scholarly journals Effects of Pythium Species and Time in Cold Storage on the Survival of Bareroot and Container-Grown Southern Pine Seedlings

ISRN Ecology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
D. Paul Jackson ◽  
Scott A. Enebak ◽  
David B. South
Keyword(s):  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Slash Pine ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
Southern Pine ◽  
Pythium Irregulare ◽  
Moist Environment

Cold storing bareroot southern pine (Pinus spp.) seedlings for greater than one week after lifting in the fall can lead to poor outplanting survival when compared to seedlings that are lifted and stored in winter. In contrast, container-grown seedlings typically do not experience adverse effects from storing for periods greater than one week. The practice of lifting bareroot seedlings can cause wounds to root systems, which could allow soil-borne pathogens such as Pythium species to be used as infection sites. Once seedlings are placed in storage, the cool, moist environment may be conducive for zoospore activity, leading to root disease and outplanting failure. Bareroot and container-grown longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and container-grown shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata) were inoculated with either Pythium dimorphum or Pythium irregulare, cold-stored for 3, 4, 6, or 12 weeks, and outplanted. Both Pythium species reduced survival of bareroot longleaf pine but not bareroot slash pine. Length of storage decreased survival for both seedling stock types. Pythium species did not affect the survival of container-grown seedlings. These results suggest that P. dimorphum and P. irregulare are more virulent to bareroot longleaf pine than the other pine species tested.

scholarly journals WholeTree Substrates Derived from Three Species of Pine in Production of Annual Vinca

2008 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glenn B. Fain ◽  
Charles H. Gilliam ◽  
Jeff L. Sibley ◽  
Cheryl R. Boyer
Keyword(s):  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Ground Level ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Slash Pine ◽  
Pine Bark ◽  
Hammer Mill ◽  
Horticultural Crops ◽  
Pine Trees

The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential for use of container substrates composed of processed whole pine trees (WholeTree). Three species [loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), slash pine (Pinus elliottii), and longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)] of 8- to 10-year-old pine trees were harvested at ground level and the entire tree was chipped with a tree chipper. Chips from each tree species were processed with a hammer mill to pass through a 0.374-inch screen. On 29 June 2005 1-gal containers were filled with substrates, placed into full sun under overhead irrigation, and planted with a single liner (63.4 cm3) of ‘Little Blanche’ annual vinca (Catharanthus roseus). The test was repeated on 27 Aug. 2005 with ‘Raspberry Red Cooler’ annual vinca. Pine bark substrate had about 50% less air space and 32% greater water holding capacity than the other substrates. At 54 days after potting (DAP), shoot dry weights were 15% greater for plants grown in 100% pine bark substrate compared with plants grown in the three WholeTree substrates. However, there were no differences in plant growth indices for any substrate at 54 DAP. Plant tissue macronutrient content was similar among all substrates. Tissue micronutrient content was similar and within sufficiency ranges with the exception of manganese. Manganese was highest for substrates made from slash pine and loblolly pine. Root growth was similar among all treatments. Results from the second study were similar. Based on these results, WholeTree substrates derived from loblolly pine, slash pine, or longleaf pine have potential as an alternative, sustainable source for producing short-term horticultural crops.

scholarly journals Transition from Fire-Dependent Open Forests: Alternative Ecosystem States in the Southeastern United States

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 411
Author(s):  
Brice B. Hanberry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Southeastern United States ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Fire Disturbance ◽  
Oak Forest ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
Broadleaf Species

Land use and fire exclusion have influenced ecosystems worldwide, resulting in alternative ecosystem states. Here, I provide two examples from the southeastern United States of fire-dependent open pine and pine-oak forest loss and examine dynamics of the replacement forests, given continued long-term declines in foundation longleaf (Pinus palustris) and shortleaf (Pinus echinata) pines and recent increases in commercial loblolly (Pinus taeda) and slash (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) pines. Shortleaf pine-oak forest historically may have been dominant on about 32 to 38 million ha, a provisional estimate based on historical composition of 75% of all trees, and has decreased to about 2.5 million ha currently; shortleaf pine now is 3% of all trees in the northern province. Longleaf pine forest decreased from about 30 million ha, totaling 75% of all trees, to 1.3 million ha and 3% of all trees in contemporary forests of the southern province. The initial transition from open pine ecosystems to closed forests, primarily comprised of broadleaf species, was countered by conversion to loblolly and slash pine plantations. Loblolly pine now accounts for 37% of all trees. Loss of fire-dependent ecosystems and their foundation tree species affect associated biodiversity, or the species that succeed under fire disturbance.

