Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T09:23:38.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kudzu (Pueraria montana) community responses to herbicides, burning, and high-density loblolly pine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy B. Harrington ,
Laura T. Rader-Dixon  and
John W. Taylor Jr.
Laura T. Rader-Dixon
Affiliation:
9915 Klaus Circle, Richmond, VA 23060
John W. Taylor Jr.
Affiliation:
USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest Health Protection, 1720 Peachtree Road, NW, Atlanta, GA 30309
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kudzu is an aggressive, nonnative vine that currently dominates an estimated 810,000 ha of mesic forest communities in the eastern United States. To test an integrated method of weed control, abundances of kudzu and other plant species were compared during 4 yr after six herbicide treatments (clopyralid, triclopyr, metsulfuron, picloram + 2,4-D, tebuthiuron, and a nonsprayed check), in which loblolly pines were planted at three densities (0, 1, and 4 seedlings m−2) to induce competition and potentially delay kudzu recovery. This split-plot design was replicated on each of the four kudzu-dominated sites near Aiken, SC. Relative light intensity (RLI) and soil water content (SWC) were measured periodically to identify mechanisms of interference among plant species. Two years after treatment (1999), crown coverage of kudzu averaged < 2% in herbicide plots compared with 93% in the nonsprayed check, and these differences were maintained through 2001, except in clopyralid plots where kudzu cover increased to 15%. In 2001, pine interference was associated with 33, 56, and 67% reductions in biomass of kudzu, blackberry, and herbaceous vegetation, respectively. RLI in kudzu-dominated plots (4 to 15% of full sun) generally was less than half that of herbicide-treated plots. SWC was greatest in tebuthiuron plots, where total vegetation cover averaged 26% compared with 77 to 111% in other plots. None of the treatments eradicated kudzu, but combinations of herbicides and induced pine competition delayed its recovery.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-Dmetsulfuronpicloramtebuthiurontriclopyrhighbush blackberry, Rubus argutus Link. RUBAGkudzu, Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. PUEMOsand blackberry, Rubus cuneifolius Pursh RUBCUsouthern dewberry, Rubus trivialis Michx. RUBTRloblolly pine, Pinus taeda L. PINTAIntegrated weed controlinvasive weedsinterferencecrown coverbiomasslight intensitysoil water
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 965 - 974
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Ahrens, W. H. ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 66–68, 77–81, 203–205, 235–238, 276–278, 292–294.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. P. 1983. Weed Science: Principles. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West. pp. 65, 71.Google Scholar
Bailey, R. Y. 1939. Kudzu for Erosion Control in the Southeast. Washington, DC: USDA Farmer's Bulletin No. 1840. 31 p.Google Scholar
Carter, G. A. and Teramura, A. H. 1988. Vine photosynthesis and relationships to climbing mechanics in a forest understory. Am. J. Bot 75:1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, R. N., Woldeghebriel, A., and Murphy, M. R. 1997. Evaluation of the nutritive value of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) as a feed for ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol 68:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickens, R. and Buchanan, G. A. 1971. Influence of time of herbicide application on control of kudzu. Weed Sci 19:669–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, M. B. and Gonzales, F. E. 1986. Forestry herbicide control of kudzu and Japanese honeysuckle in loblolly pine sites in central Georgia. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 39:272–275.Google Scholar
Everest, J. W., Miller, J. H., Ball, D. M., and Patterson, M. G. 1991. Kudzu in Alabama: History, Uses, and Control. Auburn, AL: Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Circular ANR-65. 8 p.Google Scholar
Fujita, K., Matsumoto, K., Ofosu-Budu, G. K., and Ogata, S. 1993. Effect of shading on growth and dinitrogen fixation of kudzu and tropical pasture legumes. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr 39:43–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, W. N. and Smith, A. E. 1994. Transline® herbicide, a new pine tolerant product for kudzu control. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 47:118.Google Scholar
Michael, J. L. 1986. Pine regeneration with simultaneous control of kudzu. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 39:282–288.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1985. Testing herbicides for kudzu eradication on a Piedmont site. South. J. Appl. For 9:128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1986. Kudzu eradication trials testing fifteen herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 39:276–281.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. 1988. Kudzu eradication trials with new herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 41:220–225.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Edwards, M. B. 1983. Kudzu: where did it come from? And how can we stop it? South. J. Appl. For 7:165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Forest Plants of the Southeast and Their Wildlife Uses. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 284–285.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 2000. Intriguing world of weeds: kudzu (Pueraria lobata [Wild.] Ohwi). Weed Technol 14:231–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, R. E. and Skelton, D. W. 1946. The production and utilization of kudzu. Miss. State Coll. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull 438:25.Google Scholar
Putz, F. E. 1991. Silvicultural effects of lianas. Pages 493–501 in Putz, F. E. and Mooney, H. A. eds. The Biology of Vines. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, V. A. 1990. Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina. Washington, DC: USDA Soil Conservation Service. 127 p., 46 lvs.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, Volume 2, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 913–917, 941–945.Google Scholar
Schultz, R. P. 1997. Loblolly Pine: The Ecology and Culture of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L). USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 713. Chapter 9. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Pp. 14–18.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, J. F. 1981. Biometry. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. pp. 245, 427, 499–509.Google Scholar
Tsugawa, H., Kawasaki, N., Sasek, T. W., Takahashi, T., Yamamoto, K., and Nishikawa, K. 1993. Dry matter production and leaf area expansion of the current year's canopy in a natural kudzu (Pueraria lobata Ohwi) stand, established in a field left abandoned for about 15 years. J. Jpn. Soc. Grassl. Sci 38:440–452.Google Scholar
Tsugawa, H., Shimizu, T., Sasek, T. W., and Nishikawa, K. 1992. The climbing strategy of the kudzu-vine (Pueraria lobata Ohwi). Sci. Rep. Fac. Agric. Kobe Univ 20:1–6.Google Scholar
van der Maesen, L. J. G. 1985. Revision of the Genus Pueraria DC. with Some Notes on Teyleria backer (Leguminosae). Wageningen, The: Netherlands: Agriculture University Wageningen Papers. 132 p.Google Scholar
Waring, R. H. and Schlesinger, W. H. 1985. Forest Ecosystems: Concepts and Management. New York: Academic. P. 11.Google Scholar