New Forests

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 79–91 | Cite as

Impact of standing vegetation on early establishment of willow cuttings in the flooded area of the Parana River Delta (Argentina)

  • Ana M. Garau
  • Fernando D. Caccia
  • Ana B. Guarnaschelli
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 78 Downloads

Abstract

We assessed the growth and survival of a willow clone (Salix matsudana × Salix alba ‘A 13/44’) growing under different vegetation management in the flooded area of the Parana River Delta (Argentina) during the first 2 years after planting. Treatments consisted in a combination of practices applied in the row and in the inter-row. In the row (1-m wide) vegetation was manually cut with machete (r-M), treated with glyphosate at 3% (r-H) or maintained undisturbed (r-U); in the inter-row vegetation was crushed with a roller (I-R), treated with glyphosate at 3% (I-H) or maintained undisturbed (I-U). Height, diameter and relative growth rate of the dominant sprout were evaluated. Tree survival was high (96%) and not affected by treatments. Growth was modified by the vegetation control at early stages. Height and diameter were higher in r-H plots compared to r-U plots; both were similar in the I-U and I-H plots but greater than in I-R plots. Early differences in diameter relative growth rate among row treatments were found. Possible mechanisms associated with willow growth responses such as plastic responses under resource limited conditions and amelioration of the microenvironment by the native vegetation are discussed.

Keywords

Willow Weed competition Growth Establishment 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from UBACYT TG 039 (Science and Technology of the University of Buenos Aires) and SAGPYA Project PIA 16/04 (Argentinean Secretary of Agriculture, Husbandry, Fisheries and Food).

