Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:17:45.895Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Soil Factors and Efficacy of Hexazinone Formulations for Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) Release

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Patrick J. Minogue ,
Bruce R. Zutter  and
Dean H. Gjerstad
Patrick J. Minogue
Affiliation:
School of For. and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Bruce R. Zutter
Affiliation:
School of For. and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Dean H. Gjerstad
Affiliation:
School of For. and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broadcast applications of hexazinone [3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H,3H)-dione] pellets and foliar sprays were tested at four rates for hardwood control and safety to loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) at each of eight study locations differing in soil characteristics. Reduction in the number of hardwoods in the stand (hardwood density reduction) was greater with the pellet on soils with more than 60% sand, while the liquid formulation was most efficacious for finely textured soils. Hardwood density reduction with the pellet was negatively correlated with percent silt, clay, soil organic matter, and cation exchange capacity, and positively correlated with percent sand. With foliar sprays, hardwood density reduction was positively correlated with hexazinone rate and negatively correlated with soil pH. Pine mortality was positively correlated to percent sand with the pellet and negatively correlated to soil pH with broadcast sprays. Regression models incorporating pine height, herbicide rate, soil texture, cation exchange capacity, soil organic matter, and acidity could explain up to 78% of the variation in hardwood density change and 77% of the variation in pine mortality. Selective control of hardwoods in young loblolly pine stands is a function of hexazinone rate, formulation, and various soil factors.

Keywords

Hardwood controlpine tolerancesoil texturesoil organic mattersoil aciditycation exchange capacity
Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 399 - 405
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. Armstrong, D. E., Chesters, G., and Harris, R. F. 1967. Atrazine hydrolysis in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 31:61–66.Google Scholar
2. Best, J. A. and Weber, J. B. 1974. Disappearance of s-triazines as affected by soil pH using a balance sheet approach. Weed Sci. 22:364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Bouyoucos, G. J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agron. J. 58:464–465.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, T. E. 1982. Herbicide spray effects on mixed pine-hardwoods. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:175–180.Google Scholar
5. Fitzgerald, C. H. and Fortson, J. C. 1979. Herbaceous weed control with hexazinone in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) plantations. Weed Sci. 27:583–588.Google Scholar
6. Ghassemi, M., Quinlivan, S., and Dellarco, M. 1982. Environmental effects of new herbicides for vegetation control in forestry. Environ. Int. 7:389–401.Google Scholar
7. Gonzalez, F. E. 1980. The development of Velpar “Gridball” brush killer – hexazinone pellets – for forestry. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:132–137.Google Scholar
8. Griswold, H. C., Fitzgerald, C. H., Presnell, R. F., and Gonzalez, F. E. 1984. Pine release with aerially applied liquid hexazinone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:230–236.Google Scholar
9. Harrison, G. W., Weber, J. B., and Baird, J. V. 1976. Herbicide phytotoxicity as affected by selected properties of North Carolina soils. Weed Sci. 24:120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Helling, C. S. 1971. Pesticide mobility in soils; parameters of thin layer chromatography. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 35:732–748.Google Scholar
11. Hiltbold, A. E. and Buchanan, G. A. 1977. Influence of soil pH on atrazine persistence in the field. Weed Sci. 25:515–520.Google Scholar
12. Kaufman, D. D. and Kearney, P. C. 1970. Microbial degradation of s-triazine herbicides. Pestic. Rev. 32:235–265.Google Scholar
13. Ladlie, J. S., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1976. Effect of pH on metribuzin activity in the soil. Weed Sci. 24:505–507.Google Scholar
14. McNeil, W. K., Stritzke, J. F., and Basler, E. 1984. Absorption, translocation, and degradation of tebuthiuron and hexazinone in woody species. Weed Sci. 32:739–743.Google Scholar
15. Michael, J. L. 1981. Effect of pellet size on defoliation and estimated kill of small stems treated with hexazinone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:192–196.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Minogue, P. J., Gjerstad, D. H., Nelson, L. R., Glover, G. R., and Knowe, S. A. 1982. Development of hexazinone formulations for pine release. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:160.Google Scholar
18. Minogue, P. J., Gjerstad, D. H., and Zutter, B. R. 1983. Comparison of liquid and pelleted hexazinone formulations for pine release. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:222.Google Scholar
19. Neary, D. G., Bush, P. B., and Douglas, J. E. 1983. Off-site movement of hexazinone in stormflow and baseflow from forest watersheds. Weed Sci. 31:543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. 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. 5:153–158.Google Scholar
21. Newbold, R. A. 1978. Chemical site preparation on sandy soil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 32:200.Google Scholar
22. Nickels, J. F. and Stritzke, J. F. 1977. Some potential uses of tebuthiuron and hexazinone in pine management. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:246.Google Scholar
23. O'Loughlin, T. C., Nelson, L. R., Walstad, J. D., Breland, J. H., and Voeller, J. E. 1976. Velpar and other preemergence herbicides for use in establishment of loblolly pine plantations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:262–268.Google Scholar
24. Rhodes, R. C. 1980. Soil studies with 14C-labelled hexazinone. J. Agric. Food Chem. 28:311–315.Google Scholar
25. Russell, J. D., Cruz, M., White, J. L., Bailey, G. W., Payne, W. R. Jr., Pope, J. D., and Teasley, J. I. 1968. Mode of chemical degradation of s-triazines by montmorillonite. Science. 160:1340–1342.Google Scholar
26. Skipper, H. D., Gilmour, C. M., and Furtick, W. R. 1967. Microbial versus chemical degradation of atrazine in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 31:653–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. South, D. B. and Sung, S. S. 1980. A new method for screening herbicides used for pine nurseries. Can. J. For. Res. 10:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Sung, S. S., South, D. B., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1985. Bioassay indicates a metabolite of hexazinone affects photosynthesis in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Weed Sci. 33:440–442.Google Scholar
29. Weed Science Society of America. 1983. Herbicide Handbook. 5th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL. Pages 268–272.Google Scholar