Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T08:56:16.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interaction Between Weed Control and Loblolly Pine, Pinus taeda, Seedling Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert J. Mitchell,
Bruce R. Zutter and
David B. South
Robert J. Mitchell
Affiliation:
School For., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Bruce R. Zutter
Affiliation:
School For., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
David B. South
Affiliation:
School For., Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Third-year heights, third-year root-collar diameters, and 3 yr volume growth of loblolly pine seedlings were examined in relation to a) root-collar diameter class at time of planting and b) herbaceous weed control. Treatments were a) no weed control and b) complete control for 2 yr. For both weed control treatments, means for third-year heights, groundline diameters, and volume growth were related positively to initial seedling diameter. The influence of initial seedling diameter on third-year diameters and heights did not differ among weed control treatments. However, the influence of initial diameter on volume growth did differ among weed control treatments. Thus, when using herbaceous weed control, additional gains in early volume growth can be realized by planting seedlings with large root-collar diameters.

Keywords

Loblolly pinePinus taeda (L.)Forest regenerationtree growth

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1988, pp. 191 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Albert, D. J., Fry, G., and Poole, B. R. 1980. An industrial company's view of nursery stock quality. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 10(1):2–11.Google Scholar
2. Bacon, G. J., Hawkins, P. J., and Jermyn, D. 1977. Morphological grading studies with 1–0 slash pine seedlings. Aust. For. 40:293–303.Google Scholar
3. Baker, J. B. 1973. Intensive cultural practices increase growth of juvenile slash pine in Florida sandhills. For. Sci. 19:197–202.Google Scholar
4. Blair, R., and Cech, F. 1974. Morphological seedling grades compared after thirteen growing seasons. Tree Planters' Notes 25:5–7.Google Scholar
5. Burns, R. M., and Brendemuehl, R. H. 1971. Nursery bed density affects slash pine seedling grade and grade indicates field performance. USDA For. Serv. Res. Paper SE-77.Google Scholar
6. Creighton, J. L., Glover, G. R., and Zutter, B. R. 1986. Loblolly pine growth response to herbaceous weed control — a summary of 15 studies. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:193.Google Scholar
7. Creighton, J. L., Zutter, B. R., Glover, G. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1987. Planted pine growth response to herbaceous vegetation control, treatment duration, and herbicide application technique. South. J. Appl. For. 11:223–227.Google Scholar
8. Fitzgerald, C. H. 1976. Post-emergence effects of Velpar in a piedmont pine plantation. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:299.Google Scholar
9. Fry, G., and Poole, B. R. 1980. Evaluation of planting stock quality several years after planting. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 10(1):299–300.Google Scholar
10. Hatchell, G. E., Dorman, K. W., and Langdon, O. G. 1972. Performance of loblolly and slash pine nursery selections. For. Sci. 18:308–313.Google Scholar
11. Haywood, J. D., and Tiarks, A. E. 1981. Weed control and fertilization affect young pine growth. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:145–151.Google Scholar
12. Holt, H. A., Voeller, J. E., and Young, J. F. 1973. Vegetation control in newly established pine plantations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:294.Google Scholar
13. Holt, H. A., Voeller, J. E., and Young, J. F. 1975. Herbaceous vegetation control as a forest management practice. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:219.Google Scholar
14. Jorgensen, J. R., and Shoulders, E. 1967. Mycorrhizal root development vital to survival of slash pine nursery stock. Tree Planters' Notes 18:7–11.Google Scholar
15. Meekins, E. H. 1964. A case for planting graded stock. Tree Planters' Notes 66:7–8.Google Scholar
16. Michael, J. L. 1985. Growth of loblolly pine treated with hexazinone, sulfometuron methyl, and metsulfuron methyl for herbaceous weed control. South. J. Appl. For. 9:20–26.Google Scholar
17. Nebgen, R. J., and Meyer, J. F. 1986. Seedbed density, undercutting, and lateral root pruning effects on loblolly seedling morphology, field survival, and growth. p. 136–147 in South, D. B., ed. Proc. Int. Symp. Nurs. Manage. Prac. South. Pines, Montgomery, AL, Aug. 4–9, 1985. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
18. Nelson, L. R., Barber, B. L., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1984. Sulfometuron methyl and AC 252,925 for control of herbaceous weeds in newly established pine plantations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:192.Google Scholar
19. Nelson, L. R., Zutter, B. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1985. Planted longleaf pine seedlings respond to herbaceous weed control using herbicides. South. J. Appl. For. 9:236–240.Google Scholar
20. Nelson, L. R., Pederson, R. C., Autry, L. L., Dudley, S., and Walstad, J. D. 1981. Impacts of herbaceous weeds in young loblolly pine plantations. South. J. Appl. For. 5(3):153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Rowan, S. J. 1986. Seedbed density affects performance of slash and loblolly pine in Georgia. p. 126–135 in South, D. B., ed. Proc. Int. Symp. Nurs. Manage. Prac. South. Pines, Montgomery, AL, Aug. 4–9, 1985. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
22. Shipman, R. D. 1960. Survival and growth of graded longleaf pine nursery stock. J. For. 58:38–39, 42. Google Scholar
23. Sluder, E. R. 1979. The effects of seed and seedling size on survival and growth of loblolly pine. Tree Planters' Notes 42:13–18.Google Scholar
24. South, D. B., Boyer, J. N., and Bosch, L. 1985. Survival and growth of loblolly pine as influenced by seedling grade: 13-yr results. South. J. Appl. For. 9:76–81.Google Scholar
25. Wakeley, P. C. 1935. Artificial reforestation in the southern pine region. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 492.Google Scholar
26. Wakeley, P. C. 1948. Physiological grades of southern pine nursery stock. p. 311–322 in Proc. Soc. Am Foresters. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
27. Wakeley, P. C. 1954. Planting the southern pines. USDA Monogr. 18.Google Scholar
28. Wakeley, P. C. 1969. Results of southern pine planting experiments in the middle twenties. J. For. 67:237–241.Google Scholar
29. White, J. B. 1979. Longleaf pine survival influenced by seedling size and length of storage. p. 26–29 in Proc. Longleaf Pine Workshop. USDA For. Serv. Tech. Pub. SA-TP3, Mobile, AL.Google Scholar