Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T10:12:46.344Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reductions in Herbicide use for Forest Vegetation Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Maxwell L. McCormack Jr.
Maxwell L. McCormack Jr.*
Affiliation:
Coop. For. Res. Unit, Univ. Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5755
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is distinct regional variation in forestry uses of herbicides. Different land ownership patterns affect policies and practices, and crop tree species characteristics differ within and among regions. Recent decreases in land areas treated have been attributed to budget reductions, changes in operating conditions, and pressures from the general public. Factors affecting future reductions in amounts of herbicides used will include new chemistry, improved delivery technologies, incorporating vegetation management into all aspects of young stand silviculture, and employment of alternative methods.

Keywords

Herbicide reductionlow rate technology

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994, pp. 344 - 349
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Fisher, R. T. 1918. The yield of volunteer second-growth as affected by improvement cutting and early weeding. J. For. 16:493–506.Google Scholar
2. McCormack, M. L. Jr. 1991. Herbicide technology for securing naturally regenerating stands. P. 193–200 in Simpson, C. M., ed., Proc. Conf. on Natural Regeneration Management. Forestry Canada, Fredericton, NB.Google Scholar
3. Newton, M., McCormack, M. L. Jr., Sajdak, R. L., and Walstad, J. D. 1987. Forest vegetation problems in the Northeast and Lake States/Provinces. P. 77–103 in Walstad, J. D. and Kuch, P. J., ed. Forest vegetation management for conifer production. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
4. Newton, M., Cole, E. C., McCormack, M. L. Jr., and White, D. E. 1992. Young spruce-fir forests released by herbicides II. Conifer responses to residual hardwoods and overstocking. North. J. Appl. For. 9:130–135.Google Scholar
5. Ontario Forest Industries Association and the Ontario Lumber Manufacturer's Association. 1990. Statement of Evidence: Panel 7. Tending and protection of the timber resource on Crown lands in the Area of the Undertaking. Statement for the Class Environmental Assessment (No. NRAA-03) of an undertaking by the Ministry of Natural Resources for the activity of timber management on Crown lands in Ontario. 210 p.Google Scholar
6. Stewart, R. E., Gross, L. L., and Honkola, B. H. 1984. Effects of competing vegetation on forest trees: A bibliography with abstracts. U.S.D.A.-Forest Service, General Tech. Rep. WO-43. 260 indexed and numbered abstracts, pages not numbered.Google Scholar
7. Seymour, R. S. and McCormack, M. L. Jr. 1989. Having our forest and harvesting it too: The role of intensive silviculture in resolving forest land use conflicts. P. 207–213 in Forest and Wildlife Management in New England—What can we afford? Proc. Joint Meeting New England Soc. Am. For., Me. Chap. The Wildlife Soc. & Atl. Int. Chap. The Am. Fish. Soc. Maine Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Rep. 336.Google Scholar
8. Walstad, J. D. and Kuch, P. J., eds. 1987. Forest Vegetation Management for Conifer Production. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 523 p.Google Scholar