Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:23:17.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Herbaceous Interference on Growth and Biomass Partitioning in Planted Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John R. Britt ,
Bruce R. Zutter ,
Robert J. Mitchell ,
Dean H. Gjerstad  and
John F. Dickson
John R. Britt
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5418. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 9-902421P
Bruce R. Zutter
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5418. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 9-902421P
Robert J. Mitchell
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5418. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 9-902421P
Dean H. Gjerstad
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5418. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 9-902421P
John F. Dickson
Affiliation:
School of Forestry and Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849-5418. Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn. J. Ser. No. 9-902421P
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three herbaceous regimes were established, using herbicides, to examine the effects of interference on growth and biomass partitioning in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Trees were sampled near Auburn and Tallassee, AL. Trees at the Auburn site grown with low weed interference (LWI) had 4, 10, 10, 8, and 4 times greater total aboveground biomass than did trees with high weed interference (HWI) for ages one through five, respectively. Medium weed interference (MWI, Auburn site only) resulted in three times greater biomass the first 4 yr and two times greater total biomass by the fifth year compared to trees grown with HWI. Trees growing with LWI were 5, 8, 10, and 6 times larger than those with HWI for ages one through four, respectively, at the Tallassee site. At all levels of interference, the percentage of total biomass in foliage decreased, and stem and branch components increased, with increasing tree size at both sites. Trees growing with HWI had a lower percentage of total biomass in foliage and a greater percentage of total biomass in stem than those growing with LWI when compared over a common size. Growth efficiency per tree, expressed as annual increase in stem biomass per unit leaf area (g m−2), was slightly greater for trees growing with LWI compared to HWI when leaf area index (LAI3, total surface) was less than 0.2. For LAI values greater than 0.2 the relationship was reversed. The latter contradicts the idea that growth efficiency can be used as a measure of vigor for young loblolly pine. Changes in carbon partitioning to the development of leaf area are suggested to be driving the accelerated growth responses associated with a reduction of weed interference.

Keywords

Picloram, 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid2,4-D, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acidtriclopyr, [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acidglyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycinesulfometuron, 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl) amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl] benzoic acidloblolly pine, Pinus taeda L.horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq # ERICAdogfennel, Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam.) Small # EUPCPbroomsedge, Andropogon virginicus L. # ANOVIpanicum grass, Panicum spp.blackberry, Rubus spp.Japanese honeysuckle, Lonicera japonica Thunb. # LONJAcommon lespedeza, Lespedeza striata (Thunb.) H. & A. # LESSTsericea lespedeza, Lespedeza cuneata (Dumont) G. Don # LESCUFlorida pusley, Richardia scabra L. # RCHSCAmerican burnweed, Erechtites hieraciifolia (L.) Raf. ex DC. # EREHIGrowth efficiencyleaf arealeaf area index
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 6 , November 1990 , pp. 497 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Baskerville, G. S. 1972. Use of logarithmic regression in the estimation of plant biomass. Can. J. For. Res. 2:49–53.Google Scholar
2. Blanche, C. A., Hodges, J. D., and Nebaker, T. E. 1985. A leaf areasapwood area ratio developed to rate loblolly pine vigor. Can. J. For. Res. 15:1181–1184.Google Scholar
3. Carter, G. A., Miller, J. H., Davis, D. E., and Patterson, R. M. 1984. Effect of vegetative competition on the moisture and nutrient status of loblolly pine. Can. J. For. Res. 14:1–9.Google Scholar
4. Creighton, J. L., Zutter, B. R., Glover, G. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1987. Planted pine growth and survival responses to herbaceous vegetation control, treatment duration, and herbicide application technique. South. J. App. For. 11:223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Green, T. H., Paliwal, K., Pathre, U., Mitchell, R. J., Zutter, B. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1989. The influence of weed control on water relations and photosynthetic patterns of four-year-old loblolly pine. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:226.Google Scholar
6. Haines, S. G. and Davey, C. B. 1979. Biomass response of loblolly pine to selected cultural treatments. Soil Sci. Am. J. 43:1034–1038.Google Scholar
