Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:14:42.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference with Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Seedling Growth by Three Grass Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Albert E. Smith
Albert E. Smith*
Affiliation:
Agron. Dep., Univ. Ga., Griffin, GA 30223
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth of loblolly pine seedlings was reduced by interference from bermudagrass, tall fescue, and broomsedge. The order for treatment influence on pine seedling growth rate measurements was tall fescue > bermudagrass > broomsedge > weed free for the 2-yr study. The increase in height of seedlings for the weed free, broomsedge, bermudagrass, and tall fescue was 4.1, 2.9, 1.9, and 1.1 cm/month, respectively; and the average increase in seedling stem diameter was 1.3, 0.5, 0.4, and 0.2 mm/month, respectively.

Keywords

Loblolly pine, Pinus taeda L. ♯3 PIUTDtall fescue, Festuca arundinacea Schreb. ♯ FESARbermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon (L.)Pers. ♯ CYNDAbroomsedge, Andropogon virginicus L. ♯ ANOVIPlant competitionallelopathyagroforestrysite preparationANOVICYNDAFESARPIUTD

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1989, pp. 696 - 698
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Bell, D. T., and Koeppe, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. 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
3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gressel, J. B., and Holm, L. G. 1964. Chemical inhibition of crop germination by seed and the nature of the inhibition by Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 4:44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Guenzi, W. D., McCalla, T. M., and Norstadt, F. A. 1967. Presence and persistence of phytotoxic substances in wheat, oat, corn, and sorghum residues. Agron. J. 59:163–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. 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
7. Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54:187–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Muller, C. H. 1966. The role of chemical inhibition (allelopathy) in vegetation composition. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 93:332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Rice, E. L. 1972. Allelopathic effects of Andropogon virginicus and its persistence in old fields. Am. J. Bot. 59:752–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rice, E. L. 1974. Allelopathy. Acad. Press, New York.Google Scholar
11. Rice, E. L. 1979. Allelopathy – an update. Bot. Rev. 45:15–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Tukey, H. G. Jr. 1969. Implications of allelopathy in agricultural plant science. Bot. Rev. 35:1–16.Google Scholar