AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF SEASON UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FOUR. METHODS OF HARDWOOD CONTROL FOR RED PINE PLANTATIONS IN LOWER MICHIGAN TM hr tho Dost» of M. S. Mid-EGAN STATE UNIVERSITY William Cari Siege! 19.57 AN INVESTIGATTOH IHTO THE EFFECT OF SEASUE UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FOUR KHTHCDS OF HARDWJOD CONTROL FUR RED FINE PLANTATIONS IN LOWSR MICHIGAN by William Carl Siegel AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forestry '4’ A -’ ' ‘ ,‘J’LJ A _. . The problem of how to release pine plantations from competing hardwoods, both effectively and ineXpensively, has become an impor- tant factor in recent years, Thus a study was initiated by the Lower Peninsula Forest Research Center of the Lake States Forest EXperiment Station to test the effect of season of application on four methods of pine release treatment, The four methods used were as follows: cutting and girdling, ammate, 2,M—D and 2,h,5—T, The ammate was applied in crystalline form to cut stumps, frills or cups; while the 2,h—D and 2,M,5-T were applied as basal sprays. Two typical red pine plantations in Lower Kichigan which were in need of release from oak, aSpen and red maple were selected for the study. Sixteen half—acre plots, one for each season—treatment combination, were established in each plantation. From fifteen to nineteen each of oak, red maple and aSpen were selected on each let for testing purposes. These hard— woods were treated in 1350 according to the Specifications of the designated treatments. heasurement of the number and heights of re- sulting Sprouts for each treated tree was made in 135?. The sea information was recorded per killed tree in 1355, for those species- treatment combinations where all treated trees were not dead. The average number and average height of Sprouts were cemented per treated tree by syecies and by Species combined, and per killed tree by species alone. This provided twenty combinations for which season effect on number and height of Sprouts was comnared by analy- sis of variance. Fall treatment or summer treatment or both resulted in significantly fewer Sprouts than did winter treatment or spring treatment or both in twelve of these combinations. Fall treatment or summer treatment or both also resulted in significantly smaller Sprout heights than did winter treatment or Spring treatment or both in twelve of the combinations, although not in all Cases the same twelve as for Sprout n‘nber, There was no significance between seasons for Sprout number or for Sprout height in the eight combinations re- maining for each, For the range of conditions characterizing the study, fall or summer seems to be the best time of the year to apply any of the four release methods for control of at least one, and in some Cases two, of the three hardwood species studied, However more intensive studies need to be made on a number of variable factors which may have influ— enced the results of the studv, AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE EFFECT OF SEASON UPON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF FOUI METHODS OF HARDWOOD CONTROL FOR RED PINE PLANTATIONS IN LOWER hICHIGAN by William Carl Siegel A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Forestry 1957 p:?-—5”?W 'J1X ?C’ ACEGIOI “3"er ~ me ‘ I’ In I‘l I _J.AJ~lul_LJl\ ‘vo The author wishes to eXpress his sincere thanks to Drs. Henry J. Stoehr and Forrest D. Freeland, under whose supervision and continuous interest this investigation was undertaken and completed. He is also indebted to Mr. John A, Arend, Forester-in-charge of the Lower Peninsula Forest Research Center of the Lake States Forest Experiment Station, U. S. Forest Service, for his permission to use certain data and materials compiled by the Research Center, and for his valuable assistance and advice in the preparation of this thesis. He wishes further to thank Dr, William D. Eaten for his assis- tance in the statistical aSpects of the study, TABLE or COFTFNTS PART I - INTRODUCTION .................................... A. Historical Background .............................. B. Statement of the Problem ........................... C. Sc0pe and Objectives of the Study .................. D. Review of Previous WorK ............................ PhRT II - PhOCEDURES ..................................... A. Introduction and Background ........................ B. EXperimental Design ................................ C. Field Procedures ................................... D. Data Collected ..................................... E. Detailed Description of Treatments ................. F. Personnel and Agencies Participating and Cooperating in the Study ........................ PART III - AI-JALYSIS OF DATA .............................. A, Basic Information Obtained ......................... B, Statistical Methods Used in Analysis ............... 0. Analysis of the Axe Treatment ...................... D. Analysis of the Ammaue Treatment ................... E. Analysis of the 2,U‘D Treatment .................... F. Analysis of the 2,M,5-T Treatment ,....,............ G. Comparison of all Treatments by Season for Each Species ................................ vi TABLE OF CCETEETS [continvegj H. Summary and Conclusions ............................ PART Iv .. APPENDIX A. Tables 15 Through 57 ............................... B, Mechanics of Statistical Analysis .................. PART v - BIBLIOGRAPHY 0.000000000000009000900ooooooooooogo Vii CAPTION Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the Axe Treatment, by Species and Season, All Diameter Classes Combined, Two Years After Treatment .................................. Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the Axe Treatment, by Season, Diameter Classes and Spe— cies Combined, Two Years After Treat- ment ...oooooo0.0.0.0...ooooooooooooooo00000 Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the Ammate Treat— ment, by Species and Season, All Diam- eter Classes Combined, Two Years After Tl‘eéJtlrnent .