7. Hegyi, F. 1972. Dry matter distribution in jack pine stands in northern Ontario. For. Chron. 48:193–197.Google Scholar
8. Huang, Y. H. 1988. An economic evaluation of southern pine herbaceous weed control research. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auburn Univ., AL.Google Scholar
9. Jarvis, P. G. and Leverenz, J. L. 1982. Productivity of temperate, deciduous and evergreen forest. Pages 234–280 in Lange, O. L., Noble, P. S., Osmond, C. B. and Ziegler, H., eds. Physiological Plant Ecology IV. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, New Series. Vol. 12D. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
10. Johnson, J. D. 1984. A rapid technique for estimating total surface area of pine needles. For. Sci. 30:913–921.Google Scholar
11. Johnson, J. D., Zedaker, S. M., and Hairston, A. B. 1985. Foliage, stem, and root interrelations in young loblolly pine. For. Sci. 31:891–898.Google Scholar
12. Knowe, S. A., Nelson, L. R., Gjerstad, D. H., Zutter, B. R., Glover, G. R., Minogue, P. J., and Dukes, J. H. Jr. 1985. Four year growth and development of planted loblolly pine on sites with competition control. South. J. App. For. 9:11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Kramer, P. J. 1983. Water deficits and plant growth. Pages 342–389 in Water Relations of Plants. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
14. Linder, S. 1985. Potential and actual production in Australian forest stands. Pages 11–35 in Landsberg, J. J. and Parsons, W., eds. Research in Forest Management. CSIRO, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
15. McLaughlin, S. B. and Madgewick, H.A.I. 1968. The effects of position in the crown on the morphology of needles of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Am. Midl. Nat. 80:547–550.Google Scholar
16. Miller, J. H., Zutter, B. R., Zedaker, S. M., Cain, M., Edwards, M. B., Xydias, G. K., Applegate, A. R., Atkins, R. L., Campbell, S., Daly, E., Hollis, C., Knowe, S. A., and Paschke, J. 1987. A region-wide study of loblolly pine seedling growth relative to four competition levels after two growing seasons. Proc. Fourth Biennial S. Silv. Res. Conf., USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-42. Pages 581–592.Google Scholar
17. Mitchell, R. J., Dixon, R. K., South, D. B., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1990. Forestry and brush vegetation management. Proc. Plant Growth Regulator Soc. Am. Annual meeting. San Antonio, TX. August 1988. (in press).Google Scholar
18. Nelson, L. R., Pederson, R. C., Autry, L. L., Dudley, S., and Walstad, J. D. 1981. Impacts of herbaceous weeds on loblolly pine plantations. South. J. Appl. For. 5:153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Perry, D. A. 1985. The competition process in forest stands. Pages 481–506 in Cannell, M.G.R. and Jackson, J. E., eds. Attributes of Trees as Crop Plants. Inst. Terrestrial Ecol., Huntingdon, England, U.K. Google Scholar
20. Smith, W. H., Nelson, L. E., and Switzer, G. L. 1971. Development of the shoot system of young loblolly pine. II. Dry matter and nitrogen accumulation. For. Sci. 17:55–62.Google Scholar
21. Swindel, B. F., Neary, D. G., Comerford, N. B., Rockwood, D. L., and Blakeslee, G. M. 1988. Fertilization and competition control accelerate early southern pine growth on flatwoods. South. J. Appl. For. 12:116–121.Google Scholar
22. Tiarks, A. E. and Haywood, J. D. 1986. Pinus taeda L. response to fertilization, herbaceous plant control, and woody plant control. For. Ecol. Manage. 14:103–112.Google Scholar
23. Teskey, R. O., Bongarten, B. C., Cregg, B. M., Dougherty, P. M., and Hennessey, T. C. 1987. Physiology and genetics of tree growth response to moisture and temperature stress: an examination of the characteristics of loblolly (Pinus taeda L.). Tree Physiol. 3:41–61.Google Scholar
24. Vose, J. M. and Allen, H. L. 1988. Leaf area, stemwood growth, and nutrition relationships in loblolly pine. For. Sci. 34:547–563.Google Scholar
25. Waring, R. H. 1983. Estimating forest growth and efficiency in relation to canopy leaf area. Adv. Ecol. Res. 13:327–354.Google Scholar
26. Waring, R. H., Newman, K., and Bell, J. 1981. Efficiency of tree crowns and stemwood production at different canopy leaf densities. Forestry 54:15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Waring, R. H., Thies, W. G., and Muscato, D. 1980. Stem growth per unit leaf area: A measure of tree vigor. For. Sci. 26:112–117.Google Scholar
28. Waring, R. H. and Schlesinger, W. H. 1985. Forest ecosystems: concepts and management. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 340 pp.Google Scholar
29. Zutter, B. R., Gjerstad, D. H., and Glover, G. R. 1986. Effects of interfering vegetation on biomass, fascicle morphology and leaf area of loblolly pine seedlings. For. Sci. 32:1016–1031.Google Scholar
30. 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. 32:882–899.Google Scholar
31. Zutter, B. R., Glover, G. R., and Gjerstad, D. H. 1987. Vegetation response to intensity of herbaceous weed control in a newly planted loblolly pine plantation. New Forests 4:257–271.Google Scholar