References

  1. Adams P, Beadle C, Mendham N, Smethurst P (2003) The impact of timing and duration of grass control on growth of a young Eucalyptus globulus Labill. plantation. New Forests 26:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aphalo P, Ballaré C (1995) On the importance of information-acquiring systems in plant–plant interactions. Funct Ecol 9:5–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balandier P, Collet C, Miller J, Reynolds P, Zedaker S (2006) Designing forest vegetation management strategies based on the mechanisms and dynamics of crop tree competition by neighbouring vegetation. Forestry 79:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballaré C, Sánchez R, Scopel A, Casal J, Ghersa C (1987) Early detection of neighbor plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ 10:551–557Google Scholar
  5. Berrondo G, Gurini L (1990) Características ecológicas del Delta del Río Paraná. Boletín de Divulgación de la E.E.A Inta Delta del Paraná. INTA. 9 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Birk J (1998) Herbicide registration and labeling for use in short rotation woody crops. In Proceedings of the short-rotation woody crops operation working group. Vancouver, Washington, USA, pp 89–91Google Scholar
  7. Bonetto A, Hurtado S (1998) Delta Paranense. Región 1 Cuenca del Plata. In: Canevari P, Blanco D, Bucher E, Castro G, Davidson I (eds) Los humedales de la Argentina. Situación actual, conservación y legislación. Wetlands Intern. Publ. 46, pp 31–72Google Scholar
  8. Borodowski E, Suárez R (2005) Caracterización forestal de la región del Delta del Paraná. Documento NEF Delta. Proyecto Forestal de Desarrollo, Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación, 8 pGoogle Scholar
  9. Buresh R, Austin E, Craswell E (1982) Analytical methods in N15 research. Fert Res 3:37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkart A (1957) La vegetación del Delta del Río Paraná. Darwiniana 11:457–562Google Scholar
  11. Callaway R (1992) Effect of shrubs on recruitment of Quercus douglasii and Quercus lobata in California. Ecology 73:2118–2128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawley MJ (1993) GLIM for ecologists. Blackwell Scientific Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Cozzo D (1995) Silvicultura de las plantaciones maderables. ed. Orientación Gráfica, Tomo II, pp 433–445Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert I, Seavers G, Jaarvis P, Smith H (1995) Photomorphogenesis and canopy dynamics. Phytochrome-mediated proximity perception accounts for the growth dynamics of canopies of Populus trichocarpa × deltoides “Beaupre”. Plant Cell Environ 18:475–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldberg D (1996) Simplifying the study of competition at the individual plant level: consequences of distinguishing between competitive effect and response for forest vegetation management. New Zeal For Res 26:19–38Google Scholar
  16. Groot A (1999) Effects of shelter and competition on the early growth of planted white spruce (Picea glauca). Can J For Res 29:1002–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmgren M, Scheffer M, Huston MA (1997) The interplay between facilitation and competition in plant communities. Ecology 78:1966–1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunt R (1990) Basic growth analysis. Plant growth analysis for beginners. Unwin Hyman Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. INTA Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (1990) Atlas de suelos de la República Argentina. Tomo I. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca. Proyecto PNUD Arg 85/019. Centro de Investigaciones en Recursos NaturalesGoogle Scholar
  20. Kopinga J, van del Burg J (1995) Using soil and foliar analysis to diagnose the nutritional status of urban trees. J Arboric 21:17–24Google Scholar
  21. Kozlowski T, Kramer P, Pallardy S (1991) The physiological ecology of woody plants. Academic Press, Nueva YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Little K, Van Staden J, Clarke G (2003) Eucalyptus grandis × E. camaldulensis variability and intra-genotypic competition as a function of different vegetation management treatments. New Forest 25:227–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Malvarez A (1999) El Delta del Río Paraná como mosaico de humedales. In: Malvarez A (ed) Tópicos sobre humedales subtropicales y templados de Sudamérica. UNESCO, pp 35–53Google Scholar
  24. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. Second edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Meadows J, Stanturf J (1997) Silvicultural systems for southern bottomland hardwood forests. For Ecol Manage 90:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller J, Boyd R, Boyd Edwards M (1999) Floristic diversity, stand structure and composition 11 years after herbicide site preparation. Can J For Res 29:1073–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murphy J, Riley J (1962) A modified single solution method for determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nambiar E, Sands R (1993) Competition for water and nutrients in forests. Can J For Res 23:1955–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Orlander G, Nilsson U, Hallgren J (1996) Competition for water and nutrients between ground vegetation and planted Picea abies. New Zeal For Res 26:99–117Google Scholar
  30. Powell G, Bork E (2004) Competition and facilitation in mixtures of aspen seedlings, alfalfa, and marsh reedgrass. Can J For Res 34:1858–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ratcliff A, Busse M, Shestak C (2006) Changes in microbial community structure following herbicide (glyphosate) additions to forest soils. Appl Soil Ecol 34:114–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rey Benayas J, Lopez-Pintor A, García C, de la Cámara N, Strasser R, Gómez Sal A (2002) Early establishment of planted Retama sphaerocarpa seedlings under different levels of light, water and weed competition. Plant Ecol 159:201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Richards LA (1954) Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Agric Handbook 60, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Ritchie G (1997) Evidence for red: far red signalling and photomorphogenic growth response in Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziessi) seedlings. Tree Physiol 17:161–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Roth B, Newton M (1996) Survival and growth of Douglas-fir relating to weeding, fertilization, and seed source. West J Appl For 11(2):62–69Google Scholar
  36. Sage R (1999) Weed competition in willow coppice crops: the cause and extent of yield losses. Weed Res 39:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAGPYA Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación (2001) Inventario Nacional de Plantaciones forestales. Proyecto Forestal de Desarrollo, 63 pGoogle Scholar
  38. SAS Institute (1996) SAS system for Windows, release 6.12. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  39. Schumann A, Little K, Snell C (1994) Recommendations on establishment weeding intensity in Zululand: updated 15 month results from three competition trials and simulation models. ICFR Bulletin Series 3/94:1–8Google Scholar
  40. Sparling D, Matson C, Bickham J, Doelling-Brown P (2006) Toxicity of glyphosate Glypro ® and LI700 to red-eared sliders (Trachemys-scripta elegans) embryos and early hatchlings. Environ Tox Chem 25:2768–2774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistix 8.0 for Windows. Analytical software, Tallahassee, Fl, USAGoogle Scholar
  42. Steel R, Torrie J (1986) Bioestadística: Principios y procedimientos. McGraw Hill, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  43. Tage T, Suzuki M, Yagi H (1996) Site quality and the competition between weeds and planted seedlings in relation to weeding. New Zeal For Res 26:118–125Google Scholar
  44. Ter-Mikaelian M, Wagner R, Wayne Bell F, Shropshire C (1999) Comparison of photosynthetically active radiation and cover estimation for measuring the effects of interspecific competition on jack pine seedlings. Can J For Res 29:883–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tinoco-Ojanguren C, Pearcy R (1995) A comparison of light quality and quantity effects on the growth and steady-state and dynamic photosynthetic characteristics of three tropical tree species. Func Ecol 9:222–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toledo R, Victoria Filho R, Alves P, Pitelli R, Freitas Lopes M (2003) Faixas de controle de plantas daninhas e seus reflexos no crescimento de plantas de eucalipto. Scient For 64:78–92Google Scholar
  47. Volk T, Robinson D, Abrahmson L (2000) Alternative methods of site preparation for willow and poplar biomass crops in the northeastern United States. In: Proceedings of the 21st session of the international poplar commission (IPC 2000) Poplar and Willow Culture: Meeting the needs of society and the environment, p 196Google Scholar
  48. Wagner R, Radosevich S (1991) Neighborhood predictors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir plantations. Can J For Res 21:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wagner R, Radosevich S (1998) Neighborhood approach for quantifying interspecific competition in Coast Oregon Forest. Ecol Appl 8 3:779–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner R, Noland T, Mohammed G (1996) Timing and duration of herbaceous vegetation control around four northern coniferous species. New Zeal For Res 26:39–52Google Scholar
  51. Wagner R, Mohammed G, Noland T (1999) Critical period of interspecific competition for northern conifers associated with herbaceous vegetation. Can J For Res 29:890–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner R, Little K, Richardson B, McNabb K (2006) The role of vegetation management for enhancing productivity of the world’s forests. Forestry 79:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waring R, Schlesinger W (1985) Forest ecosystems. Concepts and management. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Warrington I, Rook D, Morgan D, Turnbull H (1989) The influence of simulated shadelight and daylight on growth, development and photosynthesis of Pinus radiata, Agathis australis and Dacrydium cupressinum. Plan Cell Environ 12:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Woods P, Nambiar E, Smethurst P (1992) Effect of annual weeds on water and nitrogen availability to Pinus radiata trees in a young plantation. For Ecol Manage 48:145–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana M. Garau
    • 1
  • Fernando D. Caccia
    • 1
  • Ana B. Guarnaschelli
    • 1
  1. 1.Cátedra de Dasonomía, Departamento de Producción Vegetal, Facultad de AgronomíaUniversidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations