Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T05:53:07.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Site Preparation Methods for Weed Control in Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Plantations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas O. Lantagne  and
James A. Burger
Douglas O. Lantagne
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
James A. Burger
Affiliation:
Michigan State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twelve 20-ha stands of natural loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.)-mixed hardwoods were harvested and site preparation treatments applied as follows: no site preparation (harvest only); glyphosate [N-(phosphomethyl)glycine] aerially applied at 0.25 kg ai/ha and the site burned 6 weeks later; roller-drum chopped, then burned; sheared and disced in one pass; sheared, then V bladed and disced; sheared, then raked; and sheared, raked, and then disced in three separate passes. Loblolly pine survival was 16% and volume 58% greater after the first two growing seasons on mechanically treated areas than on untreated stands or on areas treated with herbicide and then burned. Total vegetative cover was highest during both growing seasons on sites that had been sprayed and burned, and lowest on sites that were mechanically cleared and tilled. Grass and hardwood cover was negatively correlated with loblolly pine height and seedling volume during both growing seasons.

Keywords

Glyphosatepine regenerationweed controlPiedmont
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , July 1987 , pp. 590 - 593
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Derr, H. J. and Mann, W. F. Jr. 1977. Bedding poorly drained sites for planting loblolly and slash pines in southwest Louisiana. South. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Paper SO-134. 5 pp.Google Scholar
2. Miller, J. H. 1980. Competition after windrowing or single-roller chopping for site preparation in the Southern Piedmont. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:139–145.Google Scholar
3. Pehl, C. E. and Bailey, R. L. 1983. Performance to age ten of a loblolly pine plantation on an intensively prepared site in the Georgia Piedmont. Forest Sci. 29:96–102.Google Scholar
4. Ruehle, J. L., Marx, D. H., and Muse, H. D. 1984. Calculated nondestructive indices of growth response for young pine seedlings. For. Sci. 30:469–474.Google Scholar
5. SAS. 1979. User's Guide, SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 494 pp.Google Scholar
6. SAS. 1982. User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 584 pp.Google Scholar
7. Smith, R. L. 1974. Ecology and Field Biology. Harper and Row, New York. 850 pp.Google Scholar
8. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco. 776 pp.Google Scholar
9. Stransky, J. J. and Wilson, D. R. 1966. Pine seedling survival under simulated drought. U.S. Dep. Agric., South. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Note SO-30. 2 pp.Google Scholar
10. Ursic, S. J. 1961. Tolerance of loblolly pine seedlings to soil moisture stress. Ecology 42:823–825.Google Scholar