Free Access
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 62, Number 6, September-October 2005
Page(s) 481 - 492
References of Ann. For. Sci. 62 481-492
  1. Brand D.G., A competition index for predicting the vigor of planted Douglas-fir in southwestern British Columbia, Can. J. For. Res. 16 (1986) 23-29.
  2. Bruce D., DeMars D.J., Volume equations for second-growth Douglas-fir, USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-239, 1974.
  3. Burton P.J., Some limitations inherent to static indices of plant competition, Can. J. For. Res. 23 (1993) 2141-2152.
  4. Chan S.S., Walstad J.D., Correlations between overtopping vegetation and development of Douglas-fir saplings in the Oregon Coast Range, West. J. Appl. For. 2 (1987) 117-119.
  5. Cholewa A.F., Johnson F.D., Secondary succession in the Pseudotsuga menziesii/Physocarpus malvaceus association, N.W. Sci. 54 (1983) 273-282.
  6. Cole E.C., Newton M., Fifth-year response of Douglas-fir to crowding and nonconiferous competition, Can. J. For. Res. 17 (1987) 181-186.
  7. Daniels R.F., Burkhart H.E., Clason, T.R., A comparison of competition measures for predicting growth of loblolly pine trees, Can. J. For. Res. 16 (1986) 1230-1237.
  8. DeLong S.C., The light interception index: a potential tool for assisting in vegetation management decisions, Can. J. For. Res. 21 (1991) 1037-1042.
  9. Dougherty P.M., Lowery R.F., Spot-size of herbaceous control impacts loblolly pine seedling survival and growth, South. J. Appl. For. 15 (1991) 193-1999.
  10. Dyrness C.T., Early stages of plant succession following logging and burning in the western Cascades of Oregon, Ecology 54 (1973) 57-69.
  11. Hanson T.J., Growth of plantation conifers and whiteleaf manzanita in southwest Oregon, Ph.D. Dissertation, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, 1997.
  12. Harrington T.B., Tappeiner J.C., Competition affects shoot morphology, growth duration, and relative growth rates of Douglas-fir saplings, Can. J. For. Res. 21 (1991) 474-481.
  13. Harrington T.B., Wagner R.G., Radosevich S.R., Walstad J.D., Interspecific competition and herbicide injury influence 10-year responses of coastal Douglas-fir and associated vegetation to release treatments, For. Ecol. Manage. 76 (1995) 55-67 [CrossRef].
  14. Howard K.M., Newton M., Overtopping by successional Coast-Range vegetation slows Douglas-fir seedlings, J. For. 82 (1984) 178-180.
  15. Jaramillo A.E., Growth of Douglas-fir in southwestern Oregon after removal of competing vegetation, USDA For. Serv. Res. Note PNW-RN-470, 1988.
  16. Rose R., Ketchum J.S., Effect of several soil active herbicides used in forests of the Pacific Northwest on germination of several common hardwood species, Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 51 (1998) 52-55.
  17. King J.E., Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Paper No. 8, Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center, Centralia, WA, USA, 1966.
  18. Miller J.H., Zutter B.R., Zedaker S.M., Edwards M.B., Newbold R.A., Growth and yield relative to competition for loblolly pine plantations to midrotation - a southeastern United States regional study, South. J. Appl. For. 27 (2003) 237-251.
  19. Monleon V.J., Newton M., Hooper C., Tappeiner J.C., Ten-year growth response of young Douglas-fir to variable density varnishleaf ceanothus and herb competition, West. J. Appl. For. 14 (1999) 208-213.
  20. Newton M., Preest D.S., Growth and water relations of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) seedlings under different weed control regimes, Weed Sci. 36 (1988) 653-662.
  21. Oester P.T., Emmingham W., Larson P., Clements S., Performance of ponderosa pine seedlings under 4 herbicide regimes in northeast Oregon, New For. 10 (1995) 123-131.
  22. Petersen T.C., Newton M., Zedaker S.M., Influence of Ceanothus velutinus and associated forbs on the water stress and stemwood production of Douglas-fir, For. Sci. 34 (1988) 333-343.
  23. Richardson B., Davenhill N., Coker G., Ray J., Vanner A., Kimberly M., Optimizing spot weed control: first approximation of the most cost-effective spot size, N. Z. J. For. Sci. 26 (1996) 265-275.
  24. Rose R., Ketchum J.S., Interaction of vegetation control and fertilization on conifer species across the Pacific Northwest, Can. J. For. Res. 32 (2002) 136-152 [CrossRef].
  25. Rose R., Ketchum J.S., Hanson D.E., Three-year survival and growth of Douglas-fir seedlings under various vegetation-free regimes, For. Sci. 45 (1999) 117-126.
  26. Schoonmaker P., McKee A., Species composition and diversity during secondary succession of coniferous forests in the western Cascade Mountains of Oregon, For. Sci. 34 (1988) 968-979.
  27. Stein W.I., Ten-year Development of Douglas-fir and associated vegetation after different site preparation on coast range clearcuts, USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-473, 1995.
  28. Wagner R.G., Colombo S.J., Regenerating the Canadian Forest, Fitzhenry and Whiteside, Ontario, 2001.
  29. Wagner R.G., Radosevich S.R., Neighborhood predictors of interspecific competition in young Douglas-fir plantations, Can. J. For. Res. 21 (1991) 821-828.
  30. Wagner R.G., Radosevich S.R., Neighborhood approach for quantifying interspecific competition in coastal Oregon forests, Ecol. Appl. 8 (1998) 779-793.
  31. Wagner R.G., Mohammed G.H., Noland T.L., Critical period of interspecific competition for northern conifers associated with herbaceous vegetation, Can. J. For. Res. 29 (1999) 890-897 [CrossRef].
  32. Weed Science Society of America, Herbicide Handbook, Ahrens W.H. (Ed.), Weed Science Society of America, Champaign, Illinois, 1994.
  33. White D.E., Newton M., Competitive interactions of whiteleaf manzanita, herbs, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine in southwest Oregon, Can. J. For. Res. 19 (1989) 232-238.