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the Ammate Treat- ment, by Season, Diameter Classes and Species Combined, Two Years After TrafztIf'ent .g...o0......0.0000000000000000... Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the 2,4—D Treat- ment, by Species and Season, All Diam— eter Classes Combined, Two Years After Treatment .................................. Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the 2,4—3 Treat- ment, by Season, Diameter Classes and Species Combined, Two Years After Treatment 9.0000000000000000...0.00.00.00.00 Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season, all Diameter Classes Combined, Per Oak and Red Maple Killed by the 2,u-n Treatment 0.0000000000000000...-oooooooooooo Average'Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the 2,”,5-T Treat~ ment, by Species and Season, All Diam~ eter Classes Combined, Two Years After Treatment ....cocooooogooooooooooooo0000000. viii ’1' . < ‘61 23 93 27 31 31 31 36 10 ll 13 1h 15 17 LIST OF TABLES [continuedj CAPTION Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree Receiving the 2,M,E—T Treat- ment, by Season, Diameter Classes and Species Combined, Two Years After Treatment Q...O...0.0.0....COO-OOOOOOOIOOCOO Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season, all Diameter Classes Combined, Per Oak and Red maple Killed by the 2,h,5-T TreatHIBHt 0.0.0....0......OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Treated Tree, by Season and Treat- ment, All Diameter Classes Combined, for Oak, Two Years After Treatment ,,.,.,,,, Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Treated Tree, by Season and Treat— ment, All Diameter Classes Combined, for Red Maple Two Years After Treat— ment ooooooooo000.000ooooooooooooooooooooooo Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Treated Tree, by Season and Treat- ment, All Diameter Classes Combined, for Aspen Two Years After Treatment ,,....., Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Treated Tree, by Season and Treat— ment, Species and Diameter Classes Combined, Two Years After Treatment ........ Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the Axe Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ,,,,,.,,,,.,,.,,,, Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Can Receiving the Ammate Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ,.,.,..,,..,,..,,, Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the 2,M.D Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ,...............,, ix *0 :1» C) is 36 39 Ml #2 MS MS TABLE NO, 18 19 2O 21 22 23 2h 25 26 LIST OF TABLES [continued] CAPTION Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, per Oax Killed by the 2.“-D Treatment ..................... Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the 2,u,5—T Treatment, Two Years After Treatment .................. Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, per Oak Killed by the 2.t.5-T Treatment ...................... Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Receiving the Axe Treat- ment, Two Years After Treatment ,.,......,,. Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Receiving the Ammate Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ,,,,,,, Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Receiving the 2,H-D Treat- ment, Two Years After Treatment ,,..,..,,,,, Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, per Red Maple Kill- ed by the 2,4—D Treatment .................. Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red M Ule Receiving the 2,h,5—T Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ....,.. Average Number and Height of Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, per Red Maple Kill— ed by the 2,u,5—T Treatment ....,..,........ *d 50 50 51 51 52 53 L11 TABLE NO, 27 28 3o 31 32 33 35 LIST or TABLES [continued] CAPTION Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiving the Axe Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ................,. Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for ASpen Receiving the Ammate Treat- ment, Two Years After Treatment ............ Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for ASpen Receiving the 2,M—D Treat- ment, Two Years After Treatment ..........., Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiving the 2,H,5—T Treat- ment, Two Years After Treatment ..........., Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for All Species Combined Receiving the Axe Treatment, Two Years After Treatment ... Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for All Species Combined Receiving the Ammate Treatment, Two Years After Treat- ment ............o.00.0.0000...0000.00.00.00 Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for All Species Combined Receiving the 2,H-D Treatment, Two Years After Treat- ment .0......0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.... Average Number and Height of Sprouts per Tree, by Season and Diameter Class, for All Species Combined Receiving the 2,M,5-T Treatment, Two Years After Treat- ment 0.9.0.000...oooooooooooooooooooooooo000 Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts, Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the Axe Treatment .......................... xi PAGE ”—— 5h 55 55 56 57 59 8; TABLE NO, 36 37 38 39 1+1 he Ll3 MM LIST OF TABLES [continued] CAPTION Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the Ammate Treatment ....................... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the 2.u-D Treatment ........................ Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Killed by the 2,u—D Treatment ........................ Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Receiving the 2.“.5-T Treatment ...................... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Oak Killed by the 2.“.5-T Treatment ...................... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Re- ceiving the Axe Treatment .......,........., Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Re- ceiving the Ammate Treatment ............... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Re~ ceiving the 2,u.n Treatment ................ Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Kill- ed by the 2.M-D Treatment .................. xii 61 61 62 62 63 6M TABLE NO, NS Ln M8 50 52 53 LIST or TABLES Epontinuedl CAPTION Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Re- ceiving the 2,M,5-T Treatment ,,,.,.,,,,,,,, Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Five Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Red Maple Kill« ed by the 2.“.5-T Treatment ................ Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiv— ing the Axe Treatment ...................... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiv— ing the Ammate Treatment .............,...,. Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiv— ing the 2,h-D Treatment .................... Percentage of Trees Producine Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season and Diameter Class, for Aspen Receiv~ ing the 2,u,5_T Treatment .....,....,....,,, Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment; by Species, Treatment, and Season; All Diameter Classes Combined ........................... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Diameter Class and Season, for All Species Com- bined Receiving the Axe Treatment ,......... Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Diameter Class and Season, for All Species Com- bined Receiving the Ammate Treatment ....,., xiii "3 E3. b; | 4 7o 57 LIST OF TABLES [continuedj CAPTION Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Diameter Class and Season, for All Species Com- bined Receiving the 2,M.D Treatment ........ Percentage of Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Diameter Class and Season, for All Species Com- bined Receiving the 2,u,5-T Treatment ...,., Percentage of Treated Trees Producing Sprouts Two Years After Treatment, by Season, All Species and Diameter Class- es Combined, for the Axe, Ammate, 2,u—D, and 2.“.5-T Treatmente...................... Costs per Treatment by Season .............. xiv LU L‘J . Q l , 71 72 73 PART I .-.. INTRODUCTION During the past forty years nearly one half million acres of plantations, consisting mainly of red, white, and jack pine, have been successfully established in the northern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan. Many of these plantations were planted on areas that sup- ported understocked, scrub hardwoods, In recent years these hardwoods have begun to crowd and suppress many of the planted pines. Other pine were planted on what appeared to be Open land at the time of planting, but now many hardwood species such as 03K, aspen, and red maple have sprouted up and overtOpped many of the pine. During the Civilian Con- servation Corps period, when manpower was plentiful and comparatively ineXpensive, the hardwoods were cut on many thousands of acres of plantations in order to release the pine. In the majority of cases this release work was beneficial, Now, however, Sprouts from the cut hardwood stumps have again overtopped many of the pine on these areas ‘ V and additional release work is needed. ST.‘£:;.'LEE;‘T OF T’EE PROBLEJJ The problem of how to release plantations from competing hard- woods, both effectively and ineXpensively, has become an exceedingly important factor in plantation management, At the present time man— power is expensive. The average woods worker receives from $10 to $12 a day. Recent release work, where the smaller trees have been cut and the larger ones girdled, has been averaging about one man day per acre, This does not include technical supervision and tranSportation, Therefore, not only is initial plantation release work expensive, but follow-up releases are very expensive. The conventional axe method of girdling the larger hardwoods and cutting the smaller ones can be successfully used if the treatment is applied when the pines are suf- ficiently tall to keep ahead of the resultant hardwood sprouts. This is especially true when the treatment is applied during the growing In recent years many herbicides and chemicals have been develOped to kill herbaceous and woody plants. A few of these have been found to kill the tOps of woody plants with subsequent Sprouting, Some of the variables that seem to influence the effect of these silvicides are tree Species, season of year applied, time of day applied, method and concentration of application, temperature, relative humidity, age of the tree, and size of the tree, The initial costs of these chemicals are comparatively high, Because of their cost, and the general lack of information on their effectiveness, they have not been used extensive— ly for pine plantation release in Lower Michigan. There is a necessity, therefore, for more information concerning the possible methods of releasing plantations from hardwoods, with direct comparisons of cost and effectiveness of release, SCCPE AYE O“7“CTIVES 0? TH? vapv . ‘3‘; :J -- n. .J .- slfi - The primary objective of the study in question is to investigate the effectiveness of four methods of pine release treatment in removing overtopping oak, aspen, and red maple competition from.pine plantations during;the four seasons of the year, The study was initiated by the Lower Peninsula Forest Research Center of the Lake States Forest EXperiment Station and field work was carried out by station personnel in c00peration with administrative personnel of the Lower hichigan National Forest. Analysis of field data and determination of results were accomplished by the writer, The main criteria used to establish effectiveness of treatment by season were: number and height of resultant sprouts per treated tree two years after treatment, and num- ber and height of resultant sprouts per treated tree five years after treatment, in those cases where all treated trees were not killed, The four methods of treatment used were as follows: 1, Conven- tional axe treatment—~cutting small trees and girdling large trees. 2, Ammate applied on cut stumps of small trees and in notches or cups at the bases of larger trees. 