New Forests

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 383–398 | Cite as

Long-term response to area of competition control in Eucalyptus globulus plantations

  • F. Vargas
  • R. Rubilar
  • C. A. Gonzalez-Benecke
  • M. Sanchez-Olate
  • Pablo Aracena
Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Numerous studies have quantified the responses to vegetation management in Eucalyptus plantations but most publications have reported early responses in tree growth and a gap in knowledge exist about the magnitude and duration of growth responses throughout the whole rotation. We evaluated the long-term response (9 years-old) of E. globulus across a gradient of sites to different intensity levels of free area of competing vegetation around individual tree seedlings. Competing vegetation intensity levels considered free areas ranging between 0 (control) to 2.54 m2 plus a treatment with total weed control. Competing vegetation biomass production during the first growing season was 2.9, 6.5, 2.2 and 12.9 Mg ha−1, for sites ranging from low to high annual rainfall. Across sites, maximum response in stand volume ranged between 58 and 262 m3 ha−1 at age 9 years and was proportional to the amount of competing biomass controlled during the first growing season. Total competing vegetation control showed the largest response in stand volume at sites with 2.9 and 12.9 Mg ha−1 of competing vegetation. However, the 2.54 m2 vegetation control treatment showed the maximum response for sites with 2.2 and 6.5 Mg ha−1 of competing vegetation. The duration of response for vegetation control treatments ranged between 5 and 9 years. However, at the site with the largest accumulation of competing vegetation biomass the response to vegetation control showed a sustained and divergent response. Our results suggest that vegetation control improved site resources acquisition increasing long-term stand productivity by reducing environmental limitations to tree growth differentially at each site.

