THE ROLE OF WEED MANAGEMENT IN GROWING VALBROAD TREE SPP.

Transcription

1 THE ROLE OF WEED MANAGEMENT IN GROWING VALBROAD TREE SPP. Derya EşenE Düzce University Forestry Faculty, TURKEY

2 Introduction Maximize production Preserve site quality Sustainable forest management

3 Introduction Forest Productivity = Biotic Factors + Abiotic Factors + Cultural Factors genotype climate water control ecophysiology topography nutrient control community soils pest control Burger (1995)

4 Weeds Herbaceous & woody weeds (HW & WW) significantly reduce young tree establisment & growth HW make the most significant negative effects in the early in the rotation (first two-five yrs) while WW effects last through the rotation Effects of HW in conifer plantations have been well- studied, with growth reductions by 50-90% in many commercial tree spp. Complete weed removal for first 5 yrs of Douglas-fir plantation in Oregon increased volume/ha after 15 yrs by 454% (Yildiz 2000)

5 Herbaceous Weed Competition HW are especiall detrimental to survival & growth of VALBROAD spp: HWs reduced survival of young black walnut seedlings by 60% 3 YAT (Ponder 1987) Weed control improved gld of young ash, cherry, walnut seedling by % 90 DAT (Seifert 2002)

6 Carrying capacity 1 Burger (1995)

7 Carrying capacity (Site quaility) Woody + herbaceous weed control P fertilization Drainage Herbaceous weed control N fertilization Genetic improvement The check Modified from Zedaker (1992) Burger (1995)

8 Weed Control Productivity gains by genetic improvement & fertilization are realized only if integrated with weed control Effective weed control programs need to be designed for different VALBROAD tree spp * weed control methods * effective, environmentally sound, cost- effective and socially acceptable Herbicides?

9 Herbicides Herbicide selectivity * Mode of action * Placement selectivity * Rate Crop safety * Trials aiming to determine crop-safe herbicides & rates

10 Crop Safety Trials Herbicides: 2,4-D glyphosate imazpic imazethapyr One-year year-old BROAD seedlings: narrowleaf ash (Fraxinus( angustifolia Vahl.) wild & black cherry (Prunus( avium L.& P. serotina Ehrh.), Quercus hartwissiana Steven.)

11

12

13

14 Crop Safety Table 1. Effect of foliar-applied herbicides as a group on the mean relative survival rate, height and groundline diameter (gld) growth percentages, and injury indices of one-year-old hardwood seedlings with standard errors (±) 103 days after foliar herbicide treatments in Duzce, Turkey. Treatment Mean Relative Survival Rate (%) 1 Mean Relative Gld Growth (%) 1 Mean Relative Height Growth (%) 1 Injury Index 1 Herbicide-sprayed No treatment 80 a 2 (±5) 64 a (±10) 23 a (±7) 3 a (±16) -6 a (±6) -21 a (±12) 0.8 a (±0.14) 1.2 a (±0.30) 1 Treatment main effect was significant (p < 0.05) as a result of one-way ANOVA, 2 Treatments alongside the same letters are not significantly different (p > 0.05). Eşen et al. (2006)

15 Table 2. Effects of different foliar-applied herbicides on the mean relative survival rate, height and groundline diameter (gld) growth percentages, and damage and form abnormality indices of one-yearold cherry, narrowleaf ash and hartwissiana oak seedlings with standard errors (±) 103 days after treatment in Duzce, Turkey. Herbicide Mean Relative Survival Rate (%) 1 Mean Relative Gld Growth (%) 1 Mean Relative Height Growth (%) 1 Injury Index 1 Form Index 1 Black and Wild Cherry 1 Imazethapyr Glyphosate Feramin Imazapic No treatment 70 a 2 (±16) 63 a (±16) 61 a (±16) 55 a (±17) 40 a (±16) 14 a (±26) 22 a (±28) 27 a (±28) -7 a (±28) -21 a (±32) -6 a (±22) -14 a (±20) -10 a (±20) -27 a (±22) -40 a (±24) 0.03 a (±0.03) 0.26 a (±0.13) 0.11 a (±0.11) 0.08 a (±0.06) 1.0 b (±0.5) 1.5 ab (±0.4) 1.5 ab (±0.4) 1.8 ab (±0.4) 2.3 a 2 (±0.3) Narrowleaf Ash 3 No treatment Imazethapyr Imazapic Glyphosate Feramin 100 a (±0) 100 a (±0) 100 a (±0) 100 a (±0) 100 a (±0) 48 a (±3) 46 a (±9) 39 a (±6) 25 a (±11) 23 a (±19) 11 a (±12) 5 a (±4) -1 a (±2) 4 a (±20) -2 a (±3) 0.08 a (±0.08) 0.17 a (±0.17) 0.10 a (±0.1) 0.23 a (±0.23) Hartwissiana Oak 3 Feramin Glyphosate Imazethapyr Imazapic No treatment 100 a (±0) 100 a (±0) 97 a (±4) 96 a (±4) 86 a (±14) 37 a (±10) 27 a (±8) 37 a (±7) 21 a (±2) 33 a (±10) 7 a (±10) 7 a (±3) -7 a (±26) 4 a (±12) 2 a (±14) 0.08 a (±0.08) 0.18 a (±0.12) 0.25 a (±0.10)

16

17

18

19 Conclusion Herbicide selection Rate selection Crop safety Genetics in crop safety? Integrated approach