Response of coastal Douglas-fir and competing vegetation to repeated and delayed weed control treatments during early plantation development

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 39, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1208-1219

  Maguire, Douglas A ^a   Mainwaring, Douglas B ^a   Rose, Robin ^a   Garber, Sean M ^a   Dinger, Eric J ^a  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANNUAL VOLUMES; COASTAL DOUGLAS-FIR; COMPETITIVE EFFECTS; CONIFER PLANTATIONS; GROWING SEASON; GROWTH EFFECTS; HERBICIDE TREATMENT; PREVIOUS YEAR; PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII; SEEDLING GROWTH; SHORT TERM; TREATMENT EFFECTS; TREE SIZE; VEGETATION DYNAMICS;

FORESTRY; HERBICIDES; VEGETATION;

WEED CONTROL;

CONIFEROUS TREE; GROWING SEASON; GROWTH RESPONSE; HERBICIDE; PLANTATION; SEEDLING EMERGENCE; SILVICULTURE; VEGETATION DYNAMICS; WEED CONTROL;

ABIES; COASTS; GROWING SEASON; HERBICIDES; PLANTATIONS; PLANTS; SEEDLINGS; TREE DIMENSIONS; WEED CONTROL;

CONIFEROPHYTA; PSEUDOTSUGA; PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII;