Keywords

Weed control Control intensity Herbicide Reforestation Intensive silviculture Forest management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Bioforest S.A. and Forestal Arauco S.A. for financial and technical support. We would also like to thank Dr. R Ahumada from Bioforest for support and useful discussions that helped the completion of this study, and Dr. H Arancibia from Universidad de Concepción for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Field staff from Bioforest S.A. and Forestal Arauco S.A. provided fieldwork and site management assistance, which is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Adams P, Beadle C, Mendham N, Smethurst P (2003) The impact of timing and duration of grass control on the growth of a young Eucalyptus globulus Labill plantation. New For 26:147–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albaugh T, Allen L, Dougherty P, Johnsen K (2004a) Long term growth responses of loblolly pine to optimal nutrient and water resource availability. For Ecol Manag 192:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albaugh T, Rubilar R, Alvarez J, Allen L (2004b) Radiata pine response to tillage, fertilization, and weed control in Chile. Bosque 25:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albaugh T, Alvarez J, Rubilar R, Fox T, Allen L, Stape J, Mardones O (2015) Long-term Pinus radiata productivity gains from tillage, vegetation control, and fertilization. For Sci 61:800–808Google Scholar
  5. Allen L (1996). Effects of site preparation and early fertilization and weed control on 14-year loblolly pine growth. NCSFNC report N°36. Forest Nutrition Cooperative, Department of Forestry, NCSU, NC, p 35Google Scholar
  6. Allen HL, Lein S (1998) Effects of site preparation, early fertilization, and weed control on 14-year old loblolly pine. In: Proceedings of the southern weed science society, 51, Birmingham, AL, USA, 26–29 January, pp 104–110Google Scholar
  7. Álvarez J, Allen L, Albaugh T, Stape J, Bullock B, Song C (2013) Factors influencing the growth of radiata pine plantations in Chile. Forestry 86:13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Balandier P, Rapey H, Ruchaud F, De Montard FX (2002) Agroforesterie en Europe de l’Ouest: pratiques et expérimentations sylvopastorales des montagnes de la zone tempérée. Cah Agric 11:103–113Google Scholar
  9. 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 neighboring vegetation. Forestry 79:3–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Booth TH (2013) Eucalypt plantations and climate change. For Ecol Manag 301:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coll L, Balandier P, Picon-Cochard C (2004) Morphological and physiological responses of beech (Fagus sylvatica) seedlings to grass-induced belowground competition. Tree Physiol 24:45–54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. de Toledo R, Filho R, Bezutte A, Pitelli R, Alves P, Do Valle C (2003) Períodos de controle de Brachiaria sp e seus reflexos na produtividade de Eucalyptus grandis. Sci For 63:221–232Google Scholar
  14. Dinger E, Rose R (2009) Integration of soil moisture, xylem water potential, and fall–spring herbicide treatments to achieve the maximum growth response in newly planted Douglas-Fir seedlings. Can J For Res 39:1401–1414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dougherty P, Lowery R (1991) Spot-size of herbaceous control impacts loblolly pine seedling survival and growth. South J Appl For 15:193–199Google Scholar
  16. Eyles A, Worledge D, Sands P, Ottenschlaeger ML, Paterson SC, Mendham D, O’Grady AP (2012) Ecophysiological responses of a young blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) plantation to weed control. Tree Physiol 32:1008–1020CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2013) Global forest resources assessment 2010. In: FAO technical paper. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Flores F, Allen HL (2004) Efectos del clima y capacidad de almacenamiento de agua del suelo en la productividad de rodales de pino radiata en Chile: un análisis utilizando el modelo 3-PG. Bosque 25:11–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forrester D, Schortemeyer M, Stock WD, Bauhus J, Khanna PK, Cowie AL (2007) Assessing nitrogen fixation in mixed- and single-species plantations of Eucalyptus globulus and Acacia mearnsii. Tree Physiol 27:1319–1328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Garau A, Lemcoff J, Ghersa C, Beadle C (2008) Water stress tolerance in Eucalyptus globulus Labill subsp. maidenii (F. Muell.) saplings induced by water restrictions imposed by weeds. For Ecol Manag 255:2811–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garau A, Ghersa C, Lemcoff J, Barañao J (2009) Weeds in Eucalyptus globulus subsp. maidenii (F. Muell) establishment: effects of competition on sapling growth and survivorship. New For 37:251–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. George B, Brennan P (2002) Herbicides are more cost-effective than alternative weed control methods for increasing early growth of Eucalyptus dunnii and Eucalyptus saligna. New For 24:147–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonçalves J, Stape J, Laclau J, Smethurst P, Gava J (2004) Silvicultural effects on the productivity and wood quality of eucalypt plantations. For Ecol Manag 193:45–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harper G, Comeau P, Biring B (2005) A comparison of herbicide and mulch mat treatments for reducing grass, herb, and shrub competition in the BC Interior Douglas-Fir zone-ten years results. West J Appl For 20:167–176Google Scholar