3. H~978 {2,h—D) in a 2% solu- tion of diesel oil applied as a basal stem Spray with at mechanical injury, and h, H—glau (2,u,5_r) in a 2; solution of diesel oil applied as a stem spray without mechanical injury, The three chemicals used are those which have been found to be most effective in killing woody plants, The treatments were applied during the l, dormant season. 2. early growing season when the buds were breaking. 3. after full leaf development, and u. late growing season before the first frost, The eXperimental design of the study was set Up in order to pro- vide for statistical evaluation and demonstration of the many variables involved. Specifically it was desired to obtain information on: 1, the relative Sprouting abilities of oak, aspen, and red maple when out and girdled in February, May, July, and early September, and on the sprouting of these three Species by season of the year, and EEVIEW CF PnEVlOUS WORK E. Much eXperimental effort has been expended over the past years in testing the uses and effects of various chemical silvicides and 5 the relative costs of this treatment, and 2, the effects of ammate crystals and ester formulations H-9TS (2,M—3) and H—gleu (2,u,5_t) ' axe girdlinIr on unwanted hardwoods, All aspects of the problem have V been emphasized, some more than others, and certain definite con— clusions have been obtained, One of the weaker areas, however, in which considerable more work remains to be done, is the effect of season upon the effectiveness of the various chemical and mechanical methods of hardwood elimination, Stoeckler (IBM?) in Wisconsin has found that summer cutting and girdling of aspen and oak, immediately after full leaf develOpment, is most effective in order to reduce subsequent Sprouting, He also ' found that fall is the next most effective season in reducing the number of resultant sprouts from these species and that stump height had no effect on sprouting, Further tests by Stoeckler indicate that the vigor and height of aspen and oak Sprouts are much lower after summer and fall cutting and girdling as compared to after winter and spring treatment, he has found that a single cutting and girdling of aspen in the period from late June to early August will usually suffice to release a coniferous plantation, If the treatment is made during the winter, however, the aspen will resprout with maximum vigor and in large numbers; at least two and sometimes three releases are then needed, greatly increasing the cost, Liming, in unpublished experimental work on plantation release in hissouri, has also found that summer is the most effective season to cut and girdle aSpen and oak in order to reduce Sprouting. He, too, found that stump height had no effect on Sprouting. Liming also determined that girdled oak trees larger than ten inchs D.B.H. seldom sprout and the sprouts that are found are not vigorous in growth, Greth (1357), in recent tests in southern Illinois with various species of oak, has found that season of girdling did not affect the number of sprouts produced by girdled trees. All sprouting trees averaged four sprouts each regardless of time of girdling. He did find, however, that season affected the length of sprouts produced. Sprouts from trees girdled during the summer and fall averaged one foot smaller than those from trees treated during the winter, Grano (1955), during the past eight years in Arkansas, has conduct- ed experiments on the seasonal effects of girdling oak. He found that girdling applied from April 15 through June on red and post oak result- ed in the largest percentage of dead trees without sprouts. Kay gird— ling resulted in the maximum Sprout-free prOportion of dead trees-- an average of 68 percent red oak and 58 percent post oak one year after girdling. Although this period of time is chronologically Spring, it is physiologically the first half of the growing season in southern Arkansas since it coincides with the emergence and the attainment of full leaf for both post and red oar. It would correspond with early and.ndddle summer in areas farther north, Grsno found that season of girdling had no effect on the number or size of Sprouts per dead Sprouting tree. EXperimental work with ammate in Arkansas on oak, red maple, and sassafras has shown that the dormant season does not appear to be the best time to apply ammate crystals for effective reduction of Sprout- ing. Several thousand small trees of these three Species were cut and the stumps treated with ammate crystals in February. Eighteen months later 70 percent of the oak had Sprouted while all the red maple and sassafras had sprouted. Treatment during the late growing season, i specifically August, gave the best results. Of sassafras treated during this period only 10 percent showed evidence of Sprouting one year later. Experiments conducted at the Harvard Forest (195M) have indicated that 2.1+.D and 23,54 are both much more effective than cutting or girdling in reducing the number of Sprouts and sprout heights of treat- ed northeastern hardwoods in white pine plantations. Hackett 1952 , in further tests at the Harvard Forest, has found that 2, 14.13 and . 2,u,5-T treatments made on oak and red maple during the summer are more effective in reducing subsequent Sprouting than are such treat- ments made during the winter. Worley, Bramble and Byrnes (195%) and Worley, Bramble and Chisman (1952) in Pennsylvania have found that the growing season (June through August) is the most effective time to apply 2,h,5-T to aspen in order to reduce root suckering. Treatment during the winter (dormant season) 'was effective in killing the aspen, but resulted in vigorous sprouting so that several follow-up treatments were needed in order to gain adequate control of root suckers. These same men also found that dormant spraying of 2,u,5-T on scrub oak was least effective in pre- venting subsequent sprouting, but that summer treatment was most ef- fective in this respect. Arend (1953) has reported that using 2,M,5—T during the summer on young aSpen in lower Michigan shows promise of control with