United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest

Experiment Station

New Orleans,

Louisiana

General Technical Report

so-117

September 1995

A Regional Framework of Early

Growth Response for Loblolly

Pine Relative to Herbaceous,

Woody, and Complete

Competition Control:

The COMProject

James H. Miller, Bruce R. Zutter, Shepard M. Zedaker,

M. Boyd Edwards, and Ray A. Newbold
SUMMARY

A common study design has been installed at 13 locations throughout the

Southeastern United States to track the growth of loblolly pine (Pinus tueda L.)

plantations established with four different competition control treatments: no

control (only chopping-burning), woody control for 5 years, herbaceous control

for 4 years, and total control after site preparation. This regionwide investigation is known as the Competition Omission Monitoring Project, a coordinated

study with the Auburn University Silvicultural Herbicide CooperativeXStudy

HB4F). Data summaries for each location are presented for loblolly pine growth

and competition intensities for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,000 loblolly

pine seedlings have been measured annually. Responses from this network of

studies should be useful in assessing and reporting relative growth of loblolly

pines for other studies and operational plantings. These data sets should also

be useful for future forest growth modeling efforts.
A Regional Framework of Early Growth Response for

Loblolly Pine Relative to Herbaceous, Woody,

and Complete Competition Control: The COMProject

James H. Miller, Bruce R. Zutter, Shepard M. Zedaker, M.Boyd Edwards,

and Ray A. Newbold

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have been established during the

past 20 years to examine the influence of herbaceous

and woody vegetation on the growth of loblolly pine

(Pirtus taeda L.) across the Southeastern United

States. However, few studies can be compared due to

differences in site growth potential, treatment timing

and duration, experimental design, and pine density,

to list a few. Researchers in forest vegetation management need a logical context wherein crop-tree

growth at various sites can be compared to levels of

competition or to a maximum potential growth response. To assist in developing this comparison network, a group of investigators established a regionwide

study to determine the standard growth response of

loblolly pine to four competition situations (Miller and

others 1987, 1991). The four treatments, or competition situations, are as follows:

1. No control, with a mixture of woody and herbaceous competitors;

2. Woody control, leaving herbaceous competitors;

3. Herbaceous control, leaving woody competitors; and

4. Total control, devoid of all competition.

In this simple framework, arborescent hardwoods and

nonarborescent shrubs are combined as woody competition; forbs, grasses, vines, and semiwoody (e.g., blackberry) vegetation comprise the herbaceous component.

The four treatments used in this study are “extremes” because each focuses specifically on complete

component or complete competition control compared

to no control. These four treatments encompass the

full range of competition conditions that are common

to young loblolly pine plantations. Partial competition

control treatments, which are used in operating plantations, lie among these extremes. The growth response to partial control can be gauged relative to the

results of these extreme treatments reported here. This

comparative gauging should be most useful in research

reporting of partial control treatments.

One objective of the Competition Omission Monitoring Project (COMProject or COMP) investigation

is to establish a network of growth responses for

loblolly pines when these four treatments are used on

major soil types across the region. The other objectives of COMP are to compare the relative importance

of herbaceous vs. woody competition as they affect the

growth of loblolly pines on the wide range of sites

across the region, to identify the major herbaceous and

woody competitors and document early succession, and

to study the interaction of competition and pine growth

on insect and disease infection. These last three objectives have been or will be addressed in other reports from this research group (Miller and others 1987,

1991, 1995).

Mean pine growth response and competition response by treatment that has occurred at 13 plantation locations are presented in this report. For those

readers interested in treatment comparisons and the

errors associated with treatments, please refer to the

other papers in this series or contact the authors

(Miller and others 1987, 1991; Zutter and others, in

press).

METHODS

Study Sites

A common study design was used at 13 plantation

sites across four physiographic provinces-the Lower,

Middle, and Hilly Coastal Plains and Piedmont-in

James H. Miller is a research ecologist at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forest Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849; Bruce R. Zutter is a research associate at the School of Forestry, Auburn

University, Auburn, AL 36849; Shepard M. Zedaker is a professor at the Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA

24061; M. Boyd Edwards is a research ecologist at the Georgia Forestry Center, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Dry Branch, GA 31020; Ray A. Newbold is an associate professor at the School of Forestry, Louisiana Tech

University, Ruston, LA 71272.

1
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,

Tennessee, and Virginia (table 1; fig. 1). Prior to plot

establishment, pine plantations or mixed pine-hardwood stands were harvested in late 1982 or in 1983.

Site preparation was by roller-drum chopping and

prescribed burning at 10 study locations. A shear, pile,

and burn method was used at Counce, Tennessee,

which resulted in some topsoil removal and displacement into the windrows. A complete harvest of

fuelwood and pines was used at Atmore, Alabama; the

Lower Coastal Plain site near Pembroke, Georgia, was

simply rebedded after a wildfire destroyed a young

plantation that had been previously windrowed. A

naturally regenerated plantation site has also been

established using these treatments and is reported

elsewhere (Cain 1991).

To characterize the soils at each location, USDA Soil

Conservation Service soil surveyors or forest industry soil surveyors examined each site (table 1). To further characterize the soils, samples were collected at

each location in April 1984. From each plot, 20 soiltube samples were extracted from three depths: 0 to

6,6 to 12, and 12 to 24 inches. For each plot, samples

were combined by depth, thoroughly mixed, and stored

in a cold room until analysis. Samples were then

air-dried and crushed to pass through an 80-mesh

sieve. Duplicate samples were analyzed for available

phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and

potassium (K) after extraction with a Mehlich I solution (Mehlich 1953). Organic matter determinations

were according to Jackson (1958), and pH determinations used a 1:l soil-to-water mixture and a pH meter.

Soil texture was determined by the hydrometer

method. A summary of the results of these analyses is

presented in table 2.

Plot Layout

Four blocks of 4 plots each were established at 11 of

the 13 locations using a factorial, randomized, complete-block design. At Pembroke, Georgia, a fifth block

d

l Study location

Qure l.-COMP plantation study locations relative to physiographic provinces.

2
Table 1 .--Description of study sites

location

SOll Soil Site Previous

senes classification index’ stand HaNeSt

Site

preparation Regeneration

Flatwoods Coastal Plain

Pembroke, GA Mascotte

Lat. 32-l 1’N.

Long. 81”34’W Pelham

Mlddle Coastal Plarn

Batnbridge. GA Orangeburg

Lat 30’51’N.

Long. 84’35’W Esto

Lrberty. MS Cahaba

Lat. 31”90’N.

Long 90”5O’W. Ariel

Atmore, AL Orangeburg

Lat. 31”90’N.

Long. 86”44’W.

Liverpool, LA Tangi

Lat. 30”49’N.

Long 90”47’W.

Jena, LA Ruston

Lat 31’40’N

Long. 92”5O’W.

Hilly Coastal Plain

Tallassee. AL Cowarts

Lat. 32”26’N.

Long. 85”55’W.

Warren, AR Saffell

Lat. 33’37’N.

Long. 92’51’W. Stough

Counce. TN Silerton

Lat. 35’11’N.

Long. 88”91’W.

Arcadia, LA Sacul

Lat. 32”39’N.

Long. 92”55’W.

Piedmont

Camp Hill, AL Cecil

Lat. 32’48’N.

Long 85’31’W Pacolet

Monticello, GA Davidson

Lat. 33”17’N.

Long. 83”41’W.

Appomattox, VA Cecil

Lat. 37”20’N.

Long. 78”48’W. Cullen

lredell

Sandy, siliceous, Thermic

Ultic Haplaquods

Loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Arenic Paleaquults

Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Typic Kandiudults

Clayey, kaolinitic, Thermic

Typic Kandiudults

Fine-loamy, siliceous,

Thermic Typic Hapludults

Coarse-silty, mixed

Thermic Fluvenic Dystrochrepts

Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Typic Kandiudults

Fine-silty, siliceous, Thermic

Typic Fragiudults

Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Typic Paleudults

Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Typic Kanhapludults

Loamy-skeletal, siliceous,

Thermic Typic Hapludults

Coarse-loamy, siliceous, Thermic

Fragiaquic Paleudults

Fine-silty, mixed, Thermic

Typic Hapludults

Clayey, mixed, Thermic Aquic

Hapludults

Clayey, kaolinitic, Thermic

Typic Kanhapludults

Clayey, kaolinitic, Thermic

Typic Kanhapludults

Clayey, kaolinitic. Thermic

Rhodic Kandiudults

Clayey, kaolinitic. Thermic

Typic Kanhapludults

Clayey, mixed, Thermic Typic

Hapludults

Fine, montmorillonitic, Thermic

Typic Hapludalfs

65

88

77

59

63

75

56

62

58

55

65

79

50

6-year-old slash

pine planation

Burned by wildfire

N/A Rebedded 1983

Mixed loblollyl

shortleaf pine -

hardwood

Wmter

1982-83

Mixed loblollyl

shortleaf pinehardwood

April 1983

Slash pine

plantation

with hardwoods

Naturally regenerated loblolly

pine-hardwood

Mixed pinehardwood

Sept. 1983

WtnterSummer 1983

Fall 1983

Lobloliy pine

plantation

Spring 1983

Mixed loblolly/

shortleaf pinehardwood

June 1983

Natural mixed Wtnter

pine-hardwood 1982-83

Natural loblolly

pine-hardwood

1983

Natural mixed

pine-hardwood

Spring 1983

Natural mixed

pine-hardwood

Oct. 1982

Natural mixed

pine-hardwood

June 1983

Machine planted

7byllR

Winter 1983-84

KG blade, Hand planted

chop 8 burn 9bysn

June 1983 Jan. 1984

Chop 8 bum

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9by9R

Feb. 1984

Whole-tree

chipped at

haNeSt

Chop B burn

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9bysn

April 1984

Hand planted

9by9ff

Feb. 1984

Chop 8 bum

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9by9R

Jan. 1984

Chop & burn

Late spring -

earty summer

1983

Chop 8 bum

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9by9ft

Jan. 1984

Hand planted

9by9ft

Feb. 1984

Shear, pile 8

bum windrows

August 1983

Chop & burn

Summer 1984

Hand planted

9by9ft

April 1984

Machine planted

7by10A

Jan. 1985

Chop IL burn

Spring 1983

Hand planted

9by9fl

Jan. 1984

Chop 8 burn

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9by9R

Feb. 1984

Chop & bum

Summer 1983

Hand planted

9bysfl

Feb. 1964

’ Determined from 9th year height on no control treatments and Burkhart and others (1987) curves for site index at 25 years.

3
Table 2.--Soil propeffies for the three sample depths at each study location

Depth

in

Ca Mg K

Texture

P PH OM’ Sand Silt Clay class

____________~a& per mi//ion ______-__-

Pembroke, GA

O-6 65

6-12 43

12-24 41

Bainbridge. GA

O-6 375

6-12 270

12-24 332

Liberty, MS

O-6 384

6-12 172

12-24 231

Atmore, AL

O-6 146

6-12 175

12-24 182

Liverpool, LA

O-6 232

6-12 218

12-24 89

14 14 0.4 4.3 3.1 88 6 6 Sand

8 8 .3 4.5 2.1 88 6 5 Sand

7 7 .3 4.6 1.7 88 6 6 Sand

69 3 1 .9 5.8 1.0 86 5 9 Loamy sand

130 32 .2 5 5 1.2 81 4 15 Sandy loam

139 25 .2 5.4 0.7 78 2 20 Sandy loam

52 50 1.4 5.8 2.0 75 20 5 Loamy sand

37 3 1 .4 5.5 0.7 65 24 1 1 Sandy loam

54 22 .3 5.4 0.4 65 23 12 Sandy loam

34 19 .l 5.3 2.1 70 14 16 Sandy loam

50 17 .O 5.4 1.5 64 14 22 Sandy clay loam

72 16 .O 5.4 0.9 57 13 30 Sandy clay loam

60 39 .3 5.2 3.0 39 49 12 Loam

65 38 .2 5.2 2.4 37 51 12 Silty loam

231 30 .I 5.2 0.7 33 41 25 Loam

Jena, LA

O-6 487

6-12 - 375

12-24 396

Tallassee, AL

O-6 124

6-12 144

12-24 124

Warren, AR

O-6 909

6-12 520

12-24 427

Counce, TN

O-6 95

6-12 103

12-24 95

Arcadia, LA

O-6 _.t

6-12 __

12-24 __

Camp Hill, AL

O-6 287

6-12 153

12-24 180

Monticello, GA

O-6 808

6-12 413

12-24 471

Appomattox, VA

O-6 468

6-12 266

12-24 322

75 45 .4 5.3 2.7 55 34 1 1 Sandy loam

158 36 .I 5.2 1.3 48 32 20 Loam

246 32 .O 5.1 0.8 45 28 27 Loam

17 17 1.8 5.2 1.3 83 1 1 6 Loamy sand

20 17 .8 5.4 0.9 77 13 10 Sandy loam

22 16 .4 5.1 0.6 73 12 15 Sandy loam

191 72 2.2 5.7 3.7 59 30 11 Sandy loam

169 50 1.0 5.2 2.2 59 28 12 Sandy loam

222 44 .6 5.0 1.6 55 27 19 Sandy loam

65 39 .l 4.9 2.2 9 54 37 Silty clay loam

87 42 .I 4.9 1.3 6 53 41 Silty clay

130 40 .l 4.9 0.9 9 49 42 Silty clay

_-

__

__

__ __ 4.9 2.4

__ __ 4.6 1.5

_- __ 4.4 1.1

56 31 13 Sandy loam

52 30 18 Sandy loam

47 28 25 Loam

41 44 .4

43 29 .l

63 28 .O

2.1 72 17 1 1 Sandy loam

1.0 65 16 19 Sandy loam

0.6 57 15 28 Sandy clay loam

143 82 1.1

129 65 .l

171 61 .I

3.6 64 20 16 Sandy loam

1.4 54 21 25 Sandy clay loam

0.9 45 20 35 Sandy clay

62 63 .a

87 63 .2

130 75 .l

5.4

5.3

5.3

5.8

5.5

5.5

4.9

4.7

4.8

3.6 42 34 24 Loam

1.2 34 28 38 Clay loam

1.4 30 24 46 Clay

‘OM=organic matter

‘Measurement of these soil properties not made at this location.
was included, and at Bainbridge, Georgia, a completely

randomized design was used. Treatment plots were

generally 0.25 acre in size, and interior measurement

plots were 0.09 acre. Precisely measured planting

spots on a 9- by 9-ft spacing were used at all but the

machine-planted locations at Pembroke, Georgia, and

Arcadia, Louisiana (table 1). This spacing resulted in

538 trees per acre (565 and 622 trees per acre at the

machine-planted locations), with 49 measurement

pines in the interior plots and 2 border rows surrounding the measurement plots.

