Conclusions

• Treatment radius and brushing year did not significantly influence spruce growth.

• Spruce growth was negatively influenced by competing vegetation;  however, this relationship was inconsistent and weakly correlated.
  

Hypothesis for Poor Treatment Performance

• Competing vegetation has not overwhelmed the subject spruce;  therefore, competitve interactions are weak, and brushing treatments are ineffective.
  
• The brushing treatments are too "new" to have a profound effect.  The most recent treatment occurred this spring.
• Site and treatment interactions are skewing growth trends.  For example, Site C was mounded while Sites A and B were not.
  
• Other confounding factors are influencing spruce growth (e.g. soil pH, nutrient availability, insect damage, variable microclimates, etc.)
  

Concluding Thoughts

• Plant growth in an uncontrolled environment can be very inconsistent and highly unpredictable.
• Experimental designs, treatments, and/or selected sites must assure a quantifyable response.
• Parametric statistics are preferable (when possible) and allow multi-factor tests.
• A balanced treatment design would have been helpful, particularly to run a permutational ANOVA.