Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T13:20:38.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Growth and Efficacy of PRE-Applied Herbicides in Alternative Rooting Substrates Used in Container-Grown Nursery Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
James E. Altland ,
Charles H. Gilliam ,
Stephen C. Marble ,
Albert J. Van Hoogmoed  and
Glenn B. Fain
Glenn Wehtje*
Affiliation:
Agronomy and Soils, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
James E. Altland
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Wooster, OH 44691
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Stephen C. Marble
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Albert J. Van Hoogmoed
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Glenn B. Fain
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wehtjgr@auburn.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Container-grown nursery crops in the southeastern United States are typically grown in a rooting substrate comprised primarily of the ground bark of pine trees. However, pine bark is becoming less available and more costly because of changes in production and marketing practices within southeastern pine forestry. This shortage has resulted in the economic incentive to seek pine bark alternatives. Two possible alternatives are clean chip residual and whole tree. These alternatives are like pine bark, because both are products of southern pine forestry. Unlike pine bark, which is a single part of the tree, these alternatives contain all parts of the tree, including wood and foliage in various portions. Registration of preemergence-active herbicides has been based solely upon data obtained from pine bark–based nursery production. Research was conducted to determine if the control of (1) large crabgrass with prodiamine, (2) eclipta with flumioxazin, and (3) spotted spurge with isoxaben would be comparable in these alternatives to what has been established in pine bark. Seed germination of all three weed species in no-herbicide controls was approximately 10% and equivalent between pine bark and the alternatives. Foliage fresh weight production of large crabgrass and spotted spurge was less in the alternatives compared to pine bark; eclipta was not affected. For all three weed species–herbicide combinations, weed control was nearly identical between pine bark and the alternative substrates, provided the herbicide had been applied at its registered rate. For all three herbicides, rates that are effective in pine bark substrates will be equally effective in the pine bark alternatives.

Keywords

Flumioxazinisoxabenprodiamineeclipta Eclipta alba (L.)large crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scopspotted spurge Chamaesyce maculata (L.) SmallClean chip residualornamental plant productionpine barksoilless growth mediasouthern pine forestry
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 455 - 459
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

Boyer, C. R., Fain, G. B., Gilliam, C. H., Gallagher, T. V., Torbert, H. A., and Sibley, J. L. 2006. Evaluation of freshly chipped pine tree substrates of container-grown Lantana camara . Hortscience 41:1027. [Abstract].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, C. R., Fain, G. B., Gilliam, C. H., Gallagher, T. V., Torbert, H. A., and Sibley, J. L. 2008. Clean chip residual as a substrate for perennial nursery crop production. J. Environ. Hortic 26:239–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, H., Mecklenberg, R., and Peterson, C. 2000. Nursery Management Administration and Culture, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fain, G. B., Gilliam, C. H., Sibley, J. L., and Boyer, C. R. 2008. WholeTree substrates derived from three species of pine in production of annual vinca. Horttechnol 18:13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freund, R. J. and Littell, R. C. 2000. SAS Systems for Regression. 3rd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Gruda, N. and Schnitzler, W. H. 2003a. Suitability of wood fiber substrates and their effect on growth of lettuce seedlings. Acta Hortic 548:415–423.Google Scholar
Gruda, N. and Schnitzler, W. H. 2003b. Suitability of wood fiber substrates for production of vegetable transplants II. The effect of wood fiber substrates and their volume weights on the growth of tomato transplants. Sci. Hortic. (Amst.) 100:333–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, W., Sibley, J. L., Gilliam, C. H., Bannon, J. S., and Zhang, Y. 2006. Estimation of U.S. bark generation and implications for horticultural industries. J. Environ. Hortic 24:29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose- response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. D. and Browder, J. F. 2005. Chipped pine logs; a potential substrate for greenhouse and nursery crops. Hortscience 40:1513–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. D., Browder, J. F., and Jackson, B. E. 2006. Ground pine chips as a substrate for container-grown woody nursery crops. J. Environ. Hortic 24:181–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, R. D., Jackson, B. E., Browder, J. F., and Latimer, J. G. 2008. Growth of chrysanthemum in a pine tree substrate requires additional fertilizer. Hort Technol 18:111–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar