green Lane Research and Demonstration Area in June 2003 and June 2004. F = forb, G = grass, S = shrub, and T = tree. The symbol “>” implies a greater proportion of this cover type; the symbol “=” implies relatively similar amounts of this cover type. Cover type Wire zone Treatment/replicate unit 2003 Mechanical units Handcut HC-1 HC-2 Mowing M-1 M-2 Herbicidal units Mowing plus herbicide MH-1 MH-2 Foliage spray F-1 F-2 Stem–foliage spray SF-1 SF-2 G>F>S G>S=F S=F F=G>S S>G>F S>F S>F=G S>F>G F>G>S F>G>S S>G>F S=G=F S>F>G F=G>S S>F S>F F>S F>S F>G>S S=F S>F S>F F>S>G S=F wire zones and 6.7 m (22.0 ft) in border zones on the Green Lane Research and Demonstration Area (Yahner and Hutnik 2004a). As a consequence of these heights of target trees, which were greater than those recorded in 1999 prior to the last treatment, the Green Lane ROW was treated again in July–August 2004. In both 2003 and 2004, shrubs and forbs were the most important cover types in wire zones of all treatment units, but grass cover type was important in wire zones of five of the ten units (Table 2) (Yahner and Hutnik 2004a). These results were similar to those observed in 1999 on the Green Lane ROW. Trees were a major cover type in handcut units. If vegetation were sampled in late July rather than earlier in the year, forbs perhaps would be better represented in cover types. The major shrub in wire zones of all units was Rubus, whereas the principal shrub in border zones was Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) was the dominant forb in most treatment units. IVM of a ROW is a “tree resistant” but not a “tree proof ” means of reducing tree invasion (Bramble et al. 1996). Competition with existing plants and wildlife predation on tree seeds on a ROW managed via the wire–border zone method keep tree invasion to a minimum. Thus, over the years since 1987, IVM and the wire–border zone method of ROW maintenance have increased the time between treatment cycles, thereby reducing labor and chemical costs for mainte- nance (Bramble et al. 1996; Yahner and Hutnik 2004b). ©2005 International Society of Arboriculture 2004 S>F>T S>T F>S S=F S>F Border zone 2003 2004 S>T=F S>T=F S=F F>S>G S>F S>t S > F S=F S>F>T S>F>G S>F In summary, the plant community present on the Green Lane Research and Demonstration Area has remained relatively stable over the years since the onset of IVM and the wire–border zone method of maintenance in 1987. The result has been an excellent demonstration of how ROW maintenance can have multiple benefits to utility companies and wildlife (e.g., Yahner 2004). Recently, electric utility companies have recommended that IVM and the wire– border zone method be used on both new and existing ROW to mitigate undesirable tree invasion and possible power outages in the future (Burns 2004). LITERATURE CITED Bramble, W.C., and W.R. Byrnes. 1996. Integrated vegetation management of an electric utility right-of- way ecosystem. Down to Earth 51(1):29–34. Bramble, W.C., W.R. Byrnes, R.J. Hutnik, and S.A. Liscinsky. 1991. Prediction of cover type on rights-of- way after maintenance treatments. J. Arboric. 17:38–43. ———. 1996. Interference factors responsible for resistance of forb–grass cover types to tree invasion on an electric right-of-way. J. Arboric. 22:99–105. Bramble, W.C., W.R. Byrnes, R.J. Hutnik, S.A. Liscinsky, and R.H. Yahner. 1998. Green Lane Research Project. Annual Report to Cooperators. School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 26 pp. Burns, M.F. (Ed.) 2004. Utility Vegetation Management Final Report. CN Utility Consulting, LLC, Novato, CA. 128 pp. Yahner, R.H. 2004. Wildlife response to over 50 years of vegetation maintenance on a Pennsylvania right-of-way. J. Arboric. 30:123–126. Yahner, R.H., and R.J. Hutnik. 2004a. Green Lane Research and Demonstration Project: 18 Years of continuous study. Annual Report to Cooperators. School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 28 pp. ———. 2004b. Integrated vegetation management on an electric transmission right-of-way in Pennsylvania, U.S. J. Arboric. 30:295–300. Yahner, R.H., R.J. Hutnik, and S.A. Liscinsky. 2003a. Green Lane Research and Demonstration Project: 17 Years of Continuous Study. Annual Report to Cooperators. School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 28 pp. ———. 2003b. State Game Lands 33 Research and Demonstration Project: 51 Years of Continuous Study. Annual Report to Cooperators. School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 38 pp. Yahner, R.H., W.C. Bramble, W.R. Byrnes, R.J. Hutnik, and S.A. Liscinsky. 1999. Green Lane Research Project. Annual Report to Cooperators. School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, University Park, PA. 37 pp.
September 2005
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
AI Assistant
Ask anything about this document
AI is thinking…
Ai generated response may be inaccurate.
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
Enter a description for this bookmark
Your form submission was a success. You will be contacted by Washington Gas with follow-up information regarding your request.
This process might take longer please wait