At most sites, two regraded 1-O loblolly pine seedlings were planted at each spot, 10 to 12 inches apart.

Either genetically improved or Livingston Parish,

Louisiana, seedlings were used. After the first growing season, double-planted seedlings were thinned to

one per spot using randomly generated codes to maintain the original population characteristics. Double

planting was used to minimize variations in initial

survival and the resulting long-term variation that

occurs with unequal stocking. Only single seedlings

were planted at Pembroke, Georgia, Arcadia, Louisiana, and Liberty, Mississippi, where adequate survival

resulted in stocking levels comparable to the other

locations. Measurement trees were permanently

tagged. Volunteer pines were repeatedly removed from

all locations except Appomattox, Virginia, where Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.) was left on woody

competition plots because it is considered to be a common woody competitor in that area.

Establishment of Competition Situations

Four treatments, or competition situations, were

established and maintained as follows:

No Control Resulting in Mixed HerbaceousWoody Competition.-After initial site preparation,

no further treatments were applied except for tree

injection of scattered, large, residual hardwoods using triclopyr (Garlon@).

Woody Control Only Resulting in Herbaceous

Competition.-Both foliar and basal sprays, as well

as basal wipes, were used to control hardwoods and

shrubs during the first 5 years. A single preplant and

multiple postplant applications per year were made,

usually with directed sprays of glyphosate (Roundup@),

triclopyr, and picloram (Tordon@) or basal wipes of

triclopyr and diesel fuel. After planting, only herbicides with no soil activity were used to minimize any

potential damage to herbaceous plants and measurement pines.

Herbaceous Control Only Resulting in Woody

Competition.-Preemergent applications of sulfometuron (Oust@ at 3 to 6 oz/acre) were applied annually

for the first 4 years to control forbs and grasses. The

most effective rate, having the least pine toxicity, was

determined through screening trials on nearby sites

at most locations during the year prior to establishment. After the first year, either glyphosate

(Roundup at 18 oz/acre) or oxyfluorfen (Goal@ at 0.6

gal/acre) were commonly added to the tank mix with

sulfometuron. One to five times during a growing season, shielded, directed sprays of glyphosate (a

Roundup 2-percent solution) were applied to perennial grasses, resistant forbs, and vines. At Bainbridge,

Georgia, sethoxydim (Poast@ or Vantage@) was broadcast sprayed for grass control in the second year.

lbtal Control Resulting in Elimination of All

Competition.-A combination of the treatments discussed above were used to control both woody and

herbaceous competition.

Complete eradication of woody or herbaceous components was rarely achieved, especially in the first

and second years. But significant reductions were

made, and desired competition situations were obtained, with persistent applications at most locations.

Herbaceous control treatments were applied for 4

years, whereas control levels persisted for several more

years, even to year 8 on some sites. Woody control

treatments were applied for 5 years, although the completeness and duration of control varied by location.

Minimal crop-pine damage was observed with these

treatments.

Measurements and Analyses

Pine size was determined immediately after planting by randomly selecting 100 seedlings (50 at

Appomattox, Virginia) and measuring groundline diameter and height for each. Seedling pines were then

measured annually in the dormant season for total

height (nearest 0.1 ft) for years 1 through 8, and

height-to-live-crown was measured in years 5 through

8. The height-to-live-crown was measured along the

bole to the first branch with live foliage. Groundline

diameters were measured in years 1 through 5, diameters at 6-inch height were measured in years 2

through 5, and diameters at breast height (d.b.h.‘s)

were measured in years 3 through 8-all to the nearest 0.1 inch. Stocking records of surviving trees were

maintained for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,000

pine seedlings were measured annually.

Basal area was calculated by summing the stem area

at breast height for all surviving trees. An individual

tree volume index for years 3 through 8 was estimated

using (d.b.h.2/144 x height) 13-a modified conical projection-and summed for all surviving trees. Basal

area and tree volume indices were expanded to an acre

basis by multiplying by the appropriate expansion

factor for the measurement plot.

Within each interior measurement plot, three 9- by

18-ft sample plots were systematically established,

5
with the corners at pine planting spots-a O.Ol-acre

sample per 0.09-acre measurement plot yielding a 12-

percent sample. Annually in September of years 1

through 5 and in year 8, all woody rootstocks taller

than 0.5 ft were recorded by species (genus for some

shrubs) and height class. Rootstocks were those judged

to originate from the same central root system with

one or more stems. Height classes were delineated by

1-R intervals up to 12 ft and then by 5-ft intervals. In

years 5 and 8, all arborescent hardwood rootstocks

exceeding 5 ft in height within the measurement plots

were counted, and d.b.h.‘s were measured, yielding a

basal area estimate.

For cover estimates, the three 9- by 18-ft sample

plots were halved to yield six 9- by 9-ft subplots per

measurement plot. Annually in September for years 1

through 8, cover was visually estimated within each

subplot for the herbaceous life-forms and for any “no

cover” that lacked any vegetation above the area. The

herbaceous life-forms were as follows: grasses and

grasslike plants, forbs, vines, and semiwoody plants

(e.g., blackberries and dewberries, Rubus spp., and

St. John’s wart, Hypericum spp.). Starting in year 2,

estimates were added for “total woody cover” and for

“planted pine” cover. All cover estimates were grouped

into one of the following percentage classes (range): 0,

2 (1 to 51, 10 (6 to 15),20 (16 to 25), 30 (26 to 35),40

(36 to 45),50 (46 to 55), 60 (56 to 65), 70 (66 to 75), 80

(76 to 85), 90 (86 to 951, 97 (96 to 99), and 100. This

grouping permitted the more accurate cover estimates

that can be made at the extremes.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initial seedling sizes are presented in table 3. The

COMP growth response values presented in tables 4

through 16 represent biological standards for loblolly

pine on these specific soil-sites, relative to their competition levels that are presented in tables 17 through

42. Greater levels of herbaceous control were evident

in the spring and early summer immediately after

broadcast herbicide applications. To assist future modeling efforts, table 43 presents mean total height of

the tallest 100, 200, 300, and 400 pines per acre by

treatment for each location at year 8.

Sizes and growth increments of pines grown completely in the absence of competition (total control)

approach as absolute a value as there is in forest vegetation management relating pine growth to site productivity Less absolute because of varying levels of

herbaceous competition, but a useful benchmark, are

growth-response values on plots with woody control.

The pine growth with the other two treatments-no

control and herbaceous control-provide an estimate

of pine-growth loss relative to these “benchmarks”

from given densities of hardwoods on the sites.

Studies of pine growth with herbaceous control on

similar soil sites can be compared to growth results

from total control and woody control (maximum herbaceous cover with no woody plants) for any period

between years 1 and 8. Either actual or relative growth

increases can be used for making comparisons with

other plantings. Volume index is the best integrating

value for comparisons, but heights and diameters can

also be used. It is recognized that diameters respond

more, proportionally, to competition control than

heights do, whereas heights can even be increased by

severe woody competition (Miller and others 1991).

The large numbers of plots and trees in this study result in small sampling error for the means. In effect,

researchers using data from a smaller trial for comparisons could often assume that the values reported

are “true” values and could test for differences using

the trial data errors alone.

For comparison of woody control treatments or herbicide treatments that control both woody and herbaceous plants, comparisons with the total control would

be best for judging the pine-growth response relative

to a potential response with no competitors. For comparing plantings and plots where spacing is other than

538 trees per acre, the average individual tree-growth

response may be used for the first few years. The average tree response can be obtained by dividing the

volume index per acre by the stocking. The proportional gain on COMP sites can also be used to judge

pine-growth response for other forest cultural treatments (e.g., disking, subsoiling, fertilization, etc.) from

similar sites.

6
Table 3.--Initial pine groundline diameter and height at each location

Location Groundline diameter Height

Mean* Std deviation* Mean* Std deviation*

Pembroke, GA

Bainbridge. GA

Liberty, MS

Atmore, AL

Liverpool, LA

Jena, LA

Tallassee, AL

Warren, AR

Counce, TN

Arcadia, LA

Camp Hill, AL

Monticello, GA

Appomattox, VA

___.._________ Inches-___-_______

0.11 0.03

0.12 0.02

0.12 0.05

0.12 0.03

0.10 0.02

0.14 0.03

0.14 0.03

0.14 0.03

0.17 0.04

0.16 0.04

0.12 0.03

0.11 0.03

0.11 0.02

__.____________Fe&___________

0.67 0.14

0.52 0.13

0.69 0.15

0.59 0.18

0.47 0.12

0.61 0.11

0.48 0.16

0.60 0.18

0.55 0.14

0.60 0.20

0.61 0.15

0.46 0.11

0.40 0.13

*Means and standard deviations based on 100 seedlings (50 seedlings at Appomattox,

Virginia_) randomly selected across all plots at a given location.

7
Table 4.--Pembroke, Georgia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure Year

and

treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________ _____ -__________ ____ /n&es _______-_ _______ ____ _____ _ ______--__-_----_______--_

0.3 1.0 1.5 2.2 2.9 --* _- -_

0.4 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.7 _ _ _ _ -_

0.6 2.1 3.0 4.0 4.8 _ _ _- -_

0.6 2.4 3.4 4.6 5.3 __ _ _ -_

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_ _ 0.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 _- _ _ -_

_ _ 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.3 __ _ _ __

_- 1.7 2.7 3.6 4.3 __ _- -_

__ 2.0 3.1 4.0 4.8 __ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control _ _

Woody control _ _

Herb control __

Total control _ _

____----____---

Total height

No control 1.6

Woody control 1.8

Herb control 2.3

Total control 2.1

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.5 1.1 1.7 2.4 2.8 3.5

__ 0.7 1.6 2.4 3.3 3.7 4.5

_ _ 1.5 2.5 3.2 3.9 4.1 4.7

_ _ 1.7 2.7 3.6 4.3 4.5 5.1

____________-___I-__--~------ ______ Feet _____________________-__-_____ __1_______-___-__---

3.9 6.1 9.1 11.6 15.2 17.7 2.8

4.5 7.3 11.1 14.9 19.5 22.7 28.7

6.2 10.4 15.3 18.9 23.0 25.7 30.2

6.2 11.0 16.3 20.4 25.3 28.3 33.1

__ __ -_ __ 2.6 3.4 4.2 5.9

_ _ _ _ -_ __ 3.3 4.5 5.7 7.9

_ _ __ -_ _- 4.3 6.1 7.0 9.1

_ _ _ _ __ _- 3.5 6.1 7.7 10.4

________________________________________-___- Tees per ace ________________________________________________

535 535 533 533 533 533 531 527

534 526 526 522 522 522 522 519

533 531 531 523 521 521 517 515

536 529 529 525 525 525 523 523

__________-____________________________________ F12/acE _____________________________________________________

__ __ 0.9 4.3 10.0 19.3 24.4 38.4

__ __ 2.0 8.2 18.0 33.1 41.7 60.1

_ _ _ _ 7.8 19.5 31.1 44.3 49.7 65.0

__ __ 9.1 22.9 38.4 54.5 60.2 77.0

_________________________________________________- Ff/acE ______________________________________________________

__ __ 3.1 19.8 57.3 139.3 202.5 402.3

_ _ _ _ 7.4 44.2 125.4 292.0 426.9 765.5

_ _ _ _ 38.0 135.5 264.4 456.2 568.8 868.6

_ _ _ _ 44.9 167.0 347.1 606.4 747.1 1,115.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
Table 5.--Bainbridge, Georgia: pine growth response values for the titst 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________I________________~~~~-------Inches _______________________ ______________________________

0.3 1.0 1.7 3.1 4.0 -* __ _ _

0.3 0.9 1.7 3.2 4.2 __ _ _ -_

0.4 1.5 2.3 3.7 4.4 _ _ _ _ _ _

0.5 2.5 4.0 5.5 6.5 __ _ _ -_

Diameter at B-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.8 1.4 2.4 3.3 __ _ _ _ _

_ _ 0.8 1.5 2.7 3.8 _- _ _ __

_ _ 1.3 2.2 3.3 4.2 _ _ __ _ _

__ 2.1 3.4 4.7 5.7 __ _ _ _ _

Diameter at breast heiaht

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ __ 0.6 1.6 2.5 3.5 3.9 4.4

_ _ _ _ 0.7 1.8 2.9 3.9 4.2 4.8

_ _ __ 1.4 2.5 3.3 4.1 4.3 4.8

__ __ 1.9 3.3 4.2 5.1 5.3 5.9

____________________________--___________- Feet _________________________________________________________

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

1.5 4.1 6.5 11.1 15.1 20.1 24.5 28.5

1.5 4.1 6.6 11.3 14.7 19.1 23.5 27.2

2.0 6.0 9.5 14.8 19.5 24.4 28.6 32.1

2.0 6.7 11.0 17.5 22.6 28.0 32.6 36.6

__ __ __ -_ 2.8 5.2 7.8 11.6

_ _ __ __ _- 2.0 4.2 6.4 10.7

_ _ __ __ - 3.9 7.6 10.6 15.1

__ _ _ __ 3.5 7.9 11.3 16.5

_________-_________-~-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~ Tees per acre _______________________________ _________________

538 538 538 532 527 524 519 516

538 535 535 535 532 532 532 532

535 532 530 527 527 521 513 513

535 535 535 535 535 532 524 521

_____________-______-_--~~______l_____~~ Ff/acm _________________________________ ____________________

__ __ 1.6 8.3 19.7 38.0 44.8 58.1

_ _ __ 1.7 9.9 25.6 46.5 52.9 69.5

_ _ __ 6.2 18.2 33.3 50.7 55.0 66.6

_ _ __ 11.6 32.2 53.3 78.1 83.3 99.6

__________________________-______________________ @/acre __________________________________________________-

__ __ 5.9 44.7 138.1 346.7 489.4 734.2

_ _ _ _ 5.7 51.3 169.1 393.0 546.5 832.2

_ _ _ _ 26.9 120.3 286.5 544.9 690.1 938.1

_ _ __ 57.3 245.2 521.6 943.4 1,169.0 l(574.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

9
Table 6.--Liberty, Mississippi: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____ __- ___________ -_____ _________ ----___ Inches __ _______ ________________________ ____ ___________ ____

0.4 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.9 --• _ _ _ _

0.5 1.0 1.7 2.9 4.1 __ _ _ __

0.8 1.8 2.9 4.2 5.2 _ _ _ _ __

1.0 2.3 4.0 5.7 6.9 __ _- _ _

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

0.6 1.2 1.8 2.5 __ _ _ __

0.8 1.5 2.5 3.7 __ __ __

1.5 2.6 3.7 4.6 __ _ _ _ _

__ 2.0 3.6 5.1 6.2 __ __ __

Diameter at breast height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.5 4.3

__ __ 0.8 1.7 2.7 3.9 4.9 5.7

__ 1.8 2.7 3.5 4.3 5.1 5.7

2.0 3.4 4.5 5.5 6.1 6.8

1.6 3.7 6.7 10.3 14.0 18.5 22.1 27.0

1.8 4.2 7.4 11.5 16.0 21.2 24.7 30.1

2.4 6.3 11.2 16.8 21.9 27.1 31.0 35.5

2.4 6.2 11.3 17.4 22.7 28.6 32.7 37.4

__

__ __ 3.3 5.4 8.3 10.6

_ _ _ _ 2.3 3.6 5.6 8.3

__ _ _ 4.5 8.7 12.4 13.9

__ __ __ 1.9 5.8 10.7 13.0

_______--______-_-__ Trees per acre -_________________________________________

453 447 433 431 428 414 392 381

392 387 384 381 379 379 379 376

458 458 458 458 458 455 455 453

467 461 450 450 450 445 445 442

--_-----_____-- ___ _________ -____ _____ Fp/..cm _______ ____-___ _______ _____-_______________________

__ 1.1 4.3 10.0 19.2 29.5 41.2

- _ _ 1.7 6.5 16.1 33.3 50.9 68.1

__ 8.6 19.7 32.8 49.3 66.9 83.9

_ _ _ _ 10.5 28.7 50.6 75.1 94.2 113.2

___-- ____ _ _________ _ ________-_--___ - ________ Ff/acm ------_ ___________ ____ _______________________________

__ __ 3.7 21.7 67.5 167.9 297.4 494.6

_ _ _ _ 6.1 36.0 118.5 315.2 557.6 894.8

_ _ 42.8 146.7 317.4 586.9 908.2 1,302.O

_- 54.2 220.4 503.6 929.9 1,335.o 1,825.O

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

10
Table 7.--Atmore, Alabama: pine growth response values for the rkt 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

____________________________________________________ Inches _____________________-____-___________--_--_________

Groundline diameter

No control 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.6 2.4 --* __ __

Woody control 0.3 0.7 1.2 2.1 3.3 _ _ __ __

Herb control 0.3 0.7 1.4 2.4 3.5 __ _ _ _ _

Total control 0.3 1.2 2.4 4.0 5.3 _ _ __

Diameter at B-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.5 0.7 1.3 2.0 __ __ __

_ _ 0.6 1.0 1.8 2.7 _ _ _ _ __

_ _ 0.7 1.1 2.0 2.9 _- __ __

_ _ 1.1 2.1 3.4 4.6 __ __ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control _ _

Woody control __

Herb control __

Total control _ _

_____________~

Total height

No control 1.3

Woody control 1.4

Herb control 1.1

Total control 1.3

__ 0.1 0.6

_ _ 0.3 1.0

_ _ 0.3 1.1

_ _ 0.8 2.1

.__________________-___________ _______ Feet

2.4 4.3 7.7 10.4 15.1 17.7 21.3

2.6 5.1 9.3 12.9 18.2 21.6 24.6

2.5 5.5 10.2 14.0 19.3 22.1 24.9

3.3 7.4 13.5 18.5 24.1 28.6 30.9

1.2 2.2 2.7 3.3

1.9 3.0 3.7 4.3

2.0 2.9 3.5 4.0

3.2 4.3 5.0 5.6

Height to live crown

No Control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ _ _ _- __ 1.6 2.7 4.5 6.2

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1.7 3.2 5.1 7.1

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1.8 4.1 6.0 8.1

_ _ __ _- _ _ 1.5 3.6 6.6 9.3

____________________________________________ Tmes per acre _-___-______________ __________________________

535 535 530 530 530 527 524 521

521 510 508 508 505 505 494 494

497 486 480 472 472 469 458 455

519 519 516 516 516 513 508 508

__________________________________________________ Fp/acre ______________________--________________________-_

-_ _ _ 0.1 1.6 5.2 15.1 23.4 34.1

__ _ _ 0.5 3.7 10.9 26.1 38.5 52.1

_ _ _ _ 0.4 3.9 11.5 24.5 33.7 44.1

-_ __ 2.7 13.6 31.7 54.1 72.8 90.9

___________________________________________________ FtJ/acm _____________________________________________________

__ _ _ 0.3 6.4 26.8 107.8 189.6 327.5

_ _ _- 1.4 17.9 69.0 218.1 375.2 568.0

_ _ __ 1.3 20.1 78.6 223.3 348.6 509.9

_ _ __ 11.0 89.6 265.7 577.3 911.5 1,226.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

11
Table 8.--Liverpool, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Diameter at L-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________-_-____-- /n&es _______________________________________________________

0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.2 --* __ _ _

0.3 0.7 1.3 2.1 3.0 __ _ _ __

0.3 0.9 1.9 2.9 3.9 _ _ __ _ _

0.3 1.2 2.7 4.3 5.6 __ _ _ _ _

_ _ 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.8 _ _ __ _ _

__ 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.6 _- _ _ _ _

__ 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.3 __ __ __

_ _ 1.0 2.2 3.7 4.7 _ _ _- _ _

_ _ __ _- 0.5 1.1 1.8 2.7 3.3

-_ __ __ 0.8 1.6 2.5 3.4 4.1

__ _ _ 0.5 1.5 2.4 3.3 4.1 4.6

_ _ __ 0.9 2.1 3.3 4.4 5.2 5.7

___________________________________________________ Feet ____________________________________________________

1.2 2.5 4.1 6.6 9.7 13.0 16.5 21.1

1.3 2.9 4.7 7.5 11.1 14.7 18.9 23.5

1.2 3.2 6.4 10.9 15.3 19.9 24.2 28.6

1.3 3.5 7.1 12.1 17.0 22.2 27.5 32.0

_ _ __ __ __ 2.6 4.2 5.2 6.9

__ __ _ _ 2.3 4.1 5.0 6.5

__ __ _ _ 2.9 5.4 7.9 10.5

_ _ __ __ __ 1.7 4.8 7.8 11.0

________________________________________________ Trees per acre _______________________________________________

538 535 532 532 532 532 527 527

538 535 535 535 535 532 530 530

532 524 519 519 516 516 516 510

532 530 521 521 521 521 521 513

______________________________________________--__ Fp/acm ____________________________________________________

_ _ _ _ __ 1.3 4.7 11.2 23.9 34.6

_ _ _ _ _ _ 2.9 8.9 20.1 36.9 51.4

__ _ _ 1.2 7.5 18.8 34.5 51.8 63.9

_ _ __ 2.7 13.5 31.8 57.9 79.6 95.1

__ _______ __ ______________ _______ ____-----_______--- Fe/acre ____________________ ____ ______________________________

_ _ __ _ _ 4.4 22.8 70.7 184.7 334.5

__ _ _ __ 12.4 51.1 143.6 324.4 546.3

_ _ __ 4.1 39.6 134.3 319.3 575.2 831.2

__ _ _ 9.5 75.5 241.5 562.7 951.6 I,31 5.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

12
Table 9.--Jena, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________________________________ Inches _______________________________________________________

0.5 1.1 1.8 2.8 3.8 -* _ _ _-

0.5 1.0 1.7 2.6 3.7 __ _ _ __

0.6 1.9 3.0 4.5 5.7 _ _ _ _ _ _

0.6 1.9 3.1 4.8 6.1 _ _ _ _ _ _

Diameter at B-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.9 1.6 2.3 3.2 _ _ __ _ _

_ _ 0.8 1.5 2.2 3.0 __ _ _ _ _

__ 1.6 2.7 3.8 5.0 __ _- _ _

_ _ 1.6 2.9 4.1 5.2 _ _ _ _ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control _ _

Woody control __

Herb control _ _

Total control -

_________-----

Total height

No control 1.6

Woody control 1.5

Herb control 1.8

Total control 1.8

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.8 1.6 2.4

_ _ 0.7 1.4 2.2

__ 1.6 2.7 3.7

_ _ 1.7 2.8 4.0

____________-___________----- ______ Feet ___________

4.0 7.4 11.2 14.5 19.0 22.5 26.0

3.5 6.6 10.3 13.7 18.1 22.3 25.2

5.2 10.0 15.3 20.0 24.9 28.7 32.1

5.1 10.1 15.5 20.6 25.9 29.8 33.5

3.2 3.6 4.5

3.0 3.6 4.5

4.5 5.1 5.6

4.7 5.4 5.9

__ __ __ __ 3.6 5.1 6.6 8.3

__ _ _ _ _ __ 3.3 4.5 5.7 7.3

__ - __ _ _ 3.3 6.4 9.1 11.6

__ -_ __ _ _ 3.1 6.5 9.3 12.2

_______________________-________-____ ____ _ Tmes per acre ________________________ _______________________

502 499 480 475 475 475 475 475

488 488 480 475 453 450 450 450

513 510 505 505 505 505 505 505

516 516 516 513 513 513 513 513

___________________________________________________ Ff/acre _____________________________________________________

__ __ 2.1 7.1 16.4 27.9 35.5 56.1

__ _ _ 1.6 6.0 13.4 23.9 33.0 51.0

_ _ _ _ 8.0 20.4 39.7 57.2 73.3 88.9

__ _ _ 8.6 23.3 46.2 65.4 84.9 100.3

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

. . o__..,

__ __ 8.1 38.7 112.3 244.9 361.4 656.7

__ __ 5.5 31.0 88.4 201.8 332.5 578.0

_ _ 37.5 140.7 349.7 623.8 918.2 1,241 .O

_ _ -_ 41.0 163.4 421.6 743.5 1,103.o 1,463.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

13
Table 1 O.-Tallassee, Alabama: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________-____________-_______ Inches ____________________-______ ______ _ _______________

0.3 0.7 1.2 1.8 2.7 __* _ _ __

0.3 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.4 __ _ _ _ _

0.4 1.3 2.1 2.8 3.6 _ _ _ _ __

0.6 2.1 3.6 4.7 5.8 __ __ __

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.5 1.0 1.6 2.3 __ __ __

_ _ 0.6 1.2 2.1 3.0 __ _ _ __

__ 1.1 1.8 2.5 3.1 __ _- __

1.7 3.1 4.1 5.2 _ _ __ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control,

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.2 0.7 1.3 2.4 2.8 3.4

__ 0.2 1.0 1.8 3.1 3.7 4.4

_ _ _ _ 0.8 1.5 2.1 2.9 3.3 3.8

__ _- 1.3 2.5 3.5 4.7 5.1 5.7

____________________-_-__~~~~~~-~~~~~~ Feet ________------_________________________-______

1.1 2.7 4.4 7.3 10.3 13.6 17.0 20.0

1.1 2.8 4.7 7.9 11.0 14.9 18.6 22.4

1.4 4.5 7.1 10.8 13.8 17.3 20.7 23.3

1.5 5.0 8.8 13.7 17.7 22.4 26.5 30.1

__ __ __ 1.1 2.8 4.3 5.8

- __ __ 1.0 2.4 3.8 5.0

_ _ _ _ - __ 1.8 4.1 5.8 7.1

_ _ _ _ __ 0.9 3.6 5.9 7.9

____________--~-__-_~~~~~~ ______ Tmes per acre ____---_____-____ __________________

532 519 513 513 508 505 502 502

524 505 499 499 497 491 486 483

527 519 513 510 505 505 497 497

535 532 530 527 524 521 521 521

_____-____________~_~________________I__------ Fp/acm _______________________________________________

__ _- 0.2 1.8 5.6 17.0 22.7 33.4

__ __ 0.3 3.1 9.6 27.9 37.2 52.7

_ _ _ _ 2.4 7.4 15.0 26.8 32.7 42.8

_ _ 5.7 19.3 36.1 63.2 75.8 93.1

______-_____~___---_~~~~~~~~~~~~ __________ Fp/acm _________ ___________________ ___________________

__ __ 0.5 6.5 27.4 105.2 174.1 300.9

__ _ _ 0.8 11.6 48.7 186.7 309.8 519.1

_- __ 9.0 40.6 100.8 221.8 318.7 468.9

_ _ __ 22.8 116.7 277.2 612.0 864.8 1,207.O

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

14
Table 11 .--Warren, AtIransas: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

____________________~~~~~~~__________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Inches ____________________________________________________

Groundline diameter

No control 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.9 3.1 --• _ _ _ _ Woody control 0.3 0.8 1.5 2.1 3.6 __ _ _ _ _