EID: 67649373083     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X09-032     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Adams, P.R., Beadle, C.L., Mendham, N.J., and Smethurst, P.J. 2003. The impact of timing and duration of grass control on growth of a young Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation. New For. 26: 147-165.
2. Alaback, P. 1982. Dynamics of understory biomass in Sitka spruce-western hemlock forests of Southeast Alaska. Ecology, 63: 1932-1948. doi:10.2307/1940131.
3. Bell, F.W., Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., and Wagner, R.G. 2000. Relative competitiveness of nine early-succession boreal forest species associated, with planted jack pine and black spruce seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 30: 790-800. doi:10.1139/cjfr-30-5-790.
4. Briggs, D. 2007. Management practices on Pacific Northwest west-side industrial forest lands, 1991-2005: with projections to 2010. Stand Management Cooperative, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Stand Manage. Coop. Work. Pap. 6.
5. Chen, F. 2004. Effects of weed control on vegetation dynamics in Pacific Northwest conifer plantations. Ph.D. dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
6. Coates, K.D. 1987. Effects of shrubs and herbs on conifer regen-eration and microclimate in the Rhododendron-Vaccinium-Menziesia community of south-central British Columbia. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
7. Cole, E.C., and Newton, M. 1987. Fifth-year responses of Douglas-fir to crowding and nonconiferous competition. Can. J. For. Res. 17: 181-186. doi:10.1139/x.87-031.
8. Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2: 13-20.
9. Dinger, E.J. 2007. Evaluating the effectiveness of commonly used herbaceous weed control regimes in a Pacific Northwest conifer plantation. M.S. thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
10. Flewelling, J., Collier, R., Gonyea, B., Marshall, D., and Tumblom, E. 2001. Height-age curves for planted stands of Douglas-fir, with adjustments for density. Stand Management Cooperative, College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. Stand Manage. Coop. Work. Pap. 1.
11. Grime, J.P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. John Wiley, Chichester, UK.
12. Hann, D.W., and Ritchie, M.W. 1988. Height growth rate of Dou-glas-fir: a comparison of model forms. For. Sci. 34: 165-175.
13. Hanson, T.J. 1997 Growth of plantation conifers and whiteleaf manzanita in southwest Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State Uni-versity, Corvallis, Ore.
14. Harrington, C.A. 1990. Red alder. In Silvics of North America. Technical coordinators : R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala. U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Handb. 654. pp. 116-123.
15. Harrington, T.B., and Tappeiner, J.C. 1991. Competition affects shoot morphology, growth duration, and relative growth rates of Douglas-fir saplings. Can. J. For. Res. 21: 474-481. doi:10. 1139/x91-064.
16. Harrington, T.B., Wagner, R.G., Radosevich, S.R., and Walstad, J.D. 1995. Interspecific competition and herbicide injury influ-ence 10-year responses of coastal Douglas-fir and associated ve-getation to release treatments. For. Ecol. Manage. 76: 55-67. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(95)03558-R.
17. Husch, B., Miller, C.I., and Beers, T.W. 1982. Forest mensuration. Kreiger Publishing Co., Malabar, Fla. pp. 98-101.
18. Kenkel, N.C. 1988. Pattern of self-thinning in jack pine: testing the random mortality hypothesis. Ecology, 69: 1017-1024. doi: 10. 2307/1941257.
19. Kikuzawa, K. 1999. Theoretical relationships between mean plant size, size distribution and thinning under one-sided competition. Ann. Bot. (London), 83: 11-18. doi:10.1006/anbo.1998.0782.
20. Lauer, D.K., Glover, G.R., and Gjerstad, D.H. 1993. Comparison of duration and method, of herbaceous weed control on loblolly pine response through midrotation. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 2116-2125. doi:10.1139/x.93-264.
21. Mason, E.G., and Milne, P.G. 1999. Effects of weed control, ferti-lization, and soil cultivation on the growth of Pinus radiata at midrotation in Canterbury, New Zealand. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 985-992. doi:10.1139/cjfr-29-7-985.
22. Miller, J.H., Zutter, B.R., Zedaker, S.M., Edwards, M.B., and New-bold, R.A. 2003. Growth and yield relative to competition for loblolly pine plantations to midrotation - a southeastern United States regional study. South. J. Appl. For. 27: 237-252.
23. Monleon, V.J., Newton, M., Cooper, C., and Tappeiner, J.C. 1999. Ten-year growth response of young Douglas-fir to variable den-sity varnishleaf ceanothus and herb competition. West. J. Appl. For. 14: 208-213.
24. Murphy, G.E., Sutton, W.R.J., Hill, D., Chambers, C., Creel, D., Binkley, C., and New, D. 2005. Economics of intensively mana-ged, forest plantations in the Pacific Northwest. J. For. 103: 78-82.
25. Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M.H. 1990. Applied, linear statistical models. Irwin, Boston, Mass.
26. Newton, M., and Preest, D.S. 1988. Growth and water relations of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings under different weed control regimes. Weed Sci. 36(5): 653-662.
27. Nieto, J., Brondo, M.A., and Gonzalez, J.T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS (C), 14(2): 159-166.
