Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:59:03.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selective Herbicides for Bald Cypress Restoration and Cultivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anna Osiecka  and
Patrick J. Minogue
Anna Osiecka*
Affiliation:
North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351
Patrick J. Minogue
Affiliation:
North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 155 Research Road, Quincy, FL 32351
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: aosiecka@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate herbicides having both PRE and POST activity for selective weed control in bald cypress plantings. Five herbicides were applied at two or three rates at two different timings. The first timing was to dormant seedlings without foliage and prior to weed emergence (i.e., PRE). The second timing was to foliated seedlings with established weed seedlings present (i.e., POST). Herbicide treatments included aminopyralid at 70 and 120 g ae ha−1, hexazinone at 420 and 560 g ai ha−1, imazapyr at 140 and 210 g ae ha−1, sulfometuron methyl at 110, 160, and 210 g ai ha−1, and flumioxazin at 290 and 430 g ai ha−1. Herbicide rate had little effect on vegetation control. PRE-applied sulfometuron methyl was most effective, providing nearly complete control of graminoids and broadleaves at 60 d after treatment (DAT). POST-applied treatments were generally less effective, though in the 2008 study imazapyr and sulfometuron methyl resulted in approximately 60% bare ground at 60 DAT. Growth of bald cypress seedlings was enhanced by both PRE- and POST-applied sulfometuron methyl, flumioxazin, or hexazinone and by PRE imazapyr. The best bald cypress growth response followed POST-applied sulfometuron methyl at 210 g ha−1, which resulted in 63 cm3 mean volume index, more than fivefold greater than the nontreated check. Aminopyralid caused severe and lasting seedling injury. POST-applied imazapyr resulted in fasciculation and no growth benefit, despite providing the most efficacious weed control among POST treatments. Survival and growth of bald cypress can be greatly enhanced with a single selective herbicide treatment using sulfometuron methyl, flumioxazin, or hexazinone applied before or following foliation in the spring.

En 2007 y 2008, se realizaron estudios para evaluar herbicidas con actividad PRE y POST para el control selectivo de malezas en plantaciones de Taxodium distichum. Cinco herbicidas fueron aplicados a dos o tres dosis y en dos momentos diferentes. El primer momento fue cuando las plántulas estaban latentes sin follaje y antes de la emergencia de malezas (i.e. PRE). El segundo momento fue cuando las plántulas tenían follaje y había plántulas de malezas establecidas (i.e. POST). Los tratamientos de herbicidas incluyeron aminopyralid a 70 y 120 g ae ha−1, hexazinone a 420 y 560 g ai ha−1, imazapyr a 140 y 210 g ae ha−1, sulfometuron methyl a 110, 160 y 210 h ai ha−1, y flumioxazin a 290 y 430 g ai ha−1. La dosis de herbicida tuvo poco efecto sobre el control de la vegetación. Sulfometuron methyl aplicado PRE fue el más efectivo alcanzando cerca de un control completo de graminoides y hojas anchas a 60 días después del tratamiento (DAT). Tratamientos aplicados POST fueron generalmente menos efectivos, aunque en el experimento del 2008, imazapyr y sulfometuron methyl resultaron en aproximadamente 60% de suelo desnudo a 60 DAT. El crecimiento de T. distichum fue mejorado por las aplicaciones de sulfometuron methyl, flumioxazin o hexazinone en aplicaciones PRE y POST y de imazapyr PRE. La mejor respuesta en crecimiento de T. distichum se dio después de la aplicación POST de sulfometuron methyl a 210 g ha−1, la cual resultó en un índice de volumen promedio de 64 cm3, el cual fue más de cinco veces mayor que el tratamiento testigo no tratado. El aminopyralid causó daños severos y prolongados en las plántulas. Imazapyr aplicado POST resultó en crecimiento limitado y anormal (entrenudos cortos y ramificación) a pesar de proveer el control de malezas más eficaz entre los tratamientos POST. El crecimiento y supervivencia de T. distichum puede ser ampliamente mejorado con aplicaciones individuales de herbicidas usando sulfometuron methyl, flumioxazin o hexazinone antes o inmediatamente después de la producción de follaje en la primavera.

