Effects of application date and rate of foliar-applied glyphosate on pine seedlings in Turkey

Abstract

Glyphosate is the herbicide most extensively used for site preparation and conifer release. It is a broad-spectrum herbicide and therefore crop safety is a critical issue. This study assessed the early effects of 14 different treatments, including no weed control, manual weed control, and 12 foliar-applied herbicide treatments at low, intermediate, high, and highest application rates and application timing on glyphosate phytotoxicity of containerized seedlings of Austrian pine (Pinus nigra J.F. Arnold.), Scots pine (P. sylvestris L.) and maritime pine (P. pinaster Aiton), conifer species widely used for afforestation and supplementary plantings in Turkish forestry. In general, Scots pine seedlings were tolerant to glyphosate compared to the other species. Glyphosate phytotoxicity varied significantly according to the time and rate of application. Seedlings were relatively tolerant to glyphosate in April whereas they were intolerant in May. The highest herbicide rate (1.2% v:v) was consistently phytotoxic to all species. Moreover, the effect of herbicide rate on seedling survival and growth varied significantly according to application date (i.e., application rate × date interaction). Seedlings appeared tolerant to glyphosate at low and intermediate rates (0.2, 0.4% v:v) between mid-spring and mid-summer, whereas they demonstrated significant sensitivity to the highest rate across all time periods. Glyphosate at the high rate (0.8% v:v) was particularly more phytotoxic when applied in May. Application of glyphosate at rates up to 0.8% could be recommended for weed control without significant pine damage in mid-spring when the needles presumably have a dense leaf epicuticular wax layer limiting herbicide penetration. Applications of 0.8 and 1.2% v:v are not recommended during May–June.

Keywords

Application date and rate / Glyphosate screening / Pines / Seedling tolerance

References

[1] Anfodillo T, Bisceglie DPD, Urso T. Minimum cuticular conductance and cuticle features of Picea abies and Pinus cembra needles along an altitudinal gradient in the Dolomites (NE Italian Alps). Tree Physiol, 2002, 22: 479-487.

[2] Anonymous (2014) Ormancılık istatistikleri 2014. Orman Genel Müdürlüğü (in Turkish). http://www.ogm.gov.tr/ekutuphane/Istatistikler/Ormanc%C4%B1l%C4%B1k%20%C4%B0statistikleri/Ormanc%C4%B1l%C4%B1k%20%C4%B0statistikleri%202014.rar. Accessed 03 Mar 2016 (in Turkish)

[3] Boydak M, Çalışkan S. Ağaçlandırma, 2014, Çankaya: OGEM-VAK Ankara 714

[4] Bunn BH, Zedaker SM, Seiler JR (1995) Presoaking improves forest tree seed screening. In: Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, pp 129–130

[5] Cape JN. Contact angles of water droplets on needles of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) growing in polluted atmospheres. New Phytol, 1983, 93: 293-299.

[6] Duryea ML, Landis TD. Forest nursery manual: production of bareroot seedlings, 1984, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 377

[7] Eşen D, Yıldız O. Otsu ve odunsu diri örtü mücadelesinin meşcerelerin gençleştirilmesi ve büyümesine etkileri. TBMMO or Müh Odası Der, 2000, 37: 28-32. (in Turkish)

[8] Eşen D, Zedaker SM. Control of rhododendron (Rhododendron ponticum L. and R. flavum Don.) in the eastern beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) forests of Turkey. New For, 2004, 27(1): 69-79.

[9] Eşen D, Yıldız O, Güneş N, Sargıncı M. Early susceptibility of hardwood tree seedlings to different post-emergent herbicides. J Balk Ecol, 2006, 9(2): 161-166.

[10] Eşen D, Yıldız O, Ediş S, Eşen U, Çetintaş C. Düzce’de glyphosate yaprak herbisitinin genç yabani kiraz (Prunus avium L.) fidanlarına etkisi. DÜ Orman Der, 2012, 8(1): 50-57. (in Turkish)

[11] Ezel AW, Nelson L. Weed control and crop tolerance after preemergent and postemergent applications of sulfomethuron in oak (Quercus spp.) plantations. Weed Technol, 2001, 15: 585-589.

[12] Genç M. Silvikültürün temel prensipleri, 2012, Isparta: S.D.U. Orman Fak Yayın No: 44 351 (in Turkish)

[13] Hess FD, Foy CL. Interaction of surfactants with plant surfaces. Weed Technol, 2000, 14: 807-813.

[14] Holloway PJ. Surface factors affecting the wetting of leaves. Pestic Sci, 1970, 1: 156-163.

[15] Kelpsas B, Newton M, Landgren C. Peachey E. Forestry. Pacific Northwest weed management handbook, 2015, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University K-1–K-23

[16] Kirkwood RC. Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pest Sci, 1999, 55: 69-77.