little or no subsequent sprouting for at least three years, as compared to vigorous Sprouting for winter treatment. The tests in this case were made on four to five inch trees. Morrow (1953) has found that aspen of 6 to 12 inches D.B.H. that have been treated with 2,h,5-T during the dormant season exhibit little or no Sprouting. Results of tests in Pennsylvania have paralleled Arend's and Morrow's findingS--that young and middle-aged aSpen treated with 2,”,5-T are best controlled by growing season treatments and that mature aspen may be effectively controlled by 2,M,5-T applied during any season. Shipman (1955), in South Carolina, has reported that 234,54 was very successful in killing sweetgum when applied during the spring and early summer (growing season). In contrast, rather poor results were obtained from applications made at other times of the year. Crane (1957), in eXperimenting with 2,U,5-T in Arkansas, has concluded that Spring treatments are most effective in controlling subsequent Sprouting of southern red oak. These spring treatments were conducted in may which falls within the growing season in Arkansas and correSponds to summer in more northern areas. In upper “*chigan, D v (19H8, 1950, 1951, 1952) has tested various $1.4- chemicals on hardwoods, namely aspen and red maple. however, he has done no work with the effect of season on such treatments and no such work has been reported in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Until the study with which this thesis is concerned, no formal experimental work with chemical silvicides had been reported in lower Michigan. Certain tests have been made by the Dow Chemical Company but they were not concerned with methods, seasonal effect on, and cost of plantation release. flg' 9‘ a ”angina 2.3.91: -, has a a t... _ :3 22 r "Ehrlr. _ . A . . , __. chalky h . l . _ ~ 1.. l _ . .- . .. PART II -- PROCEDURES myrmt (\nrfnm rtr an .- nv n'nr vn'r -..LL‘Z\,A./ J\:... I U-\ $3.1“; B:.L.-i‘. J11...) unD Two typical red pine plantations in need of release from oak, aspen and red maple were selected for study on the Hanistee National Forest, which is now the Lower Michigan National Forest. They are located on the Cadillac Ranger District near Wellston in Wexford County. The experimental areas were readily accessible, thus reduc~ ing travel time for subsequent inspections. The study was initiated in 1950; at this time the red pine were between four and six feet tall, overtOpped by oak, aSpen and red maple. The first plantation is Specifically located one—fourth mile west of the junction of Highways M-BS and M-B? on the south side of M—SS. The legal description is HWEW Section 17, T21N, RlQW. When the study was initiated the stand was composed of ten-year old red pine over- tOpped by aspen, oak and red maple. The pine that were not suppressed and which were growing in natural Openings were six to eight feet high, whereas those that were suppressed by the overstory were three to five feet high. The hardwoods ranged from twenty to thirty years old with a few large oak from sixty to seventy years old. host of the oak and maple were of Sprout origin. The second plantation is specifically located 1% miles south of Hodenpyle Dam along a Forest Service road near Harriette. The legal description is SWSW Section 31, T23N, R12W. The area was planted to red pine in 1935 and replanted in 1937. When the study was initiated the pine were fairly uniform in height, varying from four to six feet. The overstory consisted of oak, aspen, red maple, and some cherry and 11 “.3.” as A .. fl. . J . . l. .L .r 9. CI _ aw" ”Flo.“ 9A.. _,fl.“. Lnfihr‘ _ 7 .. . 12 juneberry. These hardwoods were from thirty to forty years old with some scattered large oak from fifty to sixty years old. Nearly all the oak and maple were of Sprout origin. w ~ Human ,7 navy/aw? LXPflsia'vg-~T‘M‘J L’L!)-Qt‘ The four methods of release and four seasons of the year provided a factorial combination of 16 treatments on the three hardwood species selected for study-weak,l aspen and red maple. To provide for statis- tical testing of the variables involved, a randomized block design was set up with one replication. The two blocks, one in each plantation, were divided into four equal compartments and the four seasons assigned at random. Each compartment was then subdivided into four equal plots to which the four treatments were randomly assigned. The two blocks were laid out in close proximity to a road for both accessibility and demonstration. Each block measured twelve square acres; each plot was % acre in size. The number of trees to be tagged for case study had to be kept within the limits of ayailable time and personnel. Therefore, from 15 to 19 trees of each of the three designated Species were selected for remeasurement in each of the 16 replicated plots. The total number of selected trees was 1506. 9““"3'132‘R53" T“"' n , F-LLJJJ * AX‘JU o The 16 plots laid out in each test block were made as uniform as possible in regard to site and stocking. Their shape was decided Includes both red oak and white oak. aa«,.a.l‘3,...i.m..,s.a..u”a. 333 .u. a” l. , . . V _ Us“. . A . _ . _i_ V are r , . . F . . ' . I L 13 on the basis of tepography and other ground factors encountered. All hardwoods on each plot were treated in 1950 according to the specifications of the designated treatment for that plot.2 The first 15 to 19 each of oak, aspen and red maple were identified with alumi- num tags. A white stake was driven into the ground near each tagged tree. and also at the corner of each block, to facilitate future locap ‘ion. Five to ten tagged trees of each Species would probably have been sufficient if all the trees were of the same age. Since, however, the hardwoods treated ranged from one to about twelve inches in dia- meter, 15 to 19 trees were tagged in order to learn as much as possible about the effects of age and size of the treated trees in relation to sprouting. Winter Operations in Block I were carried out on February 7 and 8, 1950. The temperature during this time ranged from thirty to forty degrees Fahrenheit, with southwest winds of three to five miles per hour. Skies were cloudy to clear with no snowfall. The ground was nearly bare of snow, Winter treatments on Block II were installed on February 21, 1950. The temperature ranged from ten to twenty degrees Fahrenheit; winds from the west blew at eight to ten miles per hour; and.snowfall was light to heavy. The ground was covered with snow from eight to twelve inches deep. The sub—freezing temperatures and snowfall greatly hindered the work on this block. Spring Operations on Block I were carried out on may 15 and 16, 2 See Section E, Part II, "Detailed Description of Treatments." ill,‘ 4.. in. . 