Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:19:03.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Response to Weed Control in Central Louisiana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James D. Haywood*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., South. For. Exp. Stn., New Orleans, LA 70113 and is located at 2500 Shreveport Highway, Pineville, LA 71360

Abstract

Herbaceous weed control was studied on a loblolly pine planting site in central Louisiana. Pine growth was enhanced without eradicating weeds; reducing weed biomass about 50% increased the mean inside bark volume of loblolly pine saplings 53% on the weeded treatments compared to the untreated control after five growing seasons in the field. Pines receiving both preplant weed control with glyphosate or disking and postplant weed control with a series of yearly treatments (1982, atrazine plus simazine; 1983, atrazine plus oxyfluorfen; 1984, hexazinone; and 1985, hexazinone) had 62% greater volume than pines on the preplant-only treatments. So, the best gains in loblolly pine volume required postplant weed control.

Type
Research
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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Clason, T. R. 1984. Hardwood eradication improves productivity of thinned loblolly pine stands. South, J. Appl. For. 8:194197.Google Scholar
2. Grelen, H. E. 1976. Response of herbage, pines, and hardwoods to early and delayed burning in a young slash pine plantation. J. Range Mange. 29:301303.Google Scholar
3. Haywood, J. D. 1986. Response of planted Pinus taeda L. to brush control in northern Louisiana. For. Ecol. Manage. 15:129134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Haywood, J. D., and Tiarks, A. E. 1981. Weed control and fertilization affect young pine growth. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:145151.Google Scholar
5. Haywood, J. D., Thill, R. E., and Burton, J. D. 1981. Intensive site preparation affects loblolly pine growth on upland sites. p. 224231 in Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Symp. on Engineering Systems for Forest Regeneration, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
6. Nelson, L. R., Pedersen, 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. 5:153158.Google Scholar
7. Schmidtling, R. C. 1984. Early intensive culture affects long-term growth of loblolly pine trees. For. Sci. 30:491498.Google Scholar
8. Schmitt, D., and Bower, D. 1970. Volume tables for young loblolly, slash, and longleaf pines in plantations in south Mississippi. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv. Res. Note SO-102.Google Scholar
9. Smith, L. F., and Schmidtling, R. C. 1970. Cultivation and fertilization speed early growth of planted southern pines. U.S. Dep. Agric., Tree Planters' Notes 21(1):13.Google Scholar
10. Tiarks, A. E., and Haywood, J. D. 1986. Pinus taeda L. response to fertilization, herbaceous plant control, and woody plant control. For. Ecol. Manage. 14:103112.Google Scholar
11. U.S. Dep. Agric. Soil Conserv. Serv. and For. Serv. 1980. Soil survey of Rapides Parish, LA.Google Scholar
12. Wolters, G. L., and Wilhite, A. T. 1974. Loblolly-shortleaf pine-hardwood range. p. 2023 in Range Resources of the South. Univ. Ga., Ga. Agric Exp. Stn. Bull. N.S. 9.Google Scholar
13. Yeiser, J. L., Sundell, E., and Boyd, J. W. 1987. Preplant and postplant treatments for newly planted pine. Univ. Arkansas, Div. Agric., Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 902.Google Scholar
14. Zutter, B. R., Glover, G. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1986. Effects of herbaceous weed control using herbicides on a young loblolly pine plantation. For. Sci. 32:882899.Google Scholar