Herb control 0.5 1.5 2.9 4.0 5.5 __ _ _ __

Total control 0.5 1.7 3.1 4.5 5.8 __ _- _ _

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_ _ 0.5 1.1 1.5 2.5 __ -_ _ _

__ 0.6 1.2 1.7 3.0 __ _ _ _ _

_ _ 1.2 2.4 3.1 4.6 _ _ _ _ _ _

__ 1.3 2.6 3.5 5.0 - __ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control __

Woody control _ _

Herb control _ _

Total control _ _

____.

Total height

No control 1.3

Woody control 1.4

Herb control 1.3

Total control 1.3

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.3

_- 0.5

_ _ 1.1

_ _ 1.2

2.8 5.1 7.7 11.2 14.2 18.9 21.6

3.1 5.8 8.5 12.6 15.8 21.5 24.6

3.9 8.0 12.1 17.1 21.1 27.7 30.1

4.1 8.1 12.3 17.6 21.7 28.6 31.1

0.7 1.6

0.9 2.0

1.8 3.1

2.1 3.3

_____-_ Feet _____

2.5 3.3

3.1 4.0

4.2 4.9

4.5 5.3

4.1

4.8

5.7

5.9

.___ - _____

__ __ __ __ 1.7 3.0 4.1 5.7

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.8 2.8 4.3 6.4

_ _ __ __ __ 1.1 3.7 5.9 9.6

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ 0.9 3.4 5.4 9.4

____________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Trees per acre ________________________________________________

530 530 527 527 527 527 527 527

535 532 532 530 530 527 527 527

532 530 530 530 527 527 527 527

521 521 519 519 519 519 519 519

________________________~~________-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ff’/acm _____________________________________________________

__ __ 0.6 2.1 8.5 20.3 33.8 51.4

_ _ __ 0.9 2.7 12.9 29.4 47.1 68.9

_ _ _ _ 4.2 10.4 28.2 51.9 72.1 93.7

_ _ _ _ 5.3 13.8 32.1 57.8 80.8 101.5

____________________~~~~~~__-~~~~~~~~~------------- Fe/acre -----_______________________________________________

__ __ 1.8 8.6 45.5 133.6 292.0 497.9

_ _ _ _ 2.5 11.3 74.7 208.1 449.1 740.7

_- _ _ 16.3 57.1 212.1 476.7 865.0 1,221 .o

_ _ __ 21.1 78.2 249.3 544.9 999.2 1,362.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to treeS in this age class.

15
Table 12.--Counce, Tennessee: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment I 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________--____-___-______ /n&es ___-__-______________________________________________

0.3 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.4 --* _ _ _ _

0.3 0.9 1.6 2.5 3.5 __ __ __

0.4 1.2 2.3 3.4 4.5 _ _ __ __

0.4 1.3 2.5 3.7 4.9 __ _ _ _ _

Diameter at B-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_ _ 0.7 1.3 2.1 2.9 _ _ _- __

_- 0.7 1.3 2.1 3.0 _ _ _ _ __

__ 0.9 I.9 2.9 3.9 __ __ _ _

_ _ 1.0 2.1 3.1 4.2 _ _ __ __

Diameter at breast height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ __ 0.4 1.0 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.0

_ _ __ 0.4 1.0 I.8 2.6 3.5 4.2

__ _ _ 0.6 1.4 2.2 3.2 4.2 4.7

_ _ __ 0.6 1.4 2.4 3.5 4.5 5.2

______________________________-_____---________ Feet -_____________________________________________________

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

1.0 2.8 5.2 7.8 10.4 13.5 16.8 22.0

1.0 2.9 5.3 7.9 10.8 14.0 17.4 22.5

1.0 2.9 5.9 9.1 12.3 16.1 20.3 25.6

1.0 2.8 5.8 8.9 12.6 16.7 21.3 26.7

__ _ _ __ 1.0 2.0 3.3 4.8

_ _ __ __ _ _ 1.2 2.2 3.3 5.1

_ _ __ __ __ 0.6 1.4 3.1 5.4

__ _ _ _ _ 0.4 0.8 2.6 5.5

538 535 535 535 535 535 535 535

538 535 535 535 532 532 532 532

538 532 516 516 516 516 513 513

535 524 519 519 516 516 516 516

_________________________________________-___-- Ff’/acm ________________________________________________

_ _ _- 0.7 3.1 8.7 19.4 34.7 47.8

__ _ _ 0.6 3.3 9.9 21 .o 37.5 52.3

__ _- 1.4 6.2 14.9 30.8 50.0 64.7

_ _ __ 1.5 6.4 16.9 35.8 58.0 76.2

_______________________________-___________-______ F?/acm _____________________________________________________

_- _ _ 1.7 11.4 41.2 116.6 256.3 459.9

_ _ _ _ 1.6 12.3 47.9 130.3 286.7 513.4

__ __ 4.2 26.2 82.0 218.8 441.2 713.8

_ _ __ 4.3 26.3 95.2 260.8 533.1 877.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

16
Table 13.--Arcadia, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________ ___- ___________ ___________________-______ Inches _____________ __________________________________________

0.3 0.6 1.0 1.6 2.7 -* _ _ _ _

0.3 0.8 1.3 2.2 3.5 __ _ _ _ --

0.4 1.3 2.1 2.9 4.5 __ _ _ _ _

0.5 1.7 3.0 4.3 6.3 _ _ __ -_

__ 0.5 0.8 1.4 2.3 __ _ _ _ _

__ 0.6 1.1 1.9 3.1 __ _ _ _ _

_ _ 1.0 1.8 2.6 4.0 -_ __ _ _

1.4 2.6 3.8 5.7 _ _ _ _ __

__ __ _- 0.6 1.4 2.3 3.2 3.8

- __ 0.1 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.9 4.5

__ _ _ 0.7 1.6 2.6 3.5 4.2 4.7

__ _ _ 1.1 2.3 3.7 4.8 5.5 5.9

__________________________-__________________________ Feet _____________-_______-______-_______________________

1.1 2.3 4.0 6.5 9.8 13.6 18.2 23.0

1.1 2.6 4.6 7.9 11.8 16.0 20.2 24.0

1.3 3.5 7.1 11.1 15.5 19.7 24.4 28.4

1.4 3.9 8.1 13.0 18.1 22.8 28.1 32.3

__ __ __ _ _ 2.4 2.8 4.2 6.4

_ _ __ __ __ 2.2 2.9 4.3 6.6

_ _ __ __ __ 2.7 4.6 7.2 9.8

__ __ __ - 1.5 3.5 7.3 10.4

___-___________________--________-___-__ Trees per acre ________________________________________________

539 526 526 526 523 523 523 517

539 534 525 520 517 517 517 517

537 521 508 508 502 497 497 497

537 532 532 530 530 525 525 525

_______________-______-____________________ Ff/ac,e ___-___________________________________________

_ _ __ _ _ 1.4 6.7 16.4 31.4 44.1

_ _ _ _ 0.2 3.4 12.6 26.9 45.9 60.1

_ _ _ _ 1.9 7.7 20.9 36.1 51.0 63.3

__ __ 4.2 16.3 41.7 66.5 87.5 101.0

__________________________-____-________________ Ff/acm ___________________________________________________

_ _ __ __ 4.5 32.1 103.9 259.0 444.2

_ _ __ 1.0 13.8 71.9 198.1 417.4 642.3

_ _ __ 6.5 39.5 147.5 318.0 553.6 795.5

- __ 16.0 94.2 327.7 654.1 1,059.o 1,404.o

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

17
Table 14.--Camp Hill, Alabama: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________--_____ /n&es ___________________________________________________

0.2 0.6 1.1 1.7 2.6 --• __ __

0.2 0.7 1.4 2.2 3.4 __ __ __

0.3 0.9 1.6 2.4 3.3 __ __ __

0.5 1.8 3.4 4.8 6.1 __ __ __

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.5 0.9 1.5 2.2 __ __ __

__ 0.5 1.2 1.9 2.9 __ __ __

__ 0.7 1.4 2.0 2.6 __ __ __

__ 1.5 3.0 4.3 5.3 _” __

Diameter at breast height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

“”

“” 0.2 0.8 1.5 2.3 3.0 3.6

__ __ 0.3 1.0 1.8 2.8 3.5 4.2

__ __ 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.1 3.6

__ __ 1.5 2.8 3.8 4.8 5.4 6.0

_____-________- ____ ____-__ ____ __-___ _____ --_- Feet ___- _____ -___ ______ ___ __________ __ __________ _____

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

1.1 2.7 4.5 8.1 11.1 14.9 18.3 22.5

1.2 2.6 4.7 8.5 11.6 15.7 19.3 23.8

1.2 3.7 6.4 10.6 13.8 17.7 20.8 24.7

1.4 4.8 9.0 14.5 18.3 23.2 27.5 32.5

“” “” “”

“” 2.1 3.4 5.0 7.1

__ __ __ __ 1.3 2.5 4.2 6.3

__ __ 2.8 4.9 6.7 9.0

__ __ 1.4 4.4 7.4 10.6

________-______________________________-_____ Tmes per acre _--~____________________________________

532 521 510 505 502 502 502 502

521 513 502 499 499 494 491 491

538 516 513 505 505 505 502 499

530 521 519 513 508 505 499 497

___________________________________-___-____-_ Ff/acm -_____________________________________________

“”

“” 0.3 2.3 6.9 15.9 26.0 38.1

__ __ 0.6 3.3 10.2 22.6 36.0 50.3

__ __ 1.4 5.5 11.5 20.6 30.0 39.4

__ __ 6.7 22.6 41.6 65.6 82.2 99.8

_______________________________-___________-___- FtVacre ----_-___-___________________________*____

“”

“” 0.8 9.1 35.6 108.3 213.1 383.1

__ __ 1.5 14.3 57.5 165.3 316.7 538.5

__ __ 4.5 28.2 74.6 169.2 287.5 444.4

__ __ 27.5 144.8 332.0 662.3 976.5 1397.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

18
Table IS--Monticello, Georgia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure Year

and

treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________________________________ inches _______________________________________________________

0.2 0.6 1.2 2.3 3.6 --* __ _-

0.3 0.9 I.8 3.0 4.4 __ _ _ __

0.3 1.1 2.3 3.7 5.1 _ _ _ _ __

0.3 1.3 2.6 4.1 5.5 _ _ _ _ __

Diameter at g-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.5 1.1 1.9 3.0 __ __ __

_ _ 0.8 1.5 2.5 3.8 _ _ __ _ _

_ _ 0.9 2.0 3.2 4.4 __ _ _ __

_ _ 1.1 2.3 3.5 4.8 __ _ _ _ _

Diameter at breast heiaht

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

”

__ __ 0.3 1.0 2.0 3.1 4.0 4.7

_- __ 0.6 1.5 2.6 3.8 4.6 5.3

_ _ -_ 0.8 1.9 3.1 4.3 5.1 5.6

_ _ __ 0.9 2.1 3.3 4.6 5.3 5.9

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to live crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

1.2 2.7 5.1

1.2 3.3 6.2

1.3 3.5 7.1

1.3 3.9 7.5

. “1.

9.1 13.3 17.7 21.9 26.7

10.8 15.7 20.2 24~3 29.8

12.5 17.2 22.2 26.5 31.7

12.9 17.7 22.8 27.1 32.4

__ __ __ __ 1.4 3.2 4.9 a.1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.2 3.0 4.9 a.0

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1.5 4.0 6.3 10.3

__ _ _ __ __ 1.1 3.2 5.7 9.5

_____________________________________________ Tmes per acre ___________________________-_________________

527 519 519 519 519 519 516 513

505 499 499 499 499 499 499 497

510 499 499 499 499 499 499 499

519 510 508 508 508 505 505 505

__________________________-________-_--_______ Ff/acm __________________________________________________

_ _ _ _ 0.4 3.5 12.6 29.6 46.9 63.1

_ _ _ _ 1.3 6.7 19.7 41.5 60.5 77.5

_ _ _ _ 2.4 10.9 27.0 52.8 73.2 89.7

_ _ _ _ 3.1 13.3 31.7 59.5 80.8 97.6

___________________________________________________ Ff/acre _____________________________________________________

__ __ 1.2 15.5 76.6 234.1 452.1 737.1

_ _ _ _ 4.3 35.1 140.1 370.8 645.9 1,006.O

_ _ _ _ 9.0 63.3 207.4 514.5 844.2 1.239.0

__ _ _ 11.8 79.0 248.4 589.0 942.2 1,365.0

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.

19
Table 16.--Appomattox, Virginia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years

Measure

and

treatment 1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Groundline diameter

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________--___________-- _______ /n&es _____ __________ ______ _______------_--------_--------_

0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 1.9 -* _ _ -_

0.2 0.7 1.3 2.5 3.1 __ __ _ _

0.2 0.6 1.1 1.9 2.3 _ _ __ _ _

0.3 1 .o 1.9 3.3 4.2 __ _ _ __

Diameter at 6-inches

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.6 __ _ _ _ _

__ 0.5 1.1 2.2 2.7 __ __ __

__ 0.4 0.9 1.6 1.9 _ _ __ __

_ _ 0.8 1.6 3.0 3.7 _ _ _ _ _ _

Diameter at breast height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__ __ __ 0.5 0.9 1.9 2.4 2.7

_ _ _ _ _ _ 1.1 1.7 2.8 3.9 4.4

_ _ __ 0.9 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.0

__ _ _ 1.8 2.6 3.6 4.9 5.4

___________________________________--_-__________ Feet ___________-________________________________________

Total height

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Height to Live Crown

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Stocking

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Basal area

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Volume index

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

0.7 2.3 3.4 5.7 8.5 12.1 14.2 17.8

0.8 2.4 4.1 7.2 10.9 14.5 18.0 22.4

0.9 2.8 4.3 7.1 10.0 13.0 16.1 19.4

1.0 2.8 5.3 9.2 13.5 17.2 21.2 25.4

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 2.0 3.1 5.2 6.3

_ _ __ _ _ 1.2 2.0 3.9 5.2

__ __ - 2.3 3.7 6.6 7.6

__ _ _ __ __ 1.1 1.9 5.2 6.7

_______________________________________--___- Tmes per acre ______-_-______ _______________________________

513 508 508 497 491 486 477 469

510 439 425 425 425 425 425 425

521 508 480 461 445 431 417 401

499 458 455 455 455 455 453 453

__________________________________-________---_ Fe/acre _____________________________________________________

_ _ _ _ _ _ 1.0 2.9 11.4 16.6 21.1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 3.3 7.4 18.6 37.9 48.0

_ _ __ __ 2.5 5.2 11.3 19.6 24.1

_ _ _ _ __ 9.0 18.3 34.2 61.1 74.0

_____________________________________________-___ Fp/acm -____--___________________________________________

_ _ __ __ 3.0 12.1 71.8 109.7 171.1

_ _ _ _ __ 11.5 38.1 123.5 306.9 480.1

_ _ _ _ _ _ 8.9 26.3 72.3 153.8 225.6

__ _ _ __ 39.0 111.4 258.0 545.9 813.1

*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
Table 17.--Pembroke, Georgia: percentage ofplant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

___________________________________________________ No Cover_________________________________________________

No control 17 3 5 2 3 5 1 4

Woody control 24 5 7 2 2 3 1 6

Herb control 63 64 6 1 21 __* 9 4 10

Total control 87 84 76 35 _ _ 11 5 10

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________-_____-_____________________pine ~over__________________________-___________--_____--

__ 2 2 6 7 9 15 19

_- 4 3 7 12 16 3 1 50

_ _ 5 15 22 28 34 44 53

__ 9 23 41 60 66 77 85

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________________ Woody cover________________________________________________

_ _ 25 33 25 37 48 5 1 55

_ _ 1 0 1 5 9 11 13

__ 19 21 19 36 42 43 43

_ _ 2 0 2 1 2 2 2

No control

Woody control

Herb Ccntrol

Total control

_____________________________________________ Herbaceous cover_____________________________________________

72 7 1 64 65 78 78 72 43

76 92 93 94 93 96 92 43

23 10 5 27 33 38 25 9

11 1 3 23 28 25 16 2

Herbaceous components

_______________________________________ Grasses and grasslike cover_______________________ _____ _ ______

No control 72 65 55 52 64 73 67 39

Woody control 76 87 88 82 83 87 89 41

Herb control 20 9 5 23 31 36 23 7

Total control 11 2 3 21 28 25 15 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_-____________--_____-_-__---__ Forb ~over_________________________________________________

2 5 1 14 2 2 3 2

1 5 2 11 5 6 2 0

5 1 0 3 1 1 0 0

1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

____________________________________________________ Vine cover_________________________________________________

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________________________ Semiwoodycover____________________________________________

0 5 8 1 9 3 2 3

0 1 4 2 3 2 1 2

1 1 0 2 1 1 2 3

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made

21
Table 18.-Bainbddge, Georgia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

-______ ______ ______ ____ _______________-__________ No coyer ___-_-__-_-_--_________ _________________

No control 8 2 5 2 1 1 __* 0

Woody control 13 2 4 2 5 1 _ _ 0

Herb control 22 10 11 15 7 4 _- 1

Total control 82 83 44 26 5 5 __ 7

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________-__-_-__-______-____ Pine cover ___-_______-_- ____________________________

_ _ 3 10 20 27 41 _ _ 69

_ _ 2 12 24 41 53 _ _ 84

_- 9 17 30 38 48 _ _ 75

__ 15 56 74 95 94 __ 91

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Totalcontrol

__ ________________________________--_-- Woody cover _-_---_-_________-_ ________________

_ _ 2 1 36 48 59 65 _ _ 69

_ _ 7 9 IO 4 5 _ _ 9

_ _ 36 36 34 42 45 _ _ 52

_ _ 0 0 0 0 0 __ 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-_ ___-__ __________ ______-__-_--_-___-_ He&awous cover _________________________-_________

87 96 90 83 68 64 5 1

8 1 97 96 98 89 96 _ _ 93

67 71 61 39 39 37 _ _ 43

14 3 2 2 2 3 6

Herbaceous components

___________-________-___---~ Grasses and grasslike cover _--_____________________________

No control 17 2 1 29 37 36 33 _ _ 18

Woody control 19 25 29 33 30 31 _ _ 16

Herb control 5 8 11 14 15 5 _ _ 4

Total control 1 0 0 0 1 1 _ _ 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________-____--__--____-_ Forb cover _-__--- ________________________________

33 43 32 13 3 4 _ _ 4

31 45 47 21 2 11 _ _ 12

9 3 9 0 1 1 _ _ 2

3 1 2 1 1 1 _ _ 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________________-______--_ Vine cover _--___-___ ____ _ ________________________________

30 26 28 22 21 21 _ _ 28

27 26 27 23 24 29 _ _ 43

53 46 35 22 17 22 _ _ 37

9 2 1 1 2 2 _ _ 4

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___ __________________________________-______ Semiwoody cover ______--________________________________

24 35 20 27 17 15 _ _ 7

20 40 39 46 50 56 _ _ 50

10 2 1 13 4 9 8 _ _ 4

2 0 0 0 1 0 _ _ 1

‘These estimates were not made.

22
Table lg.--Liberty, Mississippi: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

__________________ ____ _______ ____-___-__________ No coyer ___________ _______ ___-__________________________

No control -* 0 0 _ _ 2 0 0 0

Woody control _ _ 5 1 4 3 2 7

Herb control _ _ 43 57 _ _ 2 0 1 0

Total control _ _ 90 65 - 12 7 6 3

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____ ____ ___ _______ ___ ________ _--_ _____ ___-____ Pine cover -________________________________________________

__ 2 3 -_ 11 17 17 31

_ _ 2 4 -_ 25 32 35 58

_- 5 23 -_ 50 57 58 69

_ _ 9 35 88 93 94 97

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Totar control

_ _

_ _

_ _

_ _

--

44

11

32

1

48

1

40

1

Woody cover ____-_____-__-_____-_________________________

__ 70 80 87 92

_ _ 0 0 0 1

54 69 63 70

-_ 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________-___-_-___ Herbaceous cover ____________________________________________

__ 56 50 -_ 23 11 .2 3

_ _ 83 94 75 91 a5 89

__ 22 1 _ _ 0 0 0 0

_ _ 3 1 __ 0 0 0 0

Herbaceous components

________ __ ______-_________ -____-_ Grasses and grasslike cover _______- ____ ____________________

No control _ _ 6 21 -_ a 0 0 1

Woody control _ _ 10 42 27 26 2 12

Herb control _ _ 1 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

Total control _ _ 1 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________-___--________ Fob cover _____________________-_________________________

_ _ 24 7 _ _ 2 0 0 0

_ _ 39 7 -_ 8 9 0 1

_ _ 2 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

__ 1 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________________________ Vine cover ____________________-___________________________

__ 11 13 _ _ 6 IO 2 2

_- 7 8 _ _ 15 3 3 2

_ _ 10 1 _ _ 0 0 0 0

__ 2 1 _ _ 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_ ______ ___ _______ __ __________ _____--________ Semiwoody cover ______________________________________________

_ _ 17 9 _ _ 4 0 0 1

_ _ 27 36 _ _ 27 61 81 69

__ 10 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

__ 0 0 _ _ 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

23
Table 20.--Atmore, Alabama: percentage of p/ant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

____________________~~~~~~____--__-~~~~~~~~~~~~ No cover ___________ ____ -______________ __________________

No control IO 5 2 1 2 0 0 0

Woody control 2 1 11 3 4 1 0 0 0

Herb control 56 68 57 25 25 16 5 5

Total control 97 97 79 33 23 13 5 4

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Pine cover ________________________________________~~~~~~~~~~

__* 2 8 16 28 29 31 39

_ _ 2 9 20 34 39 49 54

_ _ 4 9 16 36 35 40 49

_ _ 8 21 42 77 87 95 96

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________l_l___ ------- Woody cover ____________________________~_~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ _ 23 32 42 5 1 57 64 74

_ _ 1 2 1 1 0 0 0

_ _ 26 34 40 50 54 66 69

_ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________~_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----- Herbaceous cover ___-___________________ _____________________

7 1 75 75 80 72 65 57 47

75 84 83 95 96 96 93 98

24 4 1 2 2 2 1 1

2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

Herbaceous components

_______-______ ____ _______-_-__ Grasses and grasslike cover _____ _____________--__--------- ---------

No control 53 74 70 72 61 54 41 32

Woody control 57 79 73 79 65 58 45 37

Herb control 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

Total control 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________I_~-~~~~~~~~~~~ _________Forb cover _________________________________ ________________

5 2 3 4 3 3 2 1

8 4 9 8 6 12 7 2

4 2 1 1 1 0 0 0

1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________-_~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vine cover _______________________________ __________________

13 3 2 3 1 10 12 IO

9 4 7 15 13 3 1 39 44

16 2 1 1 1 1 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________-_______ Semiwoody cover ______________________________________________

6 3 5 6 8 4 4 8

7 3 7 16 18 19 20 35

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

24
Table 21 .--Liverpool, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~ __________ No cover ______________________--___________-______

No control 6 2 4 4 4 __* 0 0

Woody control 14 3 5 4 4 __ 0 0

Herb control 63 60 49 37 39 __ 1 0

Total control 57 95 88 66 57 _ _ 1 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________________ pine cover __________________________________________

_ _ 2 2 3 4 __ 26 36

__ 2 3 7 8 __ 50 60

_- 2 8 13 15 _ _ 60 66

_- 2 11 33 40 _ _ 98 99

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________-____-__~__I____-______-__~~~~~~Woody cover _________-__________--____--_-____

_ _ 17 19 23 23 _ _ 60 7 1

_ _ 1 1 1 0 - 3 4

__ 23 43 50 46 _ _ 70 82

_ _ 0 0 0 0 _ _ 1 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________~-________I______________Herbaceous cover -_-_______----__ ___________

94 78 89 69 73 __ 82 85

85 91 94 89 88 97 98

36 15 3 2 4 __ 5 10

43 2 2 3 3 __ 2 6

Herbaceous components

__________----____________________ Grasses and grasslike cover ____- ____I______------- ---

No control 59 54 85 54 51 62 70

Woody control 48 67 89 70 71 -_ 83 86

Herb control 12 4 0 1 3 _ _ 4 8

Total control 22 1 1 1 2 1 4

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________-____-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forb cover _______________-_--_______________

25 15 4 8 7 _ _ 6 12

29 19 6 12 11 __ 3 2

1 1 3 2 1 1 __ 0 2

11 1 2 2 2 __ 1 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________-_-_-___-_________________________ Vine cover ______________________--______________

3 3 4 6 8 __ 15 28

2 1 2 6 6 - 16 34

6 4 2 1 1 _ _ 0 3

4 1 1 1 0 __ 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________ Semiwoody cover ____ ___________________________________

4 4 4 2 4 __ 3 2

4 2 2 1 1 __ 7 19

3 4 2 0 0 _ _ 0 0

3 0 1 0 0 _ _ 0 1

*These estimates were not made.

25
Table 22.--Jena, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

____________________________________________-______ No cover ____________ ________ ________________ _____________

No control 14 3 3 0 0 0 0 0

Woody control 18 7 3 0 0 0 0 0

Herb control 96 54 67 47 17 15 12 0

Total control 99 48 77 39 12 5 3 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________________--_----- Pine cover _____________________________________--_________

__* 3 10 20 27 35 42 50

_ _ 2 9 18 25 30 38 47

_ _ 7 20 53 69 73 77 78

__ 6 20 61 86 93 95 94

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________________--___ Woocjy cover ______________________________-_-__----------

__ 5 5 29 17 25 36 41

__ 2 1 0 4 4 11 15

__ 9 8 18 10 16 21 23

-_ 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________-_______--_ ____ H&a~ous cover __ ________________________________________

8 1 90 95 85 92 93 94 85

83 88 96 97 99 100 IQ0 95

2 39 7 1 3 5 8 7

1 50 5 0 2 1 2 2

Herbaceous components

____________________-___________-_- Grasses and grasslike cover ________________________--__

No control 31 57 63 54 59 71 72 64

Woody control 27 55 65 63 72 78 8 1 68

Herb control 0 .I2 3 0 2 6 6 5

Total control 0 11 3 0 2 1 1 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________-___--____--- Forb cover ________________________________________________

50 44 37 12 18 7 7 8

53 43 45 14 16 7 7 5

1 24 4 0 0 0 1 1

0 41 3 0 0 0 1 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________ Vine cover _________________________________________________

1 3 1 5 5 5 5 6

0 2 1 4 4 4 6 8

0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________ _____ ___-_- Semiwoody cover _____________ ______________ __________________

6 15 7 13 13 12 12 9

4 9 3 15 14 17 21 17

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

These estimates were not made.

26
Table 23.--Tallassee, Alabama: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

Vegetation components

__________________________________________________ No cover ___________________________________________________

No control 11 a 11 IO 4 1 2 2

Woody control a 3 7 7 5 2 1 1

Herb control a3 56 47 47 17 12 9 6

Total control 96 a9 a2 55 15 a 5 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________-________- -_-_-_-__ pine cover __________________________________________________

__* 2 4 7 ia 27 33 47

_ _ 2 5 12 27 40 55 73

_ _ 5 9 17 36 42 49 63

_ _ 9 ia 45 a5 92 95 97

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total Control

_______-_l-___---__--_~-~Woody cover _________________________________________________

__ 31 37 41 57 60 69 75

__ 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

-_ 41 45 45 52 55 55 60

__ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________ ______ __ ______ ___ ______ _ _____ Herbaceous cover ____ ______ ___ _____ ____ ____ ___________________

68 62 56 47 45 42 35 28

92 96 91 a7 88 a5 80 91

2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3

3 3 1 1 2 2 1 1

Herbaceous components

______________________-_____________ Grasses and grasslike cover _____________________________________

No control 14 25 44 32 38 35 27 17

Woody control 14 40 61 58 54 52 26 24

Herb control 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2

Total control 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________-________________________ Forb cover _________________________________________________

30 35 13 11 5 3 3 3

63 55 37 25 19 13 14 IO

2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1

3 3 1 0 2 1 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________________________ Vine cover ___________________________________________________

1 1 0 1 1 2 2 3

1 0 0 0 5 4 5 11

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

_____________ ______ ___________ ______________ Semiwoodycover ______________________________________________

No control 2 1 5 6 4 7 a 5 5

Woody control 15 7 5 5 21 33 40 53

Herb control 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

27
Table 24.--Warren, Arkansas: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

________________-____________________-_______-_ No coyer _______ _________ ______________-_ _______ __ _______

Treatment I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

No control 46 2 0 1 1 1 0 7

Woody control 45 4 1 4 3 1 1 3

Herb control 98 79 5 1 25 12 5 5 4

Total control 99 85 67 33 17 10 18 7

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________________-______________ pine cover __________________________________________________

-* 2 19 10 29 31 35 42

_ _ 2 19 12 3 1 36 37 55

_ _ 10 29 56 68 66 69 81

_ _ 10 33 66 80 87 81 93

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-________--_____-------_-_-____ Woody cover ____ _____ _______ _____ ______ ___- _____ __-__ _____

__ 27 21 29 23 43 59 54

_- 1 17 0 4 10 20 29

_ _ 3 1 18 18 15 24 29 28

_ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________--_____-_ Herbaeous cover ________________________--________________

54 94 62 66 99 99 87 79

55 93 63 87 98 99 87 82

3 2 2 3 5 7 5 3

1 7 0 1 3 3 3 1

Herbaceous components

-______--___----_---- Grasses and grasslike coyer _______________________________-___

No control 18 55 58 62 99 98 87 72

Woody control 18 59 65 79 97 96 86 67

Herb control 1 1 2 3 5 4 2 2

Total control 1 5 0 1 2 2 3 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________-___--_-____ Forb cover ___________________-__________________________

35 37 25 1 19 10 11 8

36 29 22 5 24 27 20 5

1 1 0 0 0 3 3 2

1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________-___-_____--____ Vine cover ___________ ____ _____ ______ ________________________

1 2 7 1 9 8 20 5

4 2 5 2 11 14 28 11

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________-_-_____________ Semiwoody cover _____________________________________________

0 3 6 3 17 16 14 11

0 6 7 2 24 26 30 18

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

28
Table 25.--Counce, Tennessee: percentage of p/ant cover by components for the tirst 8 years

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

______________________~~~_____________~_~~~~~~~~ No cover ________________________ _____________------------

No control 25 3 2 2 3 1 0 2

Woody control 3 1 5 2 0 2 0 0 3

Herb control 94 75 63 33 27 10 4 2

Total control 97 87 78 43 34 10 4 7

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pine cover ____________________-______-_-_- ________________

-* 5 13 16 13 32 40 53

_ _ 5 14 20 18 34 44 61

__ 8 21 42 49 68 75 79

__ 8 23 46 59 81 89 85

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________________________ Woody cover ___________________________________-___________

_ _ 7 9 10 17 29 41 42

__ 2 2 3 1 5 9 10

_ _ 13 15 17 18 24 30 37

_ _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________ ____ ________________________ Herbaceous cover _______ ________-_____ ____________________-_

75 85 75 72 8 1 95 77 60

69 88 83 78 89 98 80 67

6 5 1 10 11 24 28 18

2 5 0 11 9 20 19 9

Herbaceous components

_ ________-___- _______ __________-_-Grasses and grasslike cover ________________ ____-______

No control 54 83 55 59 67 83 68 28

Woody control 53 84 64 59 69 89 64 20

Herb control 6 4 0 8 10 23 22 7

Total control 2 5 0 9 8 19 16 7

_________________________________________________ Forb cover _____-___________-__ _______________________

No control 8 9 9 8 15 28 23 9

Woody control 12 5 7 8 17 26 23 8

Herb control 1 0 0 1 1 4 4 2

Total control 1 0 0 1 2 4 4 3

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________________________ Vine cover ______________________________--____________

2 5 8 3 7 10 13 14

3 7 6 7 8 14 21 22

3 1 1 2 3 6 1 1 11

2 1 0 0 1 2 3 1

_______________ ____ _________________________ Semiwoody cover ___ ____ ________________ ______________________

No control 1 3 3 3 4 6 12 24

Woody control 1 4 5 5 5 9 18 40

Herb control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

29
Table 26.--Arcadia, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

____________________________________________________ No cover _________________________________________________

No control 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Woody control 10 3 1 1 8 1 1 2

Herb control 55 50 50 32 13 3 0 4

Total control 84 52 89 72 12 3 1 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________________________________________________ pine cover _________________________________________________

2 1 2 5 8 18 3 1 53

2 2 2 7 9 24 55 73

2 3 5 14 2 1 33 52 52

2 3 9 24 56 85 9 1 90

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________________________________ Woody cover _______________ _ _______________________________

15 21 21 44 48 52 63 66

11 2 4 3 10 12 1 4

20 31 45 53 6 1 66 60 62

3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________-__-_-__________ Herbaceous cover ____________________________________________

86 90 86 89 78 55 54 44

81 95 95 89 8 1 76 89 82

24 18 3 3 15 10 4 3

6 44 3 5 50 38 35 24

Herbaceous components

___________________________________ grasses and grasslike cover _______________________________________

No control 62 83 75 76 64 32 25 18

Woody control 66 79 85 79 55 19 25 20

Herb control 21 15 3 1 6 6 2 1

Total control 5 23 2 0 20 13 13 4

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________________-___________ Forb cover _________________________________________________

24 13 7 16 12 12 12 4

16 20 IO 18 25 27 26 15

3 3 1 1 7 5 3 2

1 13 1 2 34 27 24 21

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________________ Vine cover ___________________________________________________

3 3 2 3 5 5 5 7

2 2 2 3 3 2 5 6

3 3 2 1 3 1 1 1

9 IO 1 1 1 0 0 0

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________________________________ Semiwoody cover ____________________________________________

1 8 5 7 11 12 19 14

1 2 2 7 13 30 46 43

1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0

30
Table 27.--Camp Hill, Alabama: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Treatment

1 2 3

Year

4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

_______________-____~~~~~~~~~~_-__-~~~~~~--- No cover ________________________________ ________________

No control 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

Woody control 17 3 3 1 1 0 1 0

Herb control 46 25 21 11 6 3 3 2

Total control 97 97 70 35 7 2 2 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________~~~~~~______~~____I~~~~~~~ pine mver ______________________________________________-

__* 2 2 8 17 23 32 40

_ _ 2 3 10 25 37 52 66

_ _ 2 6 9 17 21 23 35

_ _ 7 30 65 92 97 97 99

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Woody cover ________________________ ____________________---

_ _ 47 43 47 50 58 71 85

_ _ 1 0 1 1 3 2 11

_ _ 70 78 84 89 9 1 9 1 94

__ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________________________________-_____ He~a~ous cover ________ ________ _____________ _______________

88 89 8 1 89 85 85 73 7 1

83 96 97 98 97 99 93 98

2 1 1 1 2 5 4 7

2 2 0 0 0 2 1 2

Herbaceous components

________________--__________________ Grasses and grasslike cover _________ _____________________-------

No control 64 83 64 81 67 62 41 35

Woody control 26 42 57 85 83 84 56 59

Herb control 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

Total control 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Forb cover ________________________________________-_-_---

50 45 25 24 14 16 11 6

61 73 51 48 36 33 17 21

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 2 0 0 0 2 1 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________________________ Vine cover _________________________________________________

12 16 10 10 18 25 32 43

2 6 3 7 11 23 38 5 1

2 5 1 1 2 5 3 7

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________ Semiwoodycover ___________________________________________

2 2 1 3 5 4 3 4

2 1 1 1 1 2 4 15

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

*These estimates were not made.

31
Table 28.- Monticello, Georgia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Year

Treatment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Vegetation components

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Herbaceous components

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

._______________-_____--_________________________ No cover __________________________________________-----__

55 7 8 4 2 1 0 0

75 31 15 6 6 4 3 1

81 70 47 53 52 30 23 18

87 85 55 57 51 37 25 18

_________________________-____________________ Pine cover _________________________-____-_______-________

__* 7 10 13 18 40 51 54

__ 8 20 25 28 45 60 68

_ _ 8 21 37 41 68 78 84

__ 9 28 39 43 61 76 83

____________________________________--__ Woody cover __________________________________-___-_____

__ 19 21 30 28 25 37 42

__ 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

__ 9 9 13 10 8 12 12

_ _ 1 0 0 0 0 3 1

_______________________________________ Herbaceous cover ___________________________________________

45 70 60 72 57 60 61 60

25 62 64 82 69 67 70 55

19 14 26 3 2 1 4 11

13 6 18 10 1 5 6 10

______________________________________ Grasses and grasslike cover ___________________________________

1 1 35 33 38 34 37 40 44

4 22 46 58 51 51 54 43

8 5 11 1 1 1 2 7

3 1 10 5 4 2 4 6

_______________________________________________ Forb cover _________________________-______________-______

23 17 8 9 4 5 5 5

10 37 13 9 7 4 4 3

4 3 4 0 0 0 0 1

3 3 3 1 1 1 0 1

______________-_________________________________ Vine cover _________________________-_______________________

8 11 18 22 9 9 11 7

8 2 2 12 8 7 8 8

5 3 9 0 0 0 0 1

5 1 4 4 2 1 1 1

______________________________-__________ Semiwoody cover _____________________________________________

5 5 1 1 8 5 3 2

2 0 0 0 3 2 1 0

1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

*These estimates were not made.

32
Table 29.--Appomattox, Virginia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years

Year

Treatment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a

Vegetation components

_ ____ __ _____ ___ ____ ______--_---_-__________ No coyer _________________________________________-____

No control ia 12 -* __ 9 3 0 2

Woody control 22 62 __ __ 16 2 2 2

Herb control 27 40 __ __ 27 4 2 2

Total control 33 93 __ __ 39 6 1 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________-_-_-______ Pine WVef ___________________________________-___--____

__ 2 __ _- 11 a 19 15

_ _ 2 __ - 20 23 47 47

__ 2 __ 12 a 20 10

_ _ 2 __ __ 29 50 74 67

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________---______-__________I-____Woody cover __________________________________________-____

_- 53 __ __ 55 75 86 a5

__ 4

1:

_- 4 6 7 11

_ _ 53 _- 55 75 88 a7

__ 4 _- 0 2 2 3

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______-______________--__--__-_ Herbawous cover _________ _ ____________ -___-_-_--_

56 40 __ __ 29 45 39 24

53 35 67 96 99 a2

37 9 __ 6 19 14 11

38 3 __ __ 32 a3 69 67

Herbaceous components

______________________-____---___ Grasses and grasslike cover __________________________-__

No control 21 16 24 29 21 11

Woody control 6 9 -_ 49 a3 74 53

Herb control 13 3 5 11 8 7

Total control 16 2 26 74 57 51

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________-__-_-______ F& cover ____________________________________________-

36 11 __ __ 5 7 10 5

39 13 __ 19 11 15 12

16 2 __ 1 4 4 4

16 1 7 6 10 11

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________-______-___ Vine *ver _________________________________________~-_

9 12 __ -_ 1 9 4 4

12 9 __ -_ 3 11 28 21

13 2 __ __ 0 4 0 1

a 1 0 6 0 2

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________________________-__---_--_ Semiwoody cover ---___----_______ ___________________________

4 9 3 9 4 4

4 5 __ 2 6 7 7

a 2 __ 0 3 1 1

9 1 __ -_ 0 6 2 7

*These estimates were not made.

33
Table 30.-Pembroke, Georgia: woody competition growth response values forplants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* _________-______________________--______-____-_ Number _--_________________________________________________

Nonarborescent

No control 5,826 9,522 10,050 9,997 4,893 12,954

Woody control 950 1,003 1,179 2,006 1,109 4,805

Herb control 4,699 4,928 5,368 5,773 3,062 6,072

Total control 862 827 158 510 493 1,214

Nonarborescent

sum of heights’

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-_--- _______ -___- _____ ___-__-______-______ Ft/acre ---_-__-_____-___ _______ _- __________ _ ____________

7,427 13,341 16,192 14,960 9,750 29,181

1,056 1,426 1,514 2,605 1,883 9,574

6,002 8,131 10,525 11,634 9,011 16,843

933 1,232 158 616 651 2,006

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* _-___--___--___---__--_______--_ Number --_---- _____ -__-_--__ ___________ _ _________

No control 792 950 898 774 774 898

Woody control 70 88 35 53 70 158

Herb control 563 739 704 722 669 810

Total control 194 53 0 106 158 158

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-~-___l~____-_-____-_- Ft/acre _---_-_--____---_-__-_-_-___-__________

1,531 2,288 2,658 2,851 3,326 4,805

106 176 53 123 176 616

1,091 2,270 2,710 3,854 3,678 4,646

194 88 0 123 264 317

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_ ________________________-_______________-_ Fp/ame ________---__-___-_____________-____-____________

-_* _I _I -_ 0.4 1.1

_- _I _-_ _- 0.0 0.1

_- -_- -_ _- 1.4 2.1

___ ___ ___ _- 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ _-__-___--_-_______-_______--__ Number ____________________________-__-___-_____________

No control - -_ ___ ___ 326 340

Woody control -__ _- --_ ___ 19 30

Herb control ___ - _- ___ 443 338

Total control _- ___ -_ ___ 2 4

*Values based on three 9 by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

34
Table 31 .--Bainbridge, Georgia: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* __________________________________________ _______ ______ Number _________ ___ ___________ _ _____________ _____ _______ _________

No control 2,084 3,294 4,369 4,885 3,899 2,398

Woody control 1,412 2,241 2,532 3,832 784 650

Herb control 2,173 2,241 2,375 1,972 1,479 874

Total control 448 22 0 0 0 134

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________________________ Ft/acre ___________________________________________________________