Prodiamine: A Herbicide for Pine and Hardwood Nurseries

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-146
Author(s):  
David B. South
Keyword(s):  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Quercus Alba ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
White Pine ◽  
Eastern White Pine ◽  
Pinus Taeda L

Abstract Tolerance to applications of prodiamine was examined in field experiments with loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.), and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.)seedlings at nine southern nurseries in 1979 and at six nurseries in 1980. No significant injury was observed when 0.5 kg ai/ha (7.1 oz ai/ac) was applied after sowing (preemergence) or 4 to 6 wk after sowing (postemergence). When applied just after sowing at 1.0 kg ai/ha (13.3 oz. ai/ac),a reduction in emergence was observed with loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and eastern white pine. Tolerance of various hardwoods was also examined. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis L.) was sensitive, and seedling production was reduced with both preemergence and early postemergence applications.Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua L.), and two species of oaks (Quercus alba L. and Q. nigra L./Q. phellos L.) tolerated rates as high as 1.0 kg ai/ha. South. J. Appl. For. 16(3):142-146

scholarly journals Fomesafen: A Herbicide for Pine Seedbeds

1997 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-145
Author(s):  
David B. South
Keyword(s):  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Silt Loam ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
White Pine ◽  
Risk Of Injury ◽  
Loam Soil ◽  
Pinus Taeda L

Abstract Tolerance of southern pines to preemergence applications of fomesafen was examined at eight nursery experiments in 1984. When sown on coarse textured soils, loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.), slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm. var elliottii), longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.), and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) were tolerant to 0.5 kg ai/ha applied after sowing. However, a reduction in loblolly pine seedling production was observed with one test on a silt loam soil in Louisiana. The risk of injury from a preemergence application may be related to soil texture. Pine tolerance to a single postemergence treatment was tested at seven nurseries in 1985. No significant injury was observed when 0.5 kg ai/ha was applied 3 to 8 weeks after sowing loblolly pine or shortleaf pine, and no injury was observed on fall-sown eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.). When applied 1 or 2 months after sowing, loblolly pine appears tolerant to fomesafen even on silt loam soils. Injury has been observed from postemergence applications when a surfactant was used in combination with fomesafen. Preemergence applications of fomesafen are now an operational practice at several southern pine nurseries. South. J. Appl. For. 21(3):143-145.

scholarly journals A Comparison of the Attributes of Pine Straw from Southern Pine Species

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-122
Author(s):  
Zachary Singh ◽  
Adam Maggard ◽  
Rebecca Barlow ◽  
John Kush
Keyword(s):  
Soil Moisture ◽  
Soil Temperature ◽  
Soil Properties ◽  
Soil Nutrients ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Slash Pine ◽  
Weed Growth ◽  
Pine Straw

Abstract Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.), and slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) are two southern pine species that are popular for producing pine straw for landscaping. The objective of this research was to determine the response of soil properties and weed growth to the application of pine straw. Longleaf pine, slash pine, and two non-mulched controls (with and without chemical weed control) were tested. Volumetric soil water content, soil nutrients, soil temperature, weed biomass, and seedling growth were measured. Compared to non-mulched controls, both longleaf and slash pine plots had a greater soil moisture during extended periods without rainfall in the full sun environment. When soil temperatures increased, mulched plots had lower soil temperature relative to non-mulched plots. Soil pH and soil nutrients were generally similar between pine straw types with few significant differences in measured variables. Both pine straw treatments reduced weed growth and longleaf pine maintained a greater straw depth over the study period compared to slash pine, but no differences were observed for decomposition. These results indicate that longleaf pine straw and slash pine straw perform equally as well in terms of increasing soil moisture, moderating soil temperature, and reducing weed growth compared to not using mulch. Index words: Pinus elliottii, Pinus palustris, organic mulch, soil properties, landscaping. Species used in this study: Shumard oak, Quercus shumardii Buckl., Eastern redbud, Cercis canadensis L.

Pine Seedling Response to Dichlobenil, Fluometuron, and Pebulate

Weed Science ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 292-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Wilkinson ◽  
T. S. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Slash Pine ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
Growth Reduction ◽  
Percentage Survival ◽  
Pine Seedlings ◽  
Herbicide Toxicity

Growth and percentage survival was measured for slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm.), shortleaf pine (P. echinata Mill.), Virginia pine (P. virginiana Mill.), and loblolly pine (P. taeda L.) seedlings treated with: (a) 0.07 to 4.48 kg/ha 2,6-dichlorobenzonitrile (dichlobenil), (b) 0.28 to 8.96 kg/ha 1,1-dimethyl-3-(a,a,a-trifluoro-m-tolyl)urea (fluometuron), or (c) 1.12 to 8.96 kg/ha S-propyl butylethylthiocarbamate (pebulate). Herbicide toxicity to pine seedlings was in order of dichlobenil > fluometuron > pebulate. Acceptance of mild growth reduction would permit pebulate utilization in seed bed nurseries.

Whole-tree water relations of co-occurring mature Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii var. elliottii

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos A. Gonzalez-Benecke ◽  
Timothy A. Martin ◽  
Wendell P. Cropper,
Keyword(s):  
Leaf Area ◽  
Water Use ◽  
Water Relations ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Hydraulic Conductance ◽  
Slash Pine ◽  
Southeastern Us ◽  
Whole Tree

The natural range of longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris P. Mill.) and slash pine ( Pinus elliottii var. elliottii Engelm.) includes most of the southeastern US Coastal Plain, and there is now considerable interest in using these species for ecological forestry, restoration, and carbon sequestration. It is therefore surprising that little information is currently available concerning differences in their ecological water relations in natural stands. In this study, we compared water use, stomatal conductance at the crown scale (Gcrown), and whole-tree hydraulic conductance of mature pine trees growing in a naturally regenerated mixed stand on a flatwoods site in north-central Florida. We found remarkable similarities between longleaf and slash pine in stored water use, nocturnal transpiration, and whole-tree hydraulic conductance. Mean daily transpiration rate was higher for slash than for longleaf pine, averaging 39 and 26 L·tree–1, respectively. This difference was determined by variations in tree leaf area. Slash pine had 60% more leaf area per unit basal sapwood area than longleaf pine, but the larger plasticity of longleaf pine stomatal regulation partially compensated for leaf area differences: longleaf pine had higher Gcrown on days with high volumetric water content (θv) but this was reduced to similar or even lower values than for slash pine on days with low θv. There was no species difference in the sensitivity of Gcrown to increasing vapor pressure deficit.

Differential impacts of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis, on Pinus palustris and Pinus taeda

2007 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1427-1437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Friedenberg ◽  
Brenda M. Whited ◽  
Daniel H. Slone ◽  
Sharon J. Martinson ◽  
Matthew P. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Pinus Taeda ◽  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Tree Mortality ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Dendroctonus Frontalis ◽  
Southern Pine Beetle ◽  
Thanasimus Dubius ◽  
Southern Pine ◽  
Pine Beetle

