Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:29:00.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shrub Control in Conservation Reserve Program Lands in Interior Alaska

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven S. Seefeldt ,
Phil N. Kaspari  and
Jeffery S. Conn
Steven S. Seefeldt*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service–Subarctic Agricultural Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
Phil N. Kaspari
Affiliation:
Cooperative Extension Service Delta District, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 349, Delta Junction, AK 99737
Jeffery S. Conn
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service–Subarctic Agricultural Research Unit, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Alaska Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, succession of fields planted with grass and clover to shrubs and small trees is resulting in program compliance problems related to ease of reconversion to crop lands. Standard practice for slowing this succession is mowing every 2 to 3 yr, which does not kill the woody vegetation. A field study was conducted at three sites over 2 yr to determine if 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha−1 2-ethylhexyl ester) or triclopyr (2.2 kg ae ha−1 butoxyethyl ester) applied broadcast or 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha−1 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) or triclopyr (1.7 kg ae ha−1 triclopyr triethylamine salt) applied with a Diamond Wet Blade™ mower (DWB) would result in longer shrub control compared to mowing. Mowing was conducted at both 15 and 45 cm above ground level and herbicides were applied with the DWB at three rates. Measurements 2 yr after treatment (YAT) confirmed that both herbicides reduced shrub cover about 50% compared to controls. Reduced rates of the herbicides applied with the DWB did not result in decreased shrub control. Grass cover was negatively correlated with shrub cover. Typically, mower height did not alter treatment effects. Treatments had little impact on forb cover and composition 2 YAT, with the exception of fireweed, which was generally reduced where herbicides were applied. Application of 2,4-D and triclopyr does not decrease the frequency of shrub control in CRP lands in Alaska. Use of 2,4-D and triclopyr with or without mowing resulted in no widespread improvement over the current practice of mowing to 15 cm every 2 to 3 yr.

En tierras del Programa de Reservas para la Conservación (CRP) de Alaska, la sucesión de campos sembrados con zacate y trébol a arbustos y árboles pequeños está resultando en problemas para el cumplimiento del programa en relación con la facilidad de reconversión a tierras agrícolas. La práctica estándar para retrasar esta sucesión es la chapia cada 2 a 3 años, la cual no mata la vegetación leñosa. Se realizó un estudio de campo en tres sitios durante 2 años para determinar si 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha−1 2-ethylhexyl ester) o triclopyr (2.2 kg ae ha−1 butoxyethyl ester) aplicados con aspersión generalizada o 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha−1 2,4-D sal dimethylamine) o triclopyr (1,7 kg ae ha−1 triclopyr sal triethylamine) aplicados con una chapeadora Damon Wet Blade TM (DWB) resultarían en un control más duradero de arbustos en comparación con la chapia. Se chapeó a 15 y 45 cm sobre la superficie del suelo y los herbicidas se aplicaron con el DWB a tres dosis. Mediciones 2 años después del tratamiento (YAT) confirmaron que ambos herbicidas redujeron la cobertura de arbustos en cerca de 50% en comparación con los testigos. Dosis reducidas de los herbicidas aplicados con DWB no resultaron en reducciones en el control de arbustos. La cobertura de zacates estuvo negativamente correlacionada con la cobertura de arbustos. Típicamente, la altura de la chapeadora no afectó el efecto de los tratamientos. Los tratamientos tuvieron un impacto menor en la cobertura y composición de plantas herbáceas de hoja ancha a 2 YAT, con la excepción de Chamerion angustifolium, la cual fue generalmente reducida cuando se aplicó herbicidas. La aplicación de 2,4-D y triclopyr no reduce la frecuencia de control de arbustos en tierras del CRP en Alaska. El uso de 2,4-D y triclopyr con o sin chapia no resultó en una mejora en comparación con la práctica actual de chapear a 15 cm cada 2 ó 3 años.

Keywords

2,4-Dtriclopyrfireweed, Chamerion angustifolium (L.) Holub ssp angustifoliumBrush controlConservation Reserve ProgramDiamond Wet Blade mowerherbicide
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 184 - 189
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Cooperative Extension Service, Tanana District, University of Alaska Fairbanks, P.O. Box 758155, Fairbanks, AK 99775.

References

Literature Cited

Clark, L. J. 1976. Wild Flowers of the Pacific Northwest. Vancouver, BC, Canada : Evergreen. 604 p.Google Scholar
Gallant, A. L., Binnian, R. F., Omernik, J. N., and Shasby, M. B. 1995. Ecoregions of Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1567. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office. 73 p.Google Scholar
Gannon, T. W. and Yelverton, F. H. 2011. Application placement equipment for bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) suppression along roadsides. Weed Technol. 25 :77–83.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–80 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York : J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Henson, S. E., Skroch, W. A., Burton, J. D., and Worsham, A. D. 2003. Herbicide efficacy using a wet-blade application system. Weed Technol. 17 :320–324.Google Scholar
Hixson, A. C., Gannon, T. W., and Yelverton, F. H. 2007. Efficacy of application placement equipment for tall fescue (Lolium arundinaceum) growth and seedhead suppression. Weed Technol. 21 :801–806.Google Scholar
Le Houerou, H. N., Bingham, R. L., and Skerbek, W. 1988. Relationship between the variability of primary production and the variability of annual precipitation in world arid lands. J. Arid Environ. 15 :1–18.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. National Handbook of Conservation Practices: Conservation Practice Standard, Filter Strip. Washington, DC : Natural Resources Conservation Service code 393. 4 p.Google Scholar
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Soil Survey of Delta Junction, Alaska Area. Delta Junction, AK : Natural Resources Conservation Service. 394 p.Google Scholar
Osborn, C. T., Llancuna, E., and Linsenbigler, M. 1992. The Conservation Reserve Program: Enrollment Statistics for Sign-Up Periods 1–11 and Fiscal Years 1990–1992. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin 843.Google Scholar
Schoephorster, D. B. 1973. Soil Survey of Salcha–Big Delta Area, Alaska. Washington, DC : USDA – Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Conn, J. C., Zhang, M., and Karspari, P. N. 2010. Vegetation changes in Conservation Reserve Program lands in interior Alaska. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 135 :119–126.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1986. Backgrounder: Conservation Reserve Program. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture News Division.Google Scholar