Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 583–591 | Cite as

Effects of application date and rate of foliar-applied glyphosate on pine seedlings in Turkey

  • Mehmet Can Cap
  • Derya Eşen
Original Paper


Glyphosate is the herbicide most extensively used for site preparation and conifer release. It is a broad-spectrum herbicide and therefore crop safety is a critical issue. This study assessed the early effects of 14 different treatments, including no weed control, manual weed control, and 12 foliar-applied herbicide treatments at low, intermediate, high, and highest application rates and application timing on glyphosate phytotoxicity of containerized seedlings of Austrian pine (Pinus nigra J.F. Arnold.), Scots pine (P. sylvestris L.) and maritime pine (P. pinaster Aiton), conifer species widely used for afforestation and supplementary plantings in Turkish forestry. In general, Scots pine seedlings were tolerant to glyphosate compared to the other species. Glyphosate phytotoxicity varied significantly according to the time and rate of application. Seedlings were relatively tolerant to glyphosate in April whereas they were intolerant in May. The highest herbicide rate (1.2% v:v) was consistently phytotoxic to all species. Moreover, the effect of herbicide rate on seedling survival and growth varied significantly according to application date (i.e., application rate × date interaction). Seedlings appeared tolerant to glyphosate at low and intermediate rates (0.2, 0.4% v:v) between mid-spring and mid-summer, whereas they demonstrated significant sensitivity to the highest rate across all time periods. Glyphosate at the high rate (0.8% v:v) was particularly more phytotoxic when applied in May. Application of glyphosate at rates up to 0.8% could be recommended for weed control without significant pine damage in mid-spring when the needles presumably have a dense leaf epicuticular wax layer limiting herbicide penetration. Applications of 0.8 and 1.2% v:v are not recommended during May–June.


Application date and rate Glyphosate screening Pines Seedling tolerance 



This study originated from the MSc thesis work of Mehmet Can Cap at Düzce University. We thank the Pınar Forest Nursery Management of Düzce Forest Directorate for their help in the study.


