Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:43:08.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Bearmat (Chamaebatia foliolosa) on Soil Moisture and Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa) Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John C. Tappeiner II  and
Steven R. Radosevich
John C. Tappeiner II
Affiliation:
School of For., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331, and Assoc. Prof., Bot. Dep., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
School of For., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331, and Assoc. Prof., Bot. Dep., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was established in 1961 to determine the influence of bearmat (Chamaebatia foliolosa Benth.) competition on ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.) survival and growth. Ponderosa pine seedlings were planted in bearmat which was: (A) untreated, (B) sprayed with a mixture of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] and 2,4,5-T [(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid], and (C) eliminated by a combination of herbicide, clipping sprouts, and trenching to prevent root and rhizome invasion. Ponderosa pine survival after 19 yr averaged 9%, 66%, and 90%, respectively, for the three treatments. Tree height after 19 yr averaged 1.6, 1.9, and 5.7 m for treatments A, B, and C, respectively. Soil moisture use was initially less on the herbicide-treated than on the untreated plots, but bearmat quickly sprouted after application to compete with the pine seedlings for moisture. After 19 yr the bearmat was more dense and appeared to be more vigorous on the sprayed plots than on those receiving no treatment. We estimate that 75% reduction in net wood production could result after 50 yr on this site from bearmat competition.

Keywords

Herbicidehand clippingshrub controlSierra Nevada
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1982 , pp. 98 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the 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. Lanini, W. T. 1981. Seasonal effectiveness of five herbicides on several Sierran brush species. , Univ. of Calif., Davis. 92 pp.Google Scholar
2. Leonard, O. A. and Harvey, W. A. 1965. Chemical control of woody plants. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 812. 26 pp.Google Scholar
3. Oliver, W. W. and Powers, R. F. 1978. Growth models for ponderosa pine: I. Yield of unthinned plantations in northern California. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Res. Paper PSW-133. 21 pp.Google Scholar
4. Schubert, G. H. 1962. Chemicals for brush control in California reforestation. Pacific Southwest For. Range Exp. Stn. Miscellaneous Paper, Berkeley, Calif. No. 73. 14 pp.Google Scholar
5. Spurr, S. H. and Barnes, B. V. 1980. Forest Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 687 pp.Google Scholar
6. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar
7. Tappeiner, J. C. 1966. Natural regeneration of Douglas-fir in the mixed conifer type of the Sierra Nevada of California. , Univ. of Calif., Berkeley. 237 pp.Google Scholar
8. Tappeiner, J. C. and Helms, J. A. 1971. Natural regeneration of Douglas-fir and white fir on exposed sites in the Sierra Nevada of California. Am. Mid. Nat. 86:358–370.Google Scholar