[17] Lund-Hoie K. N-phosphonomethylglycine (glyphosate), an alternative to commercial pre and postemergence herbicides for the control of unwanted plant species in forest plantation in Norway. Sci Rep Agric Univ Norway, 1975, 55: 1-14.

[18] McCarthy N, O’Reilly C (2001) The Impact of herbicides on tree seedling quality. COFORD Connects Reprod Material No:1, p 4 http://www.coilltenurseries.ie/notes/herbicide_impact.pdf. Accessed 19 June 2017

[19] Mitchell PB, Zedaker SM, Seiler JR, Hipkins PL, Burch PL. Evaluation of rapid screening techniques for woody plant herbicide development. Weed Technol, 2006, 20: 971-979.

[20] Newton M, Knight F. Handbook of weed and insect control chemicals for forest resource managers, 1981, Beaverton Oregon: Timber Press 160

[21] Osiecka A, Minogue PJ (2014) Considerations for developing effective herbicide prescriptions for forest vegetation management. FOR273, the School of Forest Resources and Conservation Department, UF/IFAS Extension, p 7, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FR/FR33500.pdf. Accessed 03 Mar 2016

[22] Ott RL. An introduction to statistical methods and analysis, 1993 4 Belmont, California: Duxberry Press 1051

[23] Pallardy SG. Physiology of woody plants, 2008 3 Amsterdam: Academic Press 454

[24] Prasad R. Reynolds PE. Crop tolerance of three west coast conifer species to glyphosate. Proceedings of the Carnation Creek Herbicide Workshop, 1989, Victoria, BC, Canada: Pacific Forestry Centre 189 196

[25] Radosevich SR, Holt JS, Ghersa CM. Ecology of weeds and invasive plants: relationship to agriculture and natural resource management, 2007 3 New Jersey: Wiley 472

[26] Ross MA, Lembi CA. Applied weed science, 1989, New York: MacMillian and Collier MacMillian 340

[27] Saatçioğlu F. Karadeniz ormanları süceyrat: Ayancık-Cangal bölgesinde mekanik metodla yapılan süceyrat mücadelesine ait 12 yıllık tecrübe denemeleri. J Faculty of Forestry Univ of Istanbul, 1957, 7: 69-108. (in Turkish)

[28] SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT^® 9.2 User’s guide, 2008, Cary, NC: SAS Institute 16

[29] Shepherd T, Griffiths DW. The effects of stress on plant cuticular waxes. New Phytol, 2006, 171(3): 469-499.

[30] Stanley W, Zedaker S, Seiler J, Burch P. Methods for rapid screening in woody plant herbicide development. Forests, 2014, 5: 1584-1595.

[31] Tanjung RHR (2001) Effects of glyphosate on seedlings of conifer and broadleaf trees species native to British Columbia, with particular regard to root-fungus interactıons. Ph. D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University, Canada, p 184

[32] Thompson DG, Pitt DG. A review of Canadian forest vegetation management research and practice. Ann For Sci, 2003, 60: 559-572.

[33] Vilčinskas R, Kupčinskienė E. Seasonal dynamics of histological parameters of the needles of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) growing in conditions of excess ammonia. Biologija, 2012, 58(1): 27-36.

[34] Wagner RG, Newton M, Cole EC, Miller JH, Shiver BD. The role of herbicides for enhancing productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in North America. Wildl Soc B, 2004, 32(4): 1028-1041.

[35] Wang H, Shi H, Li Y, Zhang J. Seasonal variations in leaf capturing of particulate matter, surface wettability and micromorphology in urban tree species. Front Environ Sci Eng, 2013, 7(4): 579-588.

[36] Wang H, Shi H, Wang Y. Aliofkhazraei M. The wetting of leaf surfaces and its ecological significances. Wetting and wettability. Chapter 11, 2015, Rijeka: InTech Publ 295 321

[37] Willoughby I, Clay D, Dixon F. The effect of pre-emergent herbicides on germination and early growth of broadleaved species used for direct seeding. Forestry, 2003, 76(1): 83-94.

[38] Woeste KE, Seifert JR, Selig MF. Evaluation of four herbicides and tillage for weed control on third-year growth of tree seedlings. Weed Sci, 2005, 53: 331-336.

[39] Yeiser JL, Ezell AW (2010) Split-season herbaceous weed control for full-season seedling performance. In: Stanturf JA (ed) Proceedings of the 14th biennial southern silviculture research conference general technical report SRS-121. Deptartment of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, US, pp 131–138

[40] Yildiz O, Eşen D. Effects of different rhododendron control methods in eastern beech (Fagus orientalis Lipsky) ecosystems in the Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. Ann App Biol, 2006, 149(2): 235-242.

[41] Yildiz O, Sarginci M, Eşen D, JrK Cromack. Effects of vegetation control on nutrient removal and Fagus orientalis Lipsky regeneration in the Western Black Sea Region of Turkey. For Ecol Manag, 2007, 240(1–3): 186-194.