  1. Anfodillo T, Bisceglie DPD, Urso T (2002) Minimum cuticular conductance and cuticle features of Picea abies and Pinus cembra needles along an altitudinal gradient in the Dolomites (NE Italian Alps). Tree Physiol 22:479–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2014) Ormancılık istatistikleri 2014. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (in Turkish). Accessed 03 Mar 2016 (in Turkish)
  3. Boydak M, Çalışkan S (2014) Ağaçlandırma. OGEM-VAK Ankara, Çankaya, p 714Google Scholar
  4. Bunn BH, Zedaker SM, Seiler JR (1995) Presoaking improves forest tree seed screening. In: Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, pp 129–130Google Scholar
  5. Cape JN (1983) Contact angles of water droplets on needles of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) growing in polluted atmospheres. New Phytol 93:293–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duryea ML, Landis TD (1984) Forest nursery manual: production of bareroot seedlings. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, The Hague, p 377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eşen D, Yıldız O (2000) Otsu ve odunsu diri örtü mücadelesinin meşcerelerin gençleştirilmesi ve büyümesine etkileri. TBMMO or Müh Odası Der 37:28–32 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  8. Eşen D, Zedaker SM (2004) Control of rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum L. and R. flavum Don.) in the eastern beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests of Turkey. New For 27(1):69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eşen D, Yıldız O, Güneş N, Sargıncı M (2006) Early susceptibility of hardwood tree seedlings to different post-emergent herbicides. J Balk Ecol 9(2):161–166Google Scholar
  10. Eşen D, Yıldız O, Ediş S, Eşen U, Çetintaş C (2012) Düzce’de glyphosate yaprak herbisitinin genç yabani kiraz (Prunus avium L.) fidanlarına etkisi. DÜ Orman Der 8(1):50–57 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  11. Ezel AW, Nelson L (2001) Weed control and crop tolerance after preemergent and postemergent applications of sulfomethuron in oak (Quercus spp.) plantations. Weed Technol 15:585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Genç M (2012) Silvikültürün temel prensipleri. S.D.U. Orman Fak Yayın No: 44, Isparta, p 351 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  13. Hess FD, Foy CL (2000) Interaction of surfactants with plant surfaces. Weed Technol 14:807–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holloway PJ (1970) Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pestic Sci 1:156–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kelpsas B, Newton M, Landgren C (2015) Forestry. In: Peachey E (ed) Pacific Northwest weed management handbook. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, p K-1–K-23Google Scholar
  16. Kirkwood RC (1999) Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pest Sci 55:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lund-Hoie K (1975) N-phosphonomethylglycine (glyphosate), an alternative to commercial pre and postemergence herbicides for the control of unwanted plant species in forest plantation in Norway. Sci Rep Agric Univ Norway 55:1–14Google Scholar
  18. McCarthy N, O’Reilly C (2001) The Impact of herbicides on tree seedling quality. COFORD Connects Reprod Material No:1, p 4 Accessed 19 June 2017
  19. Mitchell PB, Zedaker SM, Seiler JR, Hipkins PL, Burch PL (2006) Evaluation of rapid screening techniques for woody plant herbicide development. Weed Technol 20:971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Newton M, Knight F (1981) Handbook of weed and insect control chemicals for forest resource managers. Timber Press, Beaverton Oregon, p 160Google Scholar
  21. Osiecka A, Minogue PJ (2014) Considerations for developing effective herbicide prescriptions for forest vegetation management. FOR273, the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, UF/IFAS Extension, p 7, Accessed 03 Mar 2016
  22. Ott RL (1993) An introduction to statistical methods and analysis, 4th edn. Duxberry Press, Belmont, California, p 1051Google Scholar
  23. Pallardy SG (2008) Physiology of woody plants, 3rd edn. Academic Press, Amsterdam, p 454Google Scholar
  24. Prasad R (1989) Crop tolerance of three west coast conifer species to glyphosate. In: Reynolds PE (ed) Proceedings of the Carnation Creek Herbicide Workshop. Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada, pp 189–196Google Scholar
  25. Radosevich SR, Holt JS, Ghersa CM (2007) Ecology of weeds and invasive plants: relationship to agriculture and natural resource management, 3rd edn. Wiley, New Jersey, p 472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ross MA, Lembi CA (1989) Applied weed science. MacMillian and Collier MacMillian, New York, p 340Google Scholar
  27. Saatçioğlu F (1957) Karadeniz ormanları süceyrat: Ayancık-Cangal bölgesinde mekanik metodla yapılan süceyrat mücadelesine ait 12 yıllık tecrübe denemeleri. J Faculty of Forestry Univ of Istanbul 7:69–108 (in Turkish) Google Scholar
  28. SAS Institute Inc (2008) SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, p 16Google Scholar
  29. Shepherd T, Griffiths DW (2006) The effects of stress on plant cuticular waxes. New Phytol 171(3):469–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Stanley W, Zedaker S, Seiler J, Burch P (2014) Methods for rapid screening in woody plant herbicide development. Forests 5:1584–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tanjung RHR (2001) Effects of glyphosate on seedlings of conifer and broadleaf trees species native to British Columbia, with particular regard to root-fungus interactıons. Ph. D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Canada, p 184Google Scholar
  32. Thompson DG, Pitt DG (2003) A review of Canadian forest vegetation management research and practice. Ann For Sci 60:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vilčinskas R, Kupčinskienė E (2012) Seasonal dynamics of histological parameters of the needles of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing in conditions of excess ammonia. Biologija 58(1):27–36Google Scholar
  34. Wagner RG, Newton M, Cole EC, Miller JH, Shiver BD (2004) The role of herbicides for enhancing productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in North America. Wildl Soc B 32(4):1028–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang H, Shi H, Li Y, Zhang J (2013) Seasonal variations in leaf capturing of particulate matter, surface wettability and micromorphology in urban tree species. Front Environ Sci Eng 7(4):579–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang H, Shi H, Wang Y (2015) The wetting of leaf surfaces and its ecological significances. In: Aliofkhazraei M (ed) Wetting and wettability. Chapter 11. InTech Publ, Rijeka, pp 295–321Google Scholar
  37. Willoughby I, Clay D, Dixon F (2003) The effect of pre-emergent herbicides on germination and early growth of broadleaved species used for direct seeding. Forestry 76(1):83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Woeste KE, Seifert JR, Selig MF (2005) Evaluation of four herbicides and tillage for weed control on third-year growth of tree seedlings. Weed Sci 53:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yeiser JL, Ezell AW (2010) Split-season herbaceous weed control for full-season seedling performance. In: Stanturf JA (ed) Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silviculture research conference general technical report SRS-121. Deptartment of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, US, pp 131–138Google Scholar
  40. Yildiz O, Eşen D (2006) Effects of different rhododendron control methods in eastern beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) ecosystems in the Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. Ann App Biol 149(2):235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yildiz O, Sarginci M, Eşen D, JrK Cromack (2007) Effects of vegetation control on nutrient removal and Fagus orientalis Lipsky regeneration in the Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. For Ecol Manag 240(1–3):186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Engineering, Faculty of ForestryDüzce UniversityDüzceTurkey

Personalised recommendations