1! :Nfi.1: _ . ”amazré .A 3‘ ..‘. i a“-.. a .d . _ . _. .Lm-UH. a. . 11+ 1950. The temperature at this time was from fifty to sixty—five de- grees Fahrenheit with westerly winds of three to twelve miles per hour. Skies were clear and the ground was dry with very little green vegeta~ tion. Spring treatments on Block II were accomplished on May 18 and 19, 1950. The temperature ranged from fifty to seventy degrees Fah- renheit with winds from three tO ten miles per hour. Skies were clear to slightly cloudy and the ground was dry with little green vegetation. The efficiency of the crew applying the spray treatments was below average, with the result that the stem Sprays were not applied as uniformly as could be done with a more alert crew. Summer Operations on Block I were carried out on July 11 and 13, 1950. The temperature on these days was from sixty to eighty degrees Fahrenheit with westerly winds of three to ten miles per hour. Skies were cloudy to clear and the ground was covered with green herbage in full foliage. Summer treatments on Block II were installed on July 12 and 1M, 1950. The temperature ranged from sixty to seventy—five de- grees Fahrenheit. Winds were from the southwest at four to fifteen miles per hour. Skies were cloudy to clear and the ground was covered with green herbage in full foliage. There was an abundance of small aspen suckers and cherry seedlings, less than one inch D.B.H. on ‘ IBlock 11. These required full treatment to preclude their being in- cluded in the subsequent tally of Sprout growth. Thus total man hours and cost were higher than usual on Block II. The laborers employed for'the summer treatments were exceptionally efficient and industrious 5%; compared to the men used for the winter and spring treatments. Fall Operations on Block I were carried out on September 20 and 21, 15 1950. The temperature at hi time ranged from sixty to sixty~five degrees Fahrenheit with westerly winds of five to eight miles per hour. Skies were cloudy to clear and the ground was covered with green herbage which had started to harden after the growing season before the first frost. The:fall treatments on Block II were install- ed on September 19 and 20, 1050. The temperature ranged from seventy to seventy-five degrees Fahrenheit with south and southwesterly winds up to three miles per hour. Skies were cloudy to clear and the ground was covered with green herbage which had begun to harden Off follow— ing the summer‘s growth. Follow—up inspections were made at subsequent intervals of one and two years to determine the number and growth of the resulting Sprouts per treated tree. A follow—up inspection was also made five years later to determine the degree of kill per treated tree. The total number Of hardwood trees on each plot was tallied by species and one-inch diameter classes at the time of treatment. Weather conditions at time of treatment were also recorded, to in- clude degree Of cloudiness, air temperature and wind velocity. The following initial data at time of treatment were collected byr tree number for those trees selected for recurrent observation and xneasurement: 1. Species. 2. D.E.H. to the nearest inch. 3. Height. 1+. Crown spread (diameter in feet), and 5. Tree class according to 1316 Lake States Classification System. A record was made of the number of suckers within the vicinity of the treated aspen trees for a dis- tance of 37 feet in order to compare suckering before and after treatment. The recurrent measurements made in 1952 (two years after the initial treatments) were recorded separately for each tagged tree. They consisted of the number of sprouts, height in inches of each Sprout, and vigor of the Sprouts. In 1955 (five years after the initial treatments) degree of kill was recorded separately for each treated tree. The man-hours of labor and costs of the chemicals were also recorded for each plot. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF TREAlHLSTS Treatment number one consisted of the ordinary axe method. Trees less than four inches D.B.H. which were difficult to girdle were cut at stump height. Trees ranging from four to eight inches D.B.H. were peel-girdled (the bark stripped off without cutting through the cam— bium layer). Trees larger than eight inches D.B.H. were notched— or frill-girdled. The height of the girdling was Optional, but averaged about three feet above the ground. Treatment number two embodied the axe method plus an application of ammate crystals to cups, frills, or cut stumps. The crystalline of ammate was used in this study because previous investigations have found it to be more effective than the various liquid preparations. Trees less than four inches D.B.H. were cut and the sapwood portion of'the stump covered with crystals. Wherever possible this operation ‘waa simplified by cutting the small trees in such a way as to leave 17 a V—shaped stump and then applying one level tablespoon of ammate per inch of diameter in the V. On trees four to six inches D.B.H. two frills or cups were out near the base and ammate crystals were placed in them at the rate of one tableSpoon per inch of diameter. An extra cup was cut for every two inch increase in diameter on trees larger than six inches. Treatment number three consisted of a basal Spray without mechan— ical injury to the tree. A 2% solution of Dow Chemical H-9781 was Sprayed on the entire base of each tree to a height of four