Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:16:48.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Crop Tolerance after Preemergent and Postemergent Applications of Sulfometuron in Oak (Quercus spp.) Plantations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew W. Ezell  and
Larry Nelson
Andrew W. Ezell*
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762
Larry Nelson
Affiliation:
Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfometuron was applied over the top of recently planted oak seedlings in three separate studies. Both preemergent (PRE) and postemergent (POST) timings were utilized in all studies. In 1997, six species of oaks were planted and evaluated, and two species were planted in the 1998 and 1999 studies. Sulfometuron was applied at rates of 0.1 and 0.2 kg ai/ha in 1997 PRE and at 0.1 kg ai/ha POST. In 1998 and 1999, treatment rates were 0.1 and 0.15 kg ai/ha for PRE and 0.1 kg ai/ha POST. Results indicate that sulfometuron is effective for competition control and can be applied PRE with total safety with the tested oaks. However, sulfometuron should not be applied POST over white oak seedlings, as mortality will result.

Keywords

Sulfometuronwhite oak, Quercus alba L.HardwoodsreforestationDAT, days after treatmentPOST, postemergent; PRE, preemergent
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 585 - 589
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

Ezell, A. W., Portwood, J., and Quicke, H. 1999. Imazaquin applications for competition control in eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) plantations. In Proc. Short Rotation Woody Crops Operations Working Group Conference. Aug 25-27, Vancouver, WA. pp. 97–101.Google Scholar
Miller, J. M. and Glover, G. R., eds. 1991. Standard Methods for Forest Herbicide Research. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. 68 p.Google Scholar
Smith, D. M., Larson, B. C., Kelty, M. J., and Ashton, P.M.S. 1997. Artificial regeneration. In The Practice of Silviculture, 9th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 264–268.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. and Nix, L. 1993. Early release of cherrybark and Shumard oak seedlings with herbicides. In Proc. Seventh Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report 50-93. pp. 443–451.Google Scholar
Toliver, J. 1986. Survival and growth of hardwoods planted on abandoned fields. Louisiana Agric. 29: 10–11.Google Scholar
Yeiser, J., Nelson, L., and Ezell, A. 1999. A comparison of basal bark treatments using glyphosate and MON 59120. In Proc. 52nd South. Weed Sci. Soc. Annu. Meeting. Jan 25-27, Greensboro, NC. pp. 123–126.Google Scholar