28. Nilsson, U., and Allen, H.L. 2003. Short- and long-term effects of site preparation, fertilization, and vegetation control on growth and stand development of planted loblolly pine. For. Ecol. Man-age. 175: 367-377. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00140-8.
29. Nilsson, H., and Karlsson, S. 1987. The importance of precipitation and temperature for herbicide persistence in arable soil. Weeds and Weed Control, 1: 148-158.
30. O'Dea, M.E., Newton, M., Cole, E.C., and Gourley, M. 2000. The influence of weeding on growth of browsed seedling in Dou-glas-fir plantations. West. J. Appl. For. 15(3): 163-168.
31. Ogawa, K., and Hagihara, A. 2003. Self-thinning an size variation in a sugi (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don) plantation. For. Ecol. Manage. 174: 413-421. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(02)00062-2.
32. Pacala, S.W., Canham, C.D., and Silander, J.A. 1993. Forest mod-els defined by field, measurements: I. The design of a northeastern forest simulator. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 1980-1988. doi: 10. 1139/x93-249.
33. Petersen, T.D., Newton, M., and Zedaker, S.M. 1988. Influence of Ceanothus velutinus and associated forbs on the water stress and stemwood production of Douglas-fir. For. Sci. 34(2): 333-343.
34. Pienaar, L.V., and Rheney, J.W. 1995. Modeling stand level growth and yield response to silvicultural treatments. For. Sci. 41: 629-638.
35. Preest, D.S. 1977. Long term, growth response of Douglas-fir to weed control. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 7: 329-332.
36. Reukema, D.L., and Smith, H.J. 1987. Development over 25 years of Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western redcedar planted at various spacings on a very good site in British Columbia. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-381.
37. Rose, R., and Haase, D. 2006. Guide to reforestation in western Oregon, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
38. Rose, R., Rosner, L.S., and Ketehum, J.S. 2006. Twelfth-year re-sponse of Douglas-fir to area of weed control and herbaceous versus woody weed control treatments. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 2464-2473. doi:10.1139/X06-126.
39. Rosner, L.S., and Rose, R. 2006. Synergistic stem volume re-sponses to combinations of vegetation control and seedling size in conifer plantations in Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 930-944. doi:10.1139/X05-292.
40. SAS Institute Inc. 1996. SAS System for mixed models. SAS Insti-tute Inc., Cary, N.C.
41. Schwinning, S., and Weiner, J. 1998. Mechanisms determining the degree of size asymmetry in competition among plants. Oecolo-gia (Berlin), 113: 447-455. doi:10.1007/s004420050397.
42. South, D.B., Miller, J.H., Kimberley, M.O., and VanderSehaaf, C.L. 2005. Determining productivity gains from, herbaceous ve-getation management with 'age-shift'calculations. Forestry, 79: 43-56. doi:10.1093/forestry/ cpi058.
43. Steel, R.G.D., and Tonie, J.H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
44. Stein, W.I. 1995. Ten-year development of Douglas-fir and asso-ciated vegetation after different site preparation on Coast Range clearcuts. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-473.
45. Talbert, C., and Marshall, D. 2005. Plantation productivity in the Douglas-fir region under intensive silvicultural practices: results from research and operations. J. For. 103: 65-70.
46. Ter-Mikaelian, M.T., Wagner, R.G., Bell, F.W., and Shropshire, C. 1999. Comparison of photosynthetically active radiation and cover estimation for measuring the effects of interspecific com-petition on jack pine seedlings. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 883-889. doi:10.1139/cjfr-29-7-883.
47. Wagner, R.G., and Radosevich, S.R. 1991. Neighborhood predic-tors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir planta-tions. Can. J. For. Res. 21: 821-828. doi:10.1139/x91-115.
48. Wagner, R.G., and Radosevich, S.R. 1998. Neighbourhood ap-proach for quantifying interspecific competition in coastal Ore-gon forests. Ecol. Appl. 8: 779-794. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0779:NAFQIC]2.0.CO;2.
49. Wagner, R.G., and Robinson, A.P. 2006. Critical period of inter-specific competition for four northern conifers: 10-year growth response and associated, vegetation dynamics. Can. J. For. Res. 36: 2474-2485. doi:10.1139/X06-058.
50. Wagner, R.G., Muhommand, G.H., and Noland, T.L. 1999. Critical period of interspecific competition for northern conifers asso-ciated with herbaceous vegetation. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 890-897. doi:10.1139/cjfr-29-7-890.
51. Wagner, R.G., Little, K.M., Richardson, B., and McNabb, K. 2005. The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world's forests. Forestry, 79: 57-79. doi:10.1093/forestry/ cpi057.
52. Weiner, J., and Whighain, D.F. 1988. Size variability and self-thinning in wild-rice (Zizania aquatica). Am. J. Bot. 75: 445-448. doi:10.2307/2443991.
53. Wykoff, W.R. 1990. A basal area increment model for individual conifers in the northern Rocky Mountains. For. Sci. 36: 1077-1104.
54. Zimdahl, R.L. 1988. The concept and application of the weed-free period. In Weed management in agroecosystems: ecological ap-proaches. Edited by M.A. Altieri and M. Liebman. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Fla. pp. 145-155.