Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:03:31.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vegetation Management in the Cross Timbers: Response of Woody Species to Herbicides and Burning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jimmy F. Stritzke ,
David M. Engle  and
F. Ted McCollum
Jimmy F. Stritzke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
David M. Engle
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
F. Ted McCollum
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brush control and woody plant community structure in the Cross Timbers of Oklahoma resulting from treatments with herbicides and fire were compared. Tebuthiuron and triclopyr were applied alone and in combination with burning at 2.2 kg ai ha-1 in March and June of 1983, respectively. The burned pastures were burned with strip headfires in late spring of 1985, 1986, and 1987. Both herbicides were effective on the dominant overstory brush species, blackjack oak and post oak, and this resulted in good reduction of canopy cover of brush initially. However, effects of triclopyr were short-lived because of ineffectiveness on many of the other hardwood species (American elm, gum bumelia, hackberry, roughleaf dogwood, and buckbrush). Crown reduction and tree kill of these hardwood species was usually better with tebuthiuron than with triclopyr. Neither herbicide was effective on eastern redcedar. Better brush control, associated with tebuthiuron, resulted in better fine fuel release and by 1988, burning was having a significant effect on woody plants in the tebuthiuron-treated plots.

Keywords

Tebuthiuron, N-[5-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]-N,N′-dimethylureatriclopyr, [(3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acidbuckbrush, Symphoricarpos orbiculatus Moench. ♯ SYPORgum bumelia, Bumelia lanuginosa (Michx.) Pers. ♯ BUMLAroughleaf dogwood, Cornus drummondii C. A. Meyer ♯ CRWDRAmerican elm, Ulmus americana L. ♯ ULMAMhackberry, Celtis occidentalis L. ♯ CELOCblackjack oak, Quercus marilandica Muenchh. ♯ QUEMApost oak, Quercus stellata Wangenh. ♯ QUESLeastern redcedar, Juniperus virginiana L. ♯ IUPVITebuthiurontriclopyrbrush controlprescribed burninghardwood forest
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 400 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Box, T. W. 1967. Brush, fire and west Texas rangeland. Tall Timbers Fire Ecol. Conf. Proc. 6:7–19.Google Scholar
2. Byrd, N. A., Lewis, C. E., and Pearson, H. A. 1984. Management of southern pine forest for cattle production. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Ser. Gen. Rep. R-8-GR4.Google Scholar
3. Daniel, W. W. 1978. Applied Nonparametric Statistics. Houghton Mifflin, Co. Boston, 503 p.Google Scholar
4. Dwyer, D. D., and Santelmann, P. W. 1964. A comparison of post oakblackjack oak communities on two major soil types in north central Oklahoma. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. B-626.Google Scholar
5. Ehrenreich, J. H., and Crosby, J. S. 1960. Forage production on sprayed and burned areas in the Missouri Ozarks. J. Range Manage. 13:68–70.Google Scholar
6. Elwell, H., McMurphy, W. E., and Santelmann, P. W. 1970. Burning and 2,4,5-T on post oak and blackjack oak rangeland in Oklahoma. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. B-675.Google Scholar
7. Elwell, H., Santelmann, P. W., Stritzke, J. F., and Greer, H. 1974. Brush control research in Oklahoma. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. B-712.Google Scholar
8. Ewing, A. L., Stritzke, J. F., and Kulbeth, J. D. 1984. Vegetation of the Cross Timbers Experimental Range, Payne County, Oklahoma. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. P-856.Google Scholar
9. Grelen, H. E. 1978. Winter and spring prescribed fires on Louisiana pine-bluestem range. Int. Rangeland Congr. Proc. 1:242–244.Google Scholar
10. Johnson, F. L., and Risser, P. G. 1975. A quantitative comparison between an oak forest and an oak savannah in central Oklahoma. Southwest. Natur. 20:75–84.Google Scholar
11. McMurphy, W. E. 1968. Range improvement research progress report. Okla. State Univ. Agron. Dep. No. P-596.Google Scholar
12. Myers, H. R. 1982. Climatological data of Stillwater, Oklahoma 1893–1980. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Reg. P-321.Google Scholar
13. Penfound, W. T. 1962. The savannah concept in Oklahoma. Ecology 43:774–775.Google Scholar
14. Peters, E. J., and Stritzke, J. F. 1969. Response of ironweed and buckbrush to herbicides and to herbicides in combination with mowing, nitrogen fertilizer, and surfactants. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. No. 1400.Google Scholar
15. Rice, E. L., and Penfound, W. T. 1959. The upland forest of Oklahoma. Ecology 40:593–603.Google Scholar
16. Scifres, C. J., and Mutz, J. L. 1978. Herbaceous vegetation changes following applications of tebuthiuron for brush control. J. Range Manage. 31:375–378.Google Scholar
17. Scifres, C. J., Stuth, J. W., and Bovey, R. W. 1981. Control of oaks (Quercus spp.) and associated woody species on rangeland with tebuthiuron. Weed Sci. 29:270–275.Google Scholar
18. Stritzke, J. F. 1980. Effect of tebuthiuron on herbaceous production in tallgrass prairies. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:114.Google Scholar
19. Stritzke, J. F., McMurphy, W. E., and Hammond, R. W. 1975. Brush control with herbicides. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Misc. Publ. MP-95.Google Scholar
20. Wright, H. A., and Bailey, A. W. 1980. Fire Ecology: United States and Southern Canada. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 501 p.Google Scholar