  25. Haywood J (2011) Influence of herbicides and felling, fertilization, and prescribed fire on longleaf pine growth and understory vegetation through ten growing seasons and the outcome of an ensuing wildfire. New For 41:55–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herrick JD, Maherali H, Thomas RB (2004) Reduced stomatal conductance in sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) sustained over long-term CO2 enrichment. New Phytol 162:387–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. INFOR (Instituto Forestal, CL) (2014) Estadísticas forestales 2013. Boletín Estadístico Nº144, SantiagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Kogan M, Figueroa R (1999) Interferencia producida por las malezas durante los dos primeros años en Pinus radiata. Bosque 20:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kogan M, Figueroa R, Gilabert H (2002) Weed control intensity effects on young radiata pine growth. Crop Prot 21:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  31. Little K (1999) The influence of vegetation control on the growth and pulping properties of a Eucalyptus grandis × camaldulensis hybrid clone. Thesis, University of Natal, South AfricGoogle Scholar
  32. Little K, Rolando C (2008) Regional vegetation management standards for commercial Eucalyptus plantations in South Africa. South For 70:87–97Google Scholar
  33. Little K, Schumann A (1996) A new systematic trial design for the optimization of interspecific weed control. In: Sheperd RCH (ed) Proceedings of the eleventh Australian weeds conference, Melbourne, Australia, Weed Science Society of Victoria, Frankston, pp 440–444Google Scholar
  34. Little K, Van Staden J (2003) Interspecific competition affects early growth of a Eucalyptus grandis × E. camaldulensis hybrid clone in Zululand. S Afr J Bot 69:505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Little K, Rolando C, Morris C (2007) An integrated analysis of 33 Eucalyptus trials linking the onset of competition-induced tree growth suppression with management, physiographic and climatic factors. Ann For Sci 64:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mason E, Milne P (1999) Effect of weed control, fertilization, and soil cultivation on the growth of Pinus radiate at midrotation in Canterbury, New Zealand. Can J For Res 29:985–992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nambiar EKS, Nethercott KH (1987) Nutrient and water availability to and growth of young radiata pine plantations intercropped with lupins. New For 1:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nambiar EKS, Sands R (1992) Effects of compaction and simulated root channels in the subsoil on root development, water uptake and growth of radiata pine. Tree Physiol 10:297–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nambiar EKS, Sands R (1993) Competition for water and nutrients in forests. Can J For Res 23:1955–1968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nambiar S, Zed P (1980) Influence of weeds on the water potential, nutrient content and growth of young radiata pine. Aust For Res 10:279–288Google Scholar
  41. Nilsson U, Allen 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 Manag 175:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Powers R, Reynolds P (1999) Ten-year responses of ponderosa pine plantations to repeated vegetation and nutrient control along an environmental gradient. Can J For Res 29:1027–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Real P (2010) Reajuste de Funciones Implementadas en Simulador EUCASIM. http://www.simulador.cl/mnsdoc/pdf/EUCA_DT12.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2016
  44. Richardson B (1993) Vegetation management practices in plantation forests of Australia and New Zealand. Can J For Res 23:1989–2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Richardson B, Davenhill N, Coker G, Ray J, Vanner A, Kimberly M (1996) Optimizing spot weed control: first approximation of the most cost-effective spot size. N Z J For Sci 26:265–275Google Scholar
  46. Rose R, Rosner L (2005) Eighth-year response of Douglas-fir seedlings to area of weed control and herbaceous versus woody weed control. Ann For Sci 62:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rose R, Rosner L, Scott J (2006) Twelfth-year response of Douglas-fir to area of weed control and herbaceous versus woody weed control treatments. Can J For Res 36:2464–2473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sands P, Landsberg J (2002) Parameterisation of 3-PG for plantation grown Eucalyptus globulus. For Ecol Manag 63:273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smethurst P, Nambiar S (1989) Role of weeds in the management of nitrogen in a young Pinus radiata plantation. New For 3:203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagner RG (2000) Competition and critical period thresholds for vegetation management decisions in young conifer stands. For Chron 76:961–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner R, Petersen T, Ross D, Radosevich S (1989) Competition thresholds for the survival and growth of ponderosa pine seedlings associated with woody and herbaceous vegetation. New For 3:151–170CrossRefGoogle 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. Watt M, Rolando C, Kimberley M, Coker G (2015) Using the age shift method to determine gains from weed management for Pinus radiata in New Zealand. Weed Res 55:461–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Whitehead D, Beadle C (2004) Physiological regulation of productivity and water use in Eucalyptus: a review. For Ecol Manag 93:113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zutter BR, Miller JH (1998) Eleventh-year response of loblolly pine and competing vegetation to woody and herbaceous control on a Georgia flatwoods site. South J Appl For 22:88–95Google Scholar
  56. Zutter BR, Mitchell RJ, Glover GR, Gjerstad DH (1999) Root length and biomass in mixtures of broomsedge with loblolly pine and sweetgum. Can J For Res 29:926–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Vargas
    • 1
    • 3
  • R. Rubilar
    • 2
  • C. A. Gonzalez-Benecke
    • 4
  • M. Sanchez-Olate
    • 3
  • Pablo Aracena
    • 5
  1. 1.Bioforest S.A.ConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Cooperativa de Productividad Forestal, Departamento de Silvicultura, Facultad de Ciencias ForestalesUniversidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  3. 3.Departamento de Silvicultura, Facultad de Ciencias ForestalesUniversidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  4. 4.Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and ManagementOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  5. 5.Private ConsultantTalcaChile

Personalised recommendations