Main Findings and Implication 

The boxplot shows the CWM SLA comparison of reference forest and reclaimed well pad. There is a significant difference in CWM SLA  between reference forest (M =89.3, SD = 26.1 ) and reclaimed well pad (M = 50.4, SD = 18.8); t(df) = 6.467, p < 0.001. 

The graph showed the linear regression for the reclaimed well pad’s recovery pattern (CWM SLA) by age post-certification and the boxplot showed the CWM SLA for reference forest as reference. The fitted regression model was y = 56-0.2x, and the regression was no statistically significant (R2 = 0.02, F(1, 23) = 0.477, p = 0.497).

Conclusion:


Management Implication: