Table 1.

Mean comparison (± 1 SE) of ECM, chestnut tree growth and herbaceous vegetation from various reclamation sites: Zeb Mountain, Mountain Side and Premium. The same letters subscripted above SE do not differ at α = 0.05 based on a Tukey's HSD with an F(2,9).

Mean	Zeb	Mountain	Premium	Test stat	p
Tree survival (%)	39%	35%	26%	X² = 3.19^†	0.20
Tree height (m)	2.3 ± 1.7^a	2.0 ± 2.8^a	1.4 ± 2.9^b	F = 6.37	0.02	_*
Root collar dia. (cm)	4.1 ± 0.2^a	2.8 ± 0.4^b	1.8 ± 0.1^c	F =23.60	0.003	_*
Chestnut canopy (%)	53.1 ± 5.1^a	46.4 ± 5.2^a	32.9 ± 5.1^b	F = 4.06	0.02	_*
Herbaceous cover (%)	85.0 ± 1.4^a	70.0 ± 13.7^b	41.0 ± 5.2^c	X² = 30.7^‡	<0.001	_*
Groundcover litter (%)	13.4 ± 2.1^a	11.8 ± 3.1^a	27.9 ± 2.6^b	F = 11.9	<0.001	_*
Bare ground (%)	0.1 ± 2.1^a	15.7 ± 3.3^b	18.6 ± 2.7^b	X² = 40.7^‡	<0.001	_*
No. of herbaceous spp.	2.6 ± 0.8^b	5.1 ± 0.8 ^b	9 ± 0.8^a	F =13.01	0.002	_*
ECM (%) on roots	0.85 ± 0.02	0.78 ± 0.04	0.87 ± 0.06	F = 1.23	0.34
No. of ECM spp.	4.75 ± 0.48	6.00 ± 1.00	3.75 ± 0.48	X² = 4.68^‡	0.10

Table displays resulting ANOVA followed by a Tukey's Post-hoc test unless denoted by:

^† Indicates Chi-square used for survival data.

^‡ Indicates Kruskal-Wallis analysis followed by a Dunn's post hoc test.