4.1 Article

Shrub Control in Conservation Reserve Program Lands in Interior Alaska

Journal

WEED TECHNOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 1, Pages 184-189

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1614/WT-D-12-00052.1

Keywords

Brush control; Conservation Reserve Program; Diamond Wet Blade mower; herbicide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In Alaska Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, succession of fields planted with grass and clover to shrubs and small trees is resulting in program compliance problems related to ease of reconversion to crop lands. Standard practice for slowing this succession is mowing every 2 to 3 yr, which does not kill the woody vegetation. A field study was conducted at three sites over 2 yr to determine if 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha(-1) 2-ethylhexyl ester) or triclopyr (2.2 kg ae ha(-1) butoxyethyl ester) applied broadcast or 2,4-D (2.2 kg ae ha(-1) 2,4-D dimethylamine salt) or triclopyr (1.7 kg ae ha(-1) triclopyr triethylamine salt) applied with a Diamond Wet Blade (TM) mower (DWB) would result in longer shrub control compared to mowing. Mowing was conducted at both 15 and 45 cm above ground level and herbicides were applied with the DWB at three rates. Measurements 2 yr after treatment (YAT) confirmed that both herbicides reduced shrub cover about 50 % compared to controls. Reduced rates of the herbicides applied with the DWB did not result in decreased shrub control. Grass cover was negatively correlated with shrub cover. Typically, mower height did not alter treatment effects. Treatments had little impact on forb cover and composition 2 YAT, with the exception of fireweed, which was generally reduced where herbicides were applied. Application of 2,4-D and triclopyr does not decrease the frequency of shrub control in CRP lands in Alaska. Use of 2,4-D and triclopyr with or without mowing resulted in no widespread improvement over the current practice of mowing to 15 cm every 2 to 3 yr.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available