Keywords

Aminopyralidflumioxazinhexazinoneimazapyrsulfometuron methylbald cypress, Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich var. distichumAfforestationherbicide injurypostemergencepreemergencereforestationvegetation controlweed control
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 460 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anonymous. 1996. The cypress controversy. American Gardener 75:50–51.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2008. Cypress mulch controversy. The Landowner Leader 17(1):1–5.Google Scholar
Aulgur, F. 1994. Managing vegetation in CA forestry with Oust and Velpar L herbicides: an update on 1993 field tests. Pages 26–37 in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Sacramento, CA California Forest Pest Council. http://www.fvmc.org/PDFgallery.htm. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Beardmore, R. A., Hart, R., Iverson, R. D., Risley, M. A., and Trimmer, M. C. 1991. Imazapyr herbicide. Pages 211–229 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Brandt, K. and Ewel, K. C. 1989. Ecology and management of cypress swamps: a review. Bulletin 252. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 19 p.Google Scholar
Broschat, T. K., Meerow, A. W., and Black, R. J. 2007. Enviroscaping to conserve energy: trees for South Florida. EES42. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 12 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/eh142. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Brown, M. J. 1996. Forest statistics for Florida, 1995. Resource Bulletin SRS-6. Ashville, NC USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station. 56 p.Google Scholar
[CDMS] Crop Data Management Systems. 2011. Labels & MSDS. http://www.cdms.net/manuf/. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Duryea, M. L. 2000. Landscape mulches: what are the choices for Florida? FOR80. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 4 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr079. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Duryea, M. L. and Hermansen, L. A. 2006. Cypress: Florida's majestic and beneficial wetlands tree. CIR 1186. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 12 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr008. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Ewel, K. C., Davis, H. T., and Smith, J. E. 1989. Recovery of Florida cypress swamps from clearcutting. South. J. Appl. For. 13:123–126.Google Scholar
Flint, H. L. 1994. Bald cypress. Horticulture 72:88.Google Scholar
Kolka, R. K., Trettin, C. C., and Nelson, E. A. 1998. Development of an assessment framework for restored forested wetlands. In Proceedings of Ecosystems Restoration and Creation. 14 p. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_kolka002.pdf. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Krinard, R. M. and Johnson, R. L. 1976. 21-year growth and development of bald cypress planted on a flood-prone site. Research Note SO-217. New Orleans, LA USDA Forest Service Southern Forest Experiment Station. 4 p. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/2453. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Kuhns, L. J. and Harpster, T. L. 2002a. Efficacy and phytotoxicity of preemergence applications of flumioxazin and azafenidin in conifers. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:53–59.Google Scholar
Kuhns, L. J. and Harpster, T. L. 2002b. Efficacy and phytotoxicity of preemergence and postemergence applications of sulfometuron in conifers. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:60–66.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., and Schabenberger, O. 2006. SAS for Mixed Models. 2nd ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 813 p.Google Scholar
McLeod, K. W., Reed, M. R., and Wike, L. D. 2000. Elevation, competition control, and species affect bottomland forest restoration. Wetlands 20:162–168.Google Scholar
Meerow, A. W. and Norcini, J. G. 2009. Native trees for North Florida. CIR833. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 13 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ep007. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. A., Dulohery, N. C., Kolka, R. K., and McKee, W. H. Jr. 2000. Operational restoration of the Pen Branch bottomland hardwood and swamp wetlands—the research setting. Ecol. Eng. 15:S23–S33.Google Scholar
Neveln, V. 2007. The cypress mulch controversy. American Gardener 86:44–45.Google Scholar
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2002. Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling degree days 1971–2000. In Limatography of the United States No. 81.08—Florida. Asheville, NC National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim81/FLnorm.pdf. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Phillips, L. 2007. The 2007 urban tree of the year: bald-cypress. Arbor Age 27:12–3.Google Scholar
Rockwood, D. L., Morse, D. M., and Gaviria, L. T. 2001. Genetic and silvicultural factors affecting productivity of planted cypress in Florida. Pages 74–83 in Proceedings of the 26th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference Reforestation, Nursuries & Genetic Resources. Athens, GA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.rngr.net/publications/tree-improvement-proceedings/sftic/2001. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Rose, R. and Ketchum, J. S. 2002. Interaction of vegetation control and fertilization on conifer species across the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. For. Res. 32:136–152.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2007. SAS/STAT® 9.2. User's Guide. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 84–86, 148–150, 331–332.Google Scholar
Sternitzke, H. S. 1972. Bald cypress: endangered or expanding species. Econ. Bot. 26:130–134.Google Scholar
Steward, R. E. 1977. Herbicides for weed control in western forest nurseries. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:78–89.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011a. Plants Database. Plants Profile. Taxodium distichum (L.) Rich. Bald Cypress USDA PLANTS. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=TADI2. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011b. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Vince, S. W. and Duryea, M. L. 2004. Planting cypress. CIR 1458. Gainesville, FL Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of Florida. 9 p. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fr152. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Wilhite, L. P., and Toliver, J. R. Baldcypress. Pages 1153–1171 in Burns, R. M., and Honkala, technical coordinators, B. H. Silvics of North America: 1. Conifers. Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/11006. Accessed: October 31, 2011.Google Scholar
Williston, H. L., Shropshire, F. W., and Balmer, W. E. 1980. Cypress management: a forgotten opportunity. Forest Report SA-FR 8. Atlanta, GA USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area. 8 p.Google Scholar