3,720 7,372 10,352 18,150 17,926 12,481

2,465 4,481 4,504 10,755 2,465 2,644

3,608 6,296 7,977 8,649 7,148 3,316

739 22 0 0 0 336

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* ________________________________________________________ Number ___________________________________________________________

No control 2,868 2,823 4,235 3,988 3,675 3,316

Woody control 1,322 739 851 515 493 851

Herb control 4,100 4,392 4,661 4,885 4,235 3,720

Total control 2,196 90 0 0 0 134

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________~~_____~~~~~~~~~__~~~~~~~~~~~ _______ Ft/acre ___________________________________________________________

5,579 8,873 16,805 24,222 29,353 41,341

1,905 1,143 1,681 1,232 1,255 3,361

7,663 14,811 21,869 30,698 35,448 42,685

2,689 90 0 0 0 202

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________ _____ _______ #/acre _______ ____ __________ _ ____________ ____ __________ _______ ____

___* ___ ___ -_- 5.8 12.0

--_ ___ ___ -_- 0.0 0.1

--_ ___ ___ ___ 10.7 15.9

_-_ ___ ___ ___ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ ________________________________________________________ Number ___________________________________________________________

No control --_ ___ ___ ___ 1,830 1,830

Woody control --_ ___ ___ ___ 8 134

Herb control _-_ ___ ___ ___ 2,714 2,618

Total control --_ _- _- *__ 0 3

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

35
Table 32.~Liberty, Mississippi: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ff tall for years 7 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* _ ________________________________________----_- Number ________________________-_ ______ _ ___________________

Nonarborescent

No control -* 4,661 3,249 ___ 6,789 2,129

Woody control ___ 3,316 45 ___ 0 0

Herb control ___ 1,098 941 ___ 874 538

Total control ___ 67 67 ___ 0 0

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__-_______~_-_~~~--~_________________I__ Ft/acre ____________________________-_______-______________

___ 16,536 17,007 -_ 43,940 31,303

___ 11,383 134 I_ 0 0

_- 4,952 6,655 _I 9,030 10,442

_- 112 134 ___ 0 0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* ______________________-____-__--__--- Number ___________---__- _______ _________ _________________ _

No control _- 3,182 3,316 - - 5,759 3,451

Woody control ___ 672 202 ___ 0 0

Herb control ___ 2,935 3,047 ___ 3,720 2,711

Total control I_ 381 224 ___ 0 0

Arborescent sum

of heights* ___---~-~-______-_________l_l Fffacre ____-_-_-____-___- ____ ________ _____ _ ___________

No control ___ 11,674 18,912 .-- 39,257 49,251

Woody control ___ 1,748 471 ___ 0 0

Herb control ___ 11,696 19,091 ___ 36,142 40,691

Total control ___ 605 471 -_ 0 0

Arborescent

basal area*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________-______________--

-_ ___

___ ___

___ ___

___ ___

Fp/acre _______________________________________________-_

- ___ 9.7 20.1

- _- 0.0 0.0

- ___ 9.6 21.6

_- _- 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.* ___________________________-__-------- Number __________________________________________________

No control -_ ___ -_ ___ 2,406 3,732

Woody control ___ ___ - _I 0 0

Herb control I_ ___ -_ ___ 1,813 2,634

Total control ___ _-- ___ --_ 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

SThese measurements were not made.
Table 33.-Atmoe, Alabama: woody competition growth response values for plants ~0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* _________________ ________________ Number _________________________-_________-_____--______

No control 8,492 9,747 11,248 6,162 8,537 4,997

Woody control 829 627 807 291 269 0

Herb control 9,142 7,730 8,179 3,383 4,459 3,540

Total control 784 0 0 0 0 0

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_________________-___ ________________-- Ft/acre ____________-_ ____ _-__- -__- -_--___- _____ __

10,867 15,192 24,043 15,237 21,623 22,026

829 717 1,188 493 426 0

12,548 13,713 21,219 13,511 17,836 17,365

784 0 0 0 0 0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* __---___---___----I ____________ Number __-______-___________-_-___-- __--_-

No control 1,300 1,120 1,210 1,053 986 829

Woody control 471 202 224 45 112 0

Herb control 964 762 695 695 739 515

Total control 336 67 22 0 0 0

Arborescent sum

of heights* _____________---_- _____-_______-_ Ft/acre _______-__-_ ____ -_-_ ____ -- ____

No control 2,532 3,047 5,288 4,885 5,826 7,910

Woody control 515 224 515 90 336 0

Herb control 1,703 2,398 4,818 6,252 7,954 7,574

Total control 359 67 45 0 0 0

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-___---___--_-- Ft21acre -__-----__ ---

-_$ - - - - 3.2 8.1

__- - _- -__ 0.0 0.0

_-- -_ - -__ 7.3 15.0

___ _- -__ -__ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ __________-____-___---- _____________ Number _-__--___--_--__ _--_ - - -

No control _-_ _I -__ - - 664 694

Woody control _-_ _I ___ ___ 0 0

Herb control _-_ -_ ___ -__ 587 516

Total control --_ _I I_ -__ 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

values based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 fi tall.

These measurements were not made.

37
Table X-Liverpool, Louisiana: woody competition growth response values forplants ~0.5 ff tall for years 1 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* __________________________ -_____--_____- Number --_--_------_-_______-__________

No control 2,084 2,823 2,801 3,271 3,495 3,899

Woody control 1,479 941 314 515 650 1,434

Herb control 2,420 1,815 1,568 1,479 1,613 2,577

Total control 2,263 336 112 112 157 919

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_-__-_-__-_______-___________________-___ Fvacm ~-

2,913 5,378 6,565 9,030 10,867 16,357

1,882 1,793 403 807 1,008 3,518

3,742 4,840 6,027 7,036 7,932 12,369

3,092 627 157 157 224 1,255

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* _-------___-_____-__----~------ Number _____________ ______-___-____________

No control 1,658 1,905 1,815 1,793 1,882 1,703

Woody control 538 179 45 67 22 90

Herb control 1,860 1,949 1,636 1,255 1,344 1,636

Total control 739 67 22 22 22 179

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

---_--___--1______-___l____l__ Fvacm ______ -_-_____- _____ ____-__-

3,204 5,310 6,677 8.044 9,613 13,848

874 224 90 90 22 224

4,280 7,260 10,688 10,867 12,996 19,920

1,412 134 22 22 22 179

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

-_*

___

___

___

___

___

___

_--

Fe/acre -____---__ -____-___________-_______I__-__

_- _-- 3.4 6.6

- - -_ 0.0 0.0

_- --_ 10.4 14.6

- ___ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ -- _____ -___-____________________________ ____ --__ Number _---____-_-_ --_______________________________

No control ___ ___ ___ ___ 1,114 1,213

Woody control -_ ___ I_ ___ 0 0

Herb control _- _-- ___ ___ 1,180 1,114

Total control ___ ___ _- _- 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

38
Table 35.--Jena, Louisiana: woody competition growth response Values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 thmugh 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 a

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre’ ____-____-______ ___________--_-_--___-_ Number __-______________________-______-_________________

No control 1,076 1,277 i ,882 2,173 1,143 1,905

Woody control 314 583 246 672 650 1,434

Herb control 224 246 202 134 224 291

Total control 45 0 0 0 0 67

Nonarborescent

sum of heights’

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_____________--_-__--___-_-_____________________ Ft/acm _____--___________-____-_____-_______-__________

1,949 2,644 4,414 5,490 3,764 11,226

493 919 336 1,501 1,546 7,394

314 739 829 807 1,232 2,173

45 0 0 0 0 112

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* _____--__-_-_-P ___-__-_____ Number _________________-_________________________________

No control 986 964 1,344 I ,389 1,232 1,188

Woody control 359 403 67 471 538 448

Herb control 874 1,076 I ,008 a51 650 605

Total control 179 314 0 0 22 157

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__-------__----_---_ ____ ---__ Ft/acre _-_______-_-_______--_-_____--_________-______

1,232 1,905 3,294 3,787 4,526 8,447

448 605 112 I ,098 1,322 2,711

1,053 2,599 4,011 4,818 4,526 8,918

179 336 0 0 22 246

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________-____--____-_____ Ff/acm ______-_______-____________--____________________

-_* -_ ___ --_ 0.6 2.1

..- _- ___ --_ 0.0 0.9

___ _- ___ --_ 1.9 5.4

_-- _-- ___ _- 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.t ___-___________ ___-_ _____________ - _____ Number _________ _ -_____ _________---____-_____-___________

No control ___ ___ ___ ___ 277 455

Woody control ___ ___ ___ --_ 25 179

Herb control ___ ___ ___ --_ 302 329

Total control ___ _-- ___ --_ 0 0

‘Values based on three 9- by la-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

+Values based on 1 00-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods 25 ft tall.

SThese measurements were not made.

39
Table 36.-Tallassee, Alabama: woody competition growth response values forplants ~0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5.and at

year 8

Year

Treatment

1 2 3 4 5 6

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre’ _____________________-__-_--__-- Number ____________________-____________________

No control 538 627 695 538 493 941

Woody control 45 22 0 22 0 90

Herb control 246 202 179 112 202 134

Total control 0 0 0 0 0 291

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________________-~~~-~~~~-~~ ---- Fvacm __________-____-_---___ __________________

1,053 1,703 2,263 2,173 2,734 5,467

45 45 0 45 0 224

471 560 538 538 627 583

0 0 0 0 0 336

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* ____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -__--- Number _________-____--___-_- _________________________

No control 3,204 3,339 3,742 3,809 3,787 3,428

Woody control 112 45 67 112 67 112

Herb control 2,106 1,927 2,017 1,860 1,793 1,793

Total control 0 0 0 0 0 134

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______-____-___---____I Ft/scm _______________-__-_____-______

a,91 a 13,243 16,402 20,301 23,483 34,664

112 45 112 134 224 381

6,610 11,943 14,632 16,648 18,508 23,886

0 0 0 0 0 134

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________________-____-~~~~~~~~~~____I~ _Ff/acm _____________________________________________

-_* _- - _- a.8 19.1

___ ___ I_ ___ 0.0 0.0

___ ___ - ___ 17.1 22.7

___ _-- - ___ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ ________--___-___-__~______________II Number ___________________--_________________________

No control ___ _-_ -_ -_ 1,745 2,212

Woody control _-_ ___ - I_ 0 19

Herb control _- ___ _- -_ 1,704 1,690

Total control --_ __- -_ _I 0 0

*Values based on three 9 by Ia-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

40
Table 37.--Warren, Arkansas: woody competifion growth response values for plants >0.5 ff fall for years 1 fhmugh 5 and at

year 8

Year

Treatment

1 2 3 4 5 a

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________--___ Number ________________________-_____________-_____________

359 964 2,666 2,286 2,465 1,636

112 1,053 1,905 22 493 2,151

90 134 157 67 90 157

0 0 0 0 0 157

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________-__--____________-______- ____ _--__ Ffface __ ________________- __ ____ -- __-_ _ _____-_ _ _______ ___

403 1,165 8,492 9,030 7,708 I I ,988

112 1,210 7,305 45 1,076 9,837

90 134 202 90 112 336

0 0 0 0 0 179

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

471

471

I ,008

269

762

202

1,120

90

. _“,,,..v”,

762

179

a74

0

471 627 605

22 179 179

784 739 I ,098

0 0 45

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__---_------____-__ FvacE - _______ --_--

784 1,703 2,263 1,658 2,017 4,123

650 359 291 22 359 941

I ,815 5,400 6,229 7,058 7,148 16,111

269 90 0 0 0 67

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________-____--____-_______-_-__- _____ _ ____ - Ff/acm ______ - _____ -_---____-_____-_______

___: -- _- ___ 0.2 2.2

___ -a_ - ___ 0.0 0.8

_- _- _- ___ 1.2 3.8

___ -_ _-- _- 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h? __________-____________--____-___-_~--___ Number _ _______ __ _______ --_~--_-__---__-____

No control ___ -__ _-- _-- 159 450

Woody control _-- -__ _- ___ 0 206

Herb control _-- -__ ___ _- 192 209

Total control ___ -__ ___ ___ 0 a

*Values based on three 9- by I&ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

41
Table 38.-Counce, Tennessee: woody p/ant groivth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at year 8

Year

Treatment

1 2 3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* _____ ______ ____________________________-__________ ____ Number ___-______-_________-___ _______________________ _____

No control 560 1,479 1,367 1,479 1,994 1,770

Woody control 314 695 919 1,098 538 919

Herb control 179 448 381 359 336 246

Total control 22 22 0 0 45 22

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____________________________________________________ Fffacm ____________________-______________________________

583 1,770 2,241 3,204 4,302 5,355

314 829 1,613 1,972 807 2,846

179 493 471 695 717 1,479

22 22 0 0 45 45

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre’ ______.________________-______________________-_ ____ ___ Number ____________--__________-___ _______ _ ______________ ____

No control 1,367 1,277 1,524 1,434 1,568 1,412

Woody control 157 179 202 157 0 22

Herb control 1,770 1,636 1,524 1,367 1,232 1,255

Total control 179 22 0 0 0 0

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________-_-___________l_______l___~ Ft/acm _____-____- ______I_______-_____~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~

1,815 2,465 4,056 5,019 6,252 8,828

202 269 426 314 0 22

3,137 4,728 6,453 6,924 6,722 9,994

179 22 0 0 0 0

Arborescent

basal area*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

____ ______ ___ ________________ _______-_-__-__-_- Fp/acE ____ __________ _____-_____-____ _____ _________________

___* ___ ___ ___ 0.7 1.6

___ ___ ___ ___ 0.0 0.0

___ ___ ___ -_ 2.0 2.9

___ ___ _- - - 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.’ _______________-________________________-__-_-_____ Number _--____________________________________________________

No control ___ ___ ___ ___ 439 851

Woody control ___ ___ -__ ___ 0 0

Herb control ___ ___ ___ ___ 527 590

Total control ___ ___ ___ ___ 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 fl tall.

