Free Access
Ann. For. Sci.
Volume 66, Number 7, October-November 2009
Article Number 705
Number of page(s) 9
Published online 02 October 2009
References of  Ann. For. Sci. 66 (2009) 705
  1. Allen H.L. and Lein S., 1998. Effects of site preparation, early fertilization, and weed control on 14-year old loblolly pine. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 104–110.
  2. Borders B.E., 2004. Piedmont and upper coastal plain loblolly pine site preparation study: Results through age 18. PMRC technical report 2004-3, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 29 p.
  3. Borders B.E. and Bailey R.L., 2001. Loblolly pine – pushing the limits of growth. South. J. Appl. For. 25: 69–74.
  4. Borders B.E., Harrison W.M, Zhang Y., Shiver B.D., Clutter M., Cieszewski C., and Daniels, R.F., 2004a. Growth and yield models for second rotation Loblolly pine plantations in the Piedmont/upper coastal plain and lower coastal plain of the southeastern U.S. PMRC technical report 2004-4, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 67 p.
  5. Borders B.E., Will R.E., Markewitz D., Clark A., Hendrick R., Teskey R.O., and Zhang Y., 2004b. Effect of complete competition control and annual fertilization on stem growth and canopy relations for a chronosequence of loblolly pine plantations in the lower coastal plain of Georgia. For. Ecol. Manage. 192: 21–37 [CrossRef].
  6. Carlson C.A., Fox T.R., Colbert S.R., Kelting D.L., Allen H.L., and Albaugh T.J., 2006. Growth and survival of Pinus taeda in response to surface and subsurface tillage in the southeastern United States. For. Ecol. Manage. 234: 209–217 [CrossRef].
  7. Edward M.B., Shiver B.D., and Logan S.R., 2004. Effects of five silvicultural treatments on loblolly pine in the Georgia Piedmont at age 20. South. J. Appl. For. 28: 35–40.
  8. Fox T.R., Allen H.L., Albaugh T.J., Rubilar R., and Carlson, C.A., 2007. Tree nutrition and forest fertilization of pine plantations in the southern United States. South. J. Appl. For. 31: 5–11.
  9. Godefroid S., Monbaliu D., Massant W., Van Der Aa B., De Vos B. Quivy V., and Koedam N., 2007 Effects of soil mechanical treatments combined with bramble and bracken control on the restoration of degraded understory in an ancien beech forest Ann. for. Sci. 64: 321–331.
  10. Lauer D.K. and Glover G.R., 1998. Early pine response to control of herbaceous and shrub vegetation in the flatwoods. South. J. Appl. For. 22: 201–208.
  11. Lauer D.K. and Glover G.R., 1999. Stand level pine response to occupancy of woody shrub and herbaceous vegetation. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 979–984 [CrossRef].
  12. Lauer D.K., Muir R.L., and Glover G.R., 1998. Combining herbicide applications with mechanical site preparation. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 112–113.
  13. Lauer D.K. and Quicke H.E., 2006. Timing of chopper herbicide site preparation on bedded sites. South. J. Appl. For. 30: 92–101.
  14. Lauer D.K. and Zutter B.R., 2001. Vegetation cover response and second-year loblolly and slash pine response following bedding and pre- and post-plant herbicide applications in Florida. South. J. Appl. For. 25: 75–83.
  15. Littell R.C., Milliken G.A., Stroup W.W., Wolfinger R.D., and Schabenberger O., 2006. SAS $^\circledR$ for mixed models, 2nd ed. SAS institute Inc. Cary, NC, 814 p.
  16. Miller J.H., Zutter B.R., Zedaker S.M., Edwards M.B., and Newbold R.A., 2003. Growth and yield relative to competition for loblolly pine plantations to midrotation – A southeastern United States regional study. South. J. Appl. For. 27: 237–252.
  17. Morris L.A. and Lowery R.F., 1988. Influences of site preparation on soil conditions affecting stand establishment and tree growth. South. J. Appl. For. 12: 170–178.
  18. Nilsson U. and Allen H.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. Manage. 175: 367–377 [CrossRef].
  19. Piatek K.B. and Allen H.L., 2000. Site preparation effects on foliar N and P use, retranslocation, and transfer to litter in 15-years old Pinus taeda. For. Ecol. Manage. 129: 143–152 [CrossRef].
  20. Pienaar L.V., Burgan T., and Rheney J.W., 1987. Stem volume, taper and weight equations for site-prepared loblolly pine plantations. University of Georgia, school of forest resources PMRC research paper 1987-1, Athens, GA, 11 p.
  21. Pinheiro J.C. and Bates D.M., 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS, Springer-Verlag, New York, 528 p.
  22. Ratkowsky D.A., 1990. Handbook of nonlinear regression models, New York, Marcel Dekker, 241 p.
  23. Scott A.D., Novosad J., and Goldsmith G., 2007. Ten-year results from the North American long-term soil productivity study in the western gulf coastal plain. Advancing the fundamental sciences: proceedings of the forest service national earth sciences conference, pp. 331–340.
  24. Shiver B.D. and Martin, S.W., 2002. Twelve-year results of a loblolly pine site preparation study in the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. South. J. Appl. For. 26: 32–36.
  25. South D.B. and Miller J.H., 2007. Growth response analysis after early control of woody competition for 14 loblolly pine plantations in the southern U.S. For. Ecol. Manage. 242: 569–577 [CrossRef].
  26. Zutter B.R. and Miller J.H., 1998. Eleventh-year response of loblolly pine and competing vegetation to woody and herbaceous plant control on a Georgia flatwoods site. South. J. Appl. For. 22: 88–95.
  27. Zhao D., Kane M., Borders B.E., and Harrison M., 2007. Piedmont and upper coastal plain loblolly pine site preparation study: results through age 21. PMRC technical report 2007-4, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 50 p.
  28. Zhao D., Kane M., Borders B.E., and Harrison M., 2008. Pine growth response to different site-preparation methods with or without post-plant herbaceous weed control on north florida's lower coastal plain. For. Ecol. Manage. 255: 2512–2523 [CrossRef].
  29. Zhao D., Wilson M., and Borders B.E., 2005. Modeling response curves and testing treatment effects in repeated measures experiments: a multilevel nonlinear mixed-effects model approach. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 122–132 [CrossRef].