Free access
Issue
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 60, Number 7, October-November 2003
Technical, Environmental and Economic challenges of Forest Vegetation Management
Page(s) 619 - 624
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:2003054
References of Ann. For. Sci. 60 619-624
  1. Albaugh T.J., Allen H.L., Dougherty P.M., Kress L.W., King J.S., Leaf area and above- and belowground growth responses of loblolly pine to nutrient and water additions, For. Sci. 44 (1998) 317-328.
  2. Allen H.L., Albaugh T.J., Understanding the interactions between vegetation control and fertilization in young plantations: southern pine plantations in the Southeast USA, Instituto de Pesquisas e Estudos Florestais "Il Seminário sobre Manejo de Plantas Infestantes em Áreas Florestais", Department of Forest Soils at ESALQ / Univ. of San Paulo, Brazil, 2000, 14 p.
  3. Allen H.L., Dougherty P.M., Campbell R.G., Manipulation of water and nutrients - practice and opportunity in southern U.S. pine forests, For. Ecol. Manage. 30 (1990) 437-453.
  4. Borders B.E., Bailey R.L., Loblolly pine - pushing the limits of growth, South. J. Appl. For. 25 (2001) 69-74.
  5. Cain M.D., Evaluation of imazapyr for control of woody competitors in a plantation of submerchantable-size loblolly pine, USDA For. Serv. South. For. Exp. Sta. Res. Pap. SO-262, 1991, 11 p.
  6. Cain M.D., Mann W.F. Jr., Annual brush control increases early growth of loblolly pine, South. J. Appl. For. 4 (1980) 67-70.
  7. Colbert S.R., Jokela E.J., Neary D.G., Effects of annual fertilization and sustained weed control on dry matter partitioning, leaf area, and growth efficiency of juvenile loblolly and slash pine, For. Sci. 36 (1990) 995-1014.
  8. Creighton J.L., Zutter B.R. Glover G.R., Gjerstad D.H., Planted pine growth and survival response to herbaceous vegetation control, treatment duration, and herbicide application techniques, South. J. Appl. For. 11 (1987) 223-227.
  9. Ewers B.E., Oren R., Albaugh T.J., Dougherty P.M., Carry-over effects of water and nutrient supply on water use of Pinus taeda, Ecol. Appl. 9 (1999) 513-525.
  10. Fisher R.F., Garbett W.S., Response of semimature slash and loblolly pine plantations to fertilization with nitrogen and phosphorus, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44 (1980) 850-854.
  11. Fortson J.C., Shiver B.D., Shackelford L.S., Ten-year results of the SAGS loblolly pine competing vegetation study. Preliminary Report. Plantation Management Research Cooperative, Univ. of Georgia, Athens, 1994, GA, USA.
  12. Fortson J.C., Shiver B.D., Shackelford L., Removal of competing vegetation from established loblolly pine plantations increases growth on Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain sites, South. J. Appl. For. 20 (1996) 188-192.
  13. Hanna S.A., Midrotation response of loblolly pine to fertilization and vegetation control, Auburn University, Ph.D. dissertation, 2000, 209 p.
  14. Hanna S.A., Glover G.R., Lockaby B.G., Zutter B.R., Torbert J., Nitrogen response to vegetation control and fertilization in a midrotation loblolly pine stand, Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52 (1991) 112-113.
  15. Haywood J.D., Response of planted Pinus taeda L. to brush control in northern Louisiana, For. Ecol. Manage. 15 (1986) 129-134.
  16. Hynynen J., Burkhart H.E., Allen H.L., Modeling tree growth in fertilized midrotation loblolly pine plantations, For. Ecol. Manage. 107 (1998) 213-229.
  17. Knowe S.A., Nelson L.R., Gjerstad D.H., Zutter B.R., Glover G.R., Minogue P.J., Dukes J.H., Four-year growth and development of planted loblolly pine on sites with competition control, South. J. Appl. For. 9 (1985) 11-15.
  18. Mason E.G., Milne P.G., Effects of weed control, fertilization, and soil cultivation on the growth of Pinus radiata at midrotation in Canterbury, New Zealand, Can. J. For. Res. 29 (1999) 985-992 [CrossRef].
  19. Miller J.H., Zutter B.R., Zedaker S.M., Edwards M.B., Haywood J.D., Newbold R.A., A regional study on the influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early loblolly pine growth, South. J. Appl. For. 15 (1991) 329-334.
  20. Oppenheimer M.J., Shiver B.D., Rheney J.W., Ten-year response of midrotation slash pine plantations to control of competing vegetation, Can. J. For. Res. 19 (1989) 329-334.
  21. Nilsson U., Örlander G., Response of newly planted Norway spruce seedlings to fertilization, irrigation and herbicide treatments, Ann. For. Sci. 60 (2003) 637-643.
  22. Nordborg F., Nilsson U., Growth, damage and net nitrogen uptake in Picea abies (L.) Karst. seedlings, effects of site preparation and fertilization, Ann. For. Sci. 60 (2003) 657-666.
  23. Powers R.F., Reynolds P.E., Ten-year responses of ponderosa pine plantations to repeated vegetation and nutrient control along an environmental gradient, Can. J. For. Res. 29 (1999) 1027-1038 [CrossRef].
  24. Quicke H.E., Lauer D.K., Glover G.R., Growth responses following herbicide release of loblolly pine from competing hardwoods in the Virginia Piedmont, South. J. Appl. For. 20 (1996) 177-181.
  25. Russell T.E., Control of understory hardwoods fails to speed growth of pole-size loblolly, USDA For. Serv. Exp. Stn. Note No. 131 (1961) pp. 3-4.
  26. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User's guide, Release 6.03 edition, Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc., 1988, 1028 p.
  27. Smalley G.W., Bower D.R., Volume tables and point sampling factors for loblolly pine plantations on abundant fields in Tennessee, Alabama, and Geaorgia Highlands, USDA For. Serv. South. For. Exp. Sta., Res. Pap. SO-32, 1968.
  28. Zutter B.R., Britt J.R., Minogue P.J., Quicke H.E., Response of hardwoods and loblolly pines two years after a midrotation aerial application of Arsenal Applicators Concentrate, American Cyanamid Forestry Tech. Service Research Report 97-02, 1997, 9 p.