SThese measurements were not made.

42
Table 39.--Arcadia, Louisiana: woody p/ant growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tat/ for years 1 through 5 and at year 8

Treatment

2 3

Year

1

4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre’ _______________________________________________-______ Number _____-__________________________ ____--___----_____---____

No control 10,165 11,050 7,011 12,434 __* 4,606

Woody control 5,536 908 1,157 1,021 __ 749

Herb control 4,288 3,494 2,541 1,770 _ _ 840

Total control 930 68 0 0 _ _ 930

Nonarborescent

sum of heights’

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________________________________________ Ff/acre ____________________________________________________________

14,385 21,737 17,585 29,656 _- 23,416

7,556 1,407 2,382 2,587 __ 1,225

6,467 7,374 7,079 6,648 _ _ 26,525

1,407 91 0 0 _ _ 1,157

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* _________________________________________________________ Number __________________________-______________________________

No control 976 1,724 2,065 2,337 __ 1,452

Woody control 590 408 476 363 __ 318

Herb control 2,065 3.086 3,154 2,609 _ _ 1,997

Total control 363 340 204 45 _ _ 23

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________________________________-_______ &?/acre _______________________________________________________-_

2,496 5,083 7,488 8,690 __ 13,478

998 567 1,044 885 _ _ 2,677

5,196 10,937 18,265 19,377 __ 5,105

522 431 408 227 __ 1,157

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________________~~~_____~~~___~~~ Fe/acre ________________________________________ ____ ___ _____ ___ ____

__- ___ ___ _-- 3.1 5.0

_-- ___ ___ _-- 0.1 0.1

___ _-- ___ ___ 12.3 13.2

___ ___ _-- ___ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.’ ________________________________________________________ Number __________________________________________________________

No control ___ ___ _-- ___ 1,027 1,366

Woody control ___ ___ _-- ___ 131 121

Herb control __- ___ _-- ___ 1,335 1,496

Total control ___ ___ _-- ___ 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

?hese measurements were not made.

43
Table 40.-Camp Hill, Alabama: woody competition growth response values forplants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 thtuugh 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

Year

1 2 3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* ____________________________I___________~~~~~~~~ Number _l_____________________________________________

No control 16,514 11,540 12,324 9,254 9,299 5,064

Woody control 2,017 1,143 45 560 1,165 2,308

Herb control 8,761 4,862 7,865 6,498 5,826 2,935

Total control 1,412 359 0 0 22 90

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

________________________~_________I_____~~~ Fffacre ____________________________________________-_______

22,878 19,292 21,152 20,749 19,741 15,349

2,263 1,277 67 896 1,524 5,826

13,915 10,778 16,200 18,284 18,351 10,823

1,412 359 0 0 45 179

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

, .“.,,“W,

3,428 3,630 4,459 4,100 5,086 3,988

1,165 717 45 112 179 269

4,168 3,227 4,011 4,414 4,571 4,526

336 112 0 0 0 426

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

_______________________~__~~~~~__l____l-~~FvacE ________________________ _______________________

6,834 10,128 13,153 16,581 21,533 31,392

1,389 941 67 179 291 695

9,792 13,668 20,883 30,294 34,888 50,124

336 112 0 0 0 471

___________________________-________________ @/acre ___________________________________________________

___* ___ _I _- 5.3 7.1

___ - - - - 0.0 0.0

___ -_- - ___ 14.7 14.4

___ ___ _- ___ 0.0 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h? __________________________________--____-_-_-- Number _________________________-______________________-

No control ___ ___ ___ ___ 1,827 2,173

Woody control ___ --_ -_ ___ 0 0

Herb control ___ ___ _- ___ 2,769 2,480

Total control ___ ___ I_ ___ 0 0

*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

SThese measurements were not made.

44
Table 41 .--Monticello, Georgia: woody plant growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 8

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre* _____________________________________________________ Number __________________________________________________________

No control 3,025 4,930 5,736 3,204 2,532 2,106

Woody control 2,263 224 157 179 134 67

Herb control 717 1,210 1,591 1,143 964 1,165

Total control 717 224 22 0 67 157

Nonarborescent

sum of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________-__________________________ Ft/acm _________________________________________________________

4,840 8,380 8,985 9,120 7,125 9,389

3,585 291 291 291 224 202

964 2,554 3,787 4,459 3,720 5,535

1,165 403 90 0 112 426

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* ________________________________________________-___ Number ___________________________________________________________

No control 1,681 2,420 1,837 1,367 1,076 1,636

Woody control 1,412 426 224 90 112 90

Herb control- 1,501 1,031 627 605 426 807

Total control 807 134 90 0 0 45

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

______________________________________________________ F&ye _________________________________________________________

3,003 5,736 4,885 5,579 4,078 9,254

2,711 717 381 179 246 246

1,815 1,882 1,860 2,577 1,703 3,966

1,255 202 134 0 0 90

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

__________________________________________________ ______ Ff/aom ______ ________ ____ ________ ____ _________ _____ _________ ___

-_* ___ ___ --_ 3.3 9.3

-__ ___ ___ ___ 0.3 0.0

-__ ___ ___ ___ 2.2 3.2

-__ ___ ___ ___ 0.5 0.0

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.t ______________________________________________________ Number ___________________________________________________________

No control -__ ___ ___ ___ 870 1,388

Woody control -__ ___ ___ ___ 107 5

Herb control -__ ___ ___ ___ 392 417

Total control -__ ___ ___ ___ 52 0

*Values based on three 9- by la-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 tI tall.

These measurements were not made.

45
Table 42.--Appomattox, Virginia: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at

year 8

Treatment

1 2

Year

3 4 5 a

_____________________________-__- _____________ Number _-__-_--_______ _________________________________

Nonarborescent

rootstocks per acre*

No control 6,341 4,907 __* 7,999 5,669 3,787

Woody control 5,848 605 __ 0 45 1,120

Herb control 7,372 4,885 __ 5,288 3,563 2,622

Total control 7,730 2,039 __ 0 45 359

Nonarborescent

sum of heights* ___________________________________-__ ____________ Fvacm ________--_-___ ___________________________________

No control 9,299 10,486 __ 17,500 14,206 12,257

Woody control 9,052 986 __ 0 45 3,294

Herb control I 0,038 9,904 __ 13,399 11,316 9,971

Total control 11,674 3,832 __ 0 45 1,188

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre* ____________________________________________-________ Number ___________________________-_____________________

No control 3,495 3,294 __ 2,577 2,465 3,137

Woody control 2.644 1,232 __ 22 90 403

Herb control 3,652 3,249 _ _ 2,218 2,442 2,846

Total control 2,689 1,681 __ 0 45 359

Arborescent sum

of heights*

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

Arborescent

basal area+

No control

Woody control

Herb control

Total control

___________--___-__-_ ___________ Fvacm _-___---_-_______-__----

6,341 7,820 __ 10,262 14,228 23,751

3,787 1,770 __ 45 112 1,479

7,282 9,657 __ 9,792 15,013 26,844

4,123 3,652 __ 0 67 762

______________________________________ ____ _ ______ - #/acre ______--_-- _____________________________

-

-

___

___

___

___

__-

_--

_--

___

___

___

-

-

-

-

4.7

0.1

a.5

0.3

15.0

0.2

21.4

0.2

Arborescent rootstocks

per acre with d.b.h.+ _______________________________________ __________ _ _____ _ Number ____~~~~_~___________-__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No control -_ ___ ___ _- 1,163 I ,808

Woody control ___ ___ ___ -_ 36 134

Herb control ___ ___ ___ ___ 1,476 z ,729

Total control ___ -__ ___ ___ 19 102

‘Values based on three 9- by la-p1 subplots within each pine measurement plot.

‘Values based on logpercent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.

These measurements were not made.

46
Table 43.--Mean height of the tallest 100, 200, 300, and 400 pines per acre by treatment

for each location at year 8 (continued)

Location Treatment

Mean height of tallest trees per acre

1 OOlacre 2OOlacre 300lacre 400Iacre

___________________________________Feet___________-____________-___________.

Pembroke, GA No control 27.3 26.2 25.4 24.7

Woody control 33.5 32.3 31.3 30.4

Herb control 34.5 33.6 32.8 31.9

Total control 37.6 36.3 35.6 34.7

Bainbridge, GA No control 32.9 31.5 30.8 30.0

Woody control 31.3 30.3 29.6 28.8

Herb control 35.9 35.1 34.3 33.4

Total control 40.6 39.3 38.6 37.8

Liberty, MS No control 30.6 29.3 28.2 27.0

Woody control 34.2 32.6 31.4 30.3

Herb control 40.0 38.6 37.6 36.5

Total control 41.2 40.1 39.3 38.3

Atmore, AL No control 25.0 23.7 23.0 22.6

Woody control 28.7 27.2 26.4 25.5

Herb control 29.9 28.5 27.3 26.1

Total control 34.7 33.6 32.6 32.0

Liverpool, LA No control 25.7 24.5 23.7 22.8

Woody control 28.0 26.8 25.8 25.0

Herb control 33.2 32.1 31.2 30.2

Total control 34.7 34.1 33.6 33.0

Jena, LA No control 29.3 28.4 27.7 26.9

Woody control 28.9 27.9 27.1 26.1

Herb control 35.1 34.4 33.8 33.2

Total control 36.4 35.7 35.2 34.7

Tallassee, AL No control 23.6 22.7 21.9 21.1

Woody control 25.7 24.7 23.9 23.3

Herb control 28.7 27.2 25.9 24.7

Total control 33.3 32.5 31 .a 31.2

47
LITEXATURE CITED

Burkhart, Harold E.; Farrar, Kenneth D.; Amateis,

Ralph L.; Daniels, Richard F. 1987. Simulation of

individual tree growth and stand development in

loblolly pine plantations on cutover, site-prepared

areas. Publ. FWS-1-87 Blacksburg, VA: School of

Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 47 p.

Cain, M.D. 1991. The influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early growth of naturally regenerated loblolly and shortleaf pine. Southern

Journal of Applied Forestry. X(4): 179-185.

Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 498 p.

Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P. Ca, Mg, K, Na,

and NH, by North Carolina soil testing laboratories. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

Mimeo. 5 p.

Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce; Zedaker, Shepard M.

[and others]. 1987. Region-wide study of loblolly pine

seedling growth relative to four competition levels

after two growing seasons. In: Proceedings of the

4th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1986 November 4-6; Atlanta, GA, Gen. Tech.

Rep. SE-42. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 581-591.

Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce R.; Zedaker, Shepard

M. [and others]. 1991. A regional study on the influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early

loblolly pine growth. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry. 15(4): 169-179.

Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce R.; Zedaker, Shepard

M. [and others]. 1995. Early plant succession in

loblolly pine plantations as affected by vegetation management. Southern Journal ofApplied Forestry. 19(3):

109-126.

Zutter, B.R.; Miller, J.H.; Zedaker, S.M. [and others].

[In press]. Response of loblolly pine plantations to

woody and herbaceous control-eight-year results

of the region-wide study-The COMProject. In: Proceedings of the 8th biennial southern silvicultural

research conference; 1994 31 October-3 November;

Auburn, AL. Gen. Tech. Rep. New Orleans, LA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.

PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT

Pesticides used improperly can be injurious to humans, animals, and plants. Follow the

directions and heed all precautions on the labels.

Store pesticides in original containers under lock and key-out of the reach of children and

animals-and away from food and feed.

Apply pesticides so that they do not endanger humans, livestock, crops, beneficial insects,

fish, and wildlife. Do not apply pesticides when there is danger of drift, when honey bees or

other pollinating insects are visiting plants, or in ways that may contaminate water or

leave illegal residues.

Avoid prolonged inhalation of pesticide sprays or dusts; wear protective clothing and equipment if specified on container.

If your hands become contaminated with a pesticide, do not eat or drink until you have

washed. In case a pesticide is swallowed or gets in your eyes, follow the first-aid treatment

given on the label, and get prompt medical attention. If a pesticide is spilled on your skin or

clothing, remove clothing immediately and wash skin thoroughly.

Do not clean spray equipment or dump excess spray material near ponds, streams, or wells.

Because it is difficult to remove all traces of herbicides from equipment, do not use the same

equipment for insecticides or fungicides that you use for herbicides.

Dispose of empty pesticide containers promptly according to Federal, State, and local laws

and regulations.

NOTE: Some States have restrictions on the use of certain pesticides. Check your State and

local regulations. Also, because registrations of pesticides are under constant review by the

Federal Environmental Protection Agency, consult your county agricultural agent or State

extension specialist to be sure the intended use is still registered.

48
Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce D.; Zedaker, Shepard M.; Edwards, M. Boyd; Newbold,

Ray A. 1995. A regional framework of early growth response for loblolly pine relative to

herbaceous, woody, and complete competition control-The COMProiect. Gen. Tech. Rep.

SO-117. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Forst Experiment Station. 48 p.

A common study design has been installed at 13 locations throughout the South to track

the growth of loblolly pine (Pinus taeo!u L.) plantations established with 4 different competition control treatments: no control (only chopping-burning), woody control for 5 years,

herbaceous control for 4 years, and total control atIer site preparation. This regionwide

investigation is known as the Competition Omission Monitoring Project (COMB), a coordinated study with the Auburn University Silvicultural Herbicide Cooperative (Study HB-4F).

Data summaries for each location are presented for loblolly pine growth and competition

intensities for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,990 loblolly pine seedlings have been

measured annually. Responses from this network of studies should be useful in assessing

and reporting relative growth of loblolly pines for other studies and operational plantings.

These data sets should be useful also for future forest growth modeling efforts.

Keywords: Forest, growth and yield modeling, herbicides, plant interference, rollerdrum chopping, silviculture, site preparation, vegetation management, weed control.

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any

product or service.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Offke of Communications at (202)

720-2791.

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202)

720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
United States

Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Forest

Experiment Station

701 Loyola Ave., Rm.T-10210

New Orleans, LA 70113-1920

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300