Patterns of host use by herbivore pests can have serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems but are often poorly understood. Here, we provide the first quantification of large differential impacts of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, on loblolly pine, Pinus taeda L., and longleaf pine, Pinus palustris P. Mill., and evaluate putative mechanisms for the disparity. Spatially extensive survey data from recent epidemics indicate that, per square kilometre, stands of loblolly versus longleaf pine in four forests (380–1273 km2) sustained 3–18 times more local infestations and 3–116 times more tree mortality. Differences were not attributable to size or age structure of pine stands. Using pheromone-baited traps, we found no differences in the abundance of dispersing D. frontalis or its predator Thanasimus dubius Fabricius between loblolly and longleaf stands. Trapping triggered numerous attacks on trees, but the pine species did not differ in the probability of attack initiation or in the surface area of bark attacked by growing aggregations. We found no evidence for postaggregation mechanisms of discrimination or differential success on the two hosts, suggesting that early colonizers discriminate between host species before a pheromone plume is present.

Revivification of a method for identifying longleaf pine timber and its application to southern pine relicts in southeastern Virginia

2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (12) ◽  
pp. 2440-2447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Eberhardt ◽  
Philip M. Sheridan ◽  
Arvind A.R. Bhuta
Keyword(s):  
Annual Ring ◽  
Longleaf Pine ◽  
Pinus Palustris ◽  
Forest Products ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Probability ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
Southern Pine ◽  
Pinus Taeda L ◽  
Standing Timber

Longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris Mill.) cannot be distinguished from the other southern pines based on wood anatomy alone. A method that involves measuring pith and second annual ring diameters, reported by Arthur Koehler in 1932 (The Southern Lumberman, 145: 36–37), was revisited as an option for identifying longleaf pine timbers and stumps. Cross-section disks of longleaf, loblolly ( Pinus taeda L.), and shortleaf ( Pinus echinata Mill.) pines were measured and the diameters of their piths and second annual rings plotted against each other. From this plot, longleaf pine could be differentiated from the other two southern pine species, demonstrating that a method established with trees harvested more than 70 years ago is still applicable to standing timber of today. No evidence was found to suggest that different growth rates impact method applicability. In those situations where the second annual ring is intact, but not the pith, very large second annual ring diameters (>40 mm) may identify timbers with a lower probability of being longleaf pine. In addition to the identification of very old lightwood stumps as part of a longleaf pine restoration effort, both methods may be applied to timber identification in historic structures and the niche forest products industry involving the recovery and processing of highly prized longleaf pine logs from river bottoms. Measurements from relicts sampled in this study were consistent with the purported range for longleaf pine in Virginia.

scholarly journals Height Growth of Loblolly and Slash Pine Plantations in the Northern Post-Oak belt of Texas

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Hansen ◽  
M. Victor Bilan
Keyword(s):  
Pinus Taeda ◽  
Loblolly Pine ◽  
Pinus Elliottii ◽  
Height Growth ◽  
Environmental Data ◽  
Pinus Echinata ◽  
East Texas ◽  
Shortleaf Pine ◽  
Post Oak ◽  
Pinus Taeda L

Abstract Age accounted for over 70% of the variation in tree height of 10- to 44-year-old loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and slash (Pinus elliottii Engelm.) plantations established on deep sands, moderate sands, and nonsandy soils in the Northern Post-Oak Belt of Texas. Climatic and edaphicfactors, relating either directly or indirectly to the amount of moisture available for tree use, explained up to 17% of height growth variation. Height growth of the plantations was comparable to that of plantations growing in the pine-mixed hardwood forest cover type of East Texas. The NorthernPost-Oak Belt of Texas is an area approximately 50 to 100 miles wide located between the pine-mixed hard-wood forest type to the east and the black-land prairie to the west. Soils within the belt belong primarily to the Alfisol or Ultisol soil orders. The western-most areas of the belt receiveup to 20% less annual rain fall than the pine-mixed hardwood type of East Texas (U.S. Environmental Data and Information Service 1949-1982). The present forest of this area is dominated by post oak (Quercus stellata Wang.), black-jack oak (Quercus Marilandica Muench.), bluejack oak (Quercusincana Bartr.), and black hickory (Carya texana Buckl.) (Ward 1984). Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) occur naturally only in scattered locations (Wilson and Hacker 1986). South. j. Appl. For. 13(1):5-8.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document