feet. Great care was exercised to keep the spray off the pines which were to be released. Treatment number four also entailed a basal Spray without mechan- ical injury to the tree. A 2% solution of Dow Chemical H-912M2 was sprayed on the entire base of each tree to a height of four feet. The spray was successfully kept off the pines. PVFsOVTTT ASE AGEJC ES P.3T ICI ATING A.P COOPERATIEG IE TEC ST'tTDY The study was conducted by the Lower Penin51la Forest Research Center of the Lake States Forest EXperiment Station in c00peration with.the Lower Michigan National Forest, and as part of the regular Inlantation release worn of the forest. The eXperimental areas, ammate, lAn ester of 2,M—D at the rate of four pounds acid equivalent per gallon of diesel oil. 2An ester of 2,h,5-T at the rate of four pounds acid equivalent per gallon of diesel oil. 18 and labor were furnished by the National Forest. The Dow Chemical Company supplied the 2,M—D and the 2,H,5-T. The work plan and tech— nical supervision were furnished by the Research Center. A. T‘ ,\'r n‘,‘ I PAR- III -— :LuxuinIS OF DATA EiSIC INFORHATIOU OBTAIEED A . Most of the trees that were treated during the growing season and which subsequently Sprouted did so during the same growing season. However, Sprouting occurred early in the following growing season on some of the trees treated late in the growing season and on all those treated during the dormant season. Generally, a tree that had not Sprouted by the end of the second year following treatment did not Sprout at all. Most of the oak and red mails Sprouts originated near the bases or on the stumps of the treated trees; a small percentage appeared as root suckers. Aspen Sprouts, however, occurred in equal numbers from both sources. m m (T IFT‘mTT ‘i ' \T T .T ifillSTICAD ‘T '.DC "9‘“ L ALAQYSIS o '.4 L’h—J‘n- u I- #8.. The "F" test was used for each species-treatment combination and if significance resulted studentized ranges were then applied to test for Significant differences between seasons in both Sprout number and sprout height. The studentized ranges encompass a 5% level and a 1% level new multiple range test, using special protection levels based They were develOped by Dr. William D. Baten on degrees of freedom. of Michigan State University. ANALYSIS OF THE ”.3 TREATTEYT The average number of Sprouts and the average Sprout height per tineated tree, two years after treatment, diameter classes combined, 20 21 were computed by Species and seasons (Table l). The same information was computed for the three Species combined (Table 2). Since all treated trees died, there is no separate analysis for killed trees only. Effect of Season on Number of Sprouts Produced by Species. The seasonal differences in the average numbers of oak and red maple Sprouts which develOped per tree were not significant. However the average numbers of aspen suckers produced per tree after the summer, fall and Spring treatments were significantly fewer at the 1% level as compared to the winter treatment. Effect of Season on Height of Sprouts Produced by Species. The two year average heights of oak Sprouts which resulted from the winter and Spring treatments were significantly larger (1% level) than those which develOped from the summer and fall treatments. The average fall height for oak Sprouts was also significantly larger, at 5%, than the summer height. The two year average heights of red maple Sprouts which resulted from the winter treatment were Significantly larger at the 1% level than those which develOped from the summer and fall treatments, while the average height of maple Sprouts resulting from spring treat- ment was significantly larger (lfi) than the summer height only. The average height of SSpen suckers develOped from the summer treatment was significantly smaller at 1% than the winter treatment average height. The spring and fall heights fell between these two extremes and were not Significantly different from each other or from summer and winter. The height growth of the maple Sprouts averaged twice that of the oak Sprouts. The former ranged from 3.2 feet as the result of summer treatment to 6.8 feet from winter treatment and the latter from 1.9 feet (summer) to 3.0 feet (winter). The height growth of the aspen suckers fell about halfway between that of the oak and maple, being larger than the former and smaller than the latter. eaeon on Number and height ofg§prouts Produced by the (I) Effect of Three Species Combined. The average numbers and heights of Sprouts develOped after the axe treatment in different seasons followed the same pattern for all three Species combined as for each Species separ- ately. Summer and fall produced fewer Sprouts and smaller sprout heights . l as Opposed to winter and Spring. The summer and fall sprout numbers were significantly fewer than winter at the 1% level, and summer sprouts were also significantly fewer than Spring at the 5% level. In addi- tion, the number of Spring Sprouts was significantly fewer at 55 than the number for winter. The average height of summer sprouts for the three Species combined was Significantly smaller at 1% than the winter height only. Influence of Diameter Range on Sproutipg. For the range of diameters included under the axe treatment (l~12 inches) there were no marked differences in the percentages of treated trees which sprouted, due to either size of the tree or to whether it was cut or girdled. Trees of large diameters Sprouted as readily as those of small diam- eters. This was true for all three Species and for treatment in each 9 of the four seasons. 1 See Table 2. 2 _ . See Tables 39, M1, M7, and 52 1n Appendix. 23 TABLE 1 AVERAGE NUMBER AED HE GHT or SPROUTS PER TREE RECEIVIN THE AXE TREATKENT, BY SPECIES AND SEA.0N, ALL DIAKETER CLASSES COMBINED, TWO YEARS arena TREATMENT W W . Winter Spring Summer Fall Seasons W Combined Species Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. S.E.* S.E. \ No. (Ft.) Io. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) Io. (Ht.) Oak 21 3.0 23 3.0 22 1.9 19 2.1 2.93 .06 Red Maple 10 6.8 9 5.u 9 3.2 10 3.9 1.10 .52 Aspen 2h 3.6 9 3.0, u 2,u 5 3.2 1.h1 .29 *S.E. : Standard Error = Standard deviation of a season average. S.E. will be defined the same wherever it appears in the text hereafter. TABLE 2 AVERAGE NUMBER AHD HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE RECEIVIYG HE AXE TREATIJBJT, BY SEASON, DI 31.133113 CLASSES HID SPECIES COMBINED, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMEN W Seasons Winter Spring Summer Fall Combined Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. S.E. S.E. N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) (N0.) (Ht.) 13 3.3 1h 3.5 9 2.3 11 2.7 1.u1 .22 Likewise there was no marked difference due to range in diameters in the average number of sprouts produced per treated tree. This is applicable to all Species and seasons except oak during each season. However there was a marked difference due to diameter range in the 2 average height of the Sprouts which were produced. Height, on the average, decreased with parent tree diameter increase. This held true for treatments during each of the four seasons and for those species which had enough of a diameter range to show a difference, exceptibr 7 oak treated during the fall. Liming) obtained similar results in Miss- ouri with oak. He found that sprouts produced by axe—treated trees in the larger diameter classes were smaller and less vigorous than those produced by trees in the smaller diameter classes. gggg. The average number of man-hours expended per acre for the axe treatment, and thus cost, varied on a wide basis between seasons. It was lowest in the summer and highest in the spring. Typical winter conditions encountered during the Operations in that season undoubtedly contributed to the slower productivity eXperienced at that time. The average number of Sprouts and the average Sprout height per treated tree, two years after treatment, diameter classes combined, lSee Tables 15, 21, 27, and 31 in Ancendix. - ‘ 3Unpublished eXperimental work during the past ten years on plantation release in Missouri. h See Table 57 in Appendix. were computed by Species and seasons (Table 3). The same information was computed for the three Species combined (Table H). Since all treated trees died, there is no separate analysis for killed trees only. Effect of Season on Number of Sprouts Produced by Species. The seasonal differences in the average numbers of oak Sprouts which devel— oped per tree were not significant. However the average number of red maple Sprouts produced per tree after the summer treatment was Significantly fewer at 5% than the average number produced after winter treatment. Spring and fall average sprout numbers for red maple fell between these two ex.remes and were not significantly different from each other or from winter and summer. he average number of aspen suckers produced per tree after both winter and summer treatments was significantly fewer at the 5% level as compared to spring and signifi- cantly fewer at the 1% level as compared to fall. There was no signif- icant difference between winter and summer or between spring and fall. Effect of Season on Height of Sprouts Produced by Species. The seasonal differences in the average heights of oak Sprouts which devel- Oped per tree were not significant. For red maple, however, the winter average sprout height was significantly larger at the 1% level than the spring, summer and fall heights, and the spring and summer heights were significantly larger than the fall height at 1% and 5% respectively. The seasonal differences in the average heights of aspen suckers which develOped were not significant. As was the case with the axe treatment, the maple sprouts averaged twice the height growth of the oak Sprouts. The former ranged from 26 1.1 feet as the result of fall treatment to N.O feet from winter treat— ment and the latter from 0.9 feet (summer) to 2.0 feet (Spring). The average aspen Sprout heights were about 2; and 1% times the heights of the Oak and maple sprouts respectively. Effect of Season on Kumber and height of Sprouts Produced by;the Three Species Combined. For all three species combined, the average number of Sprouts for each season was significantly different from the average number for each of the other seasons. Fall treatment resulted in the largest average number of sprouts per tree, followed by Spring, winter and summer in that order. These differences were at the 1% level except between summer and winter, Spring and winter, and fall and Spring, which were at the 5% level. For the three Species combined there was no significance in the seasonal differences of average sprout height per tree. Influence of Diameter Range on Sprouting. For the range of diameters included under the ammate treatment (1-12 inches) there were several definite trends, depending Upon Species, in the percentage of 1 treated trees which sprouted. Oak had the smallest percentages of trees which sprouted and aSpen the largest. This was true, on an aver~ age, for all diameter classes and seasons. Can of the larger diameter classes (10 inches D.B.H. and up) did not Sprout at all, regardless of season of treatment. Red maple was almost entirely represented by trees in the two and four inch diameter classes. For three of the four seasons, a much greater percentage of the four inch trees Sprouted than 1 , ‘ V See Tables 3b, 42, us and 53 in Appendix, 27 TABLE 3 AVERAGE NULE 22 JD IZIGET OF SPROLT s 2:12 T222 2130 IVIHG TEE AxrATs TAAAT‘er, BY 32:10123 AND ssAscr, ALL DIA1222Q CLASSES C‘A11“2 , Two YEARS AF? 13 T22 "”"T MW“ Winter Spring Summer Fall 59859’15 Species Comu1ned No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft ) CNo.) (Ht.) Oak 2 1.0 2 2.0 3 0.9 3 1.2 1.19 .01 Red Maple s h.o 7 2.7 3 2.2 u 1.1 1.56 .23 A5pen 7 3.1 12 3.6 7 2.5 15 2.8 1.50 .30 am . Avaa ms IIUM13ER AED HETGET OF SPROUTS Paw TREE FECEIVING -22 A::1:AT2 ThEAAlTTT, BY ssAscw, 2 Am3T2R CLASSES A19 SEECIhS 001-1'22, T20 YTAAS A1T2A T12A:”AIT ’ a . 1,1 Seasons ‘—‘Winter Sprint Summer -511 Combined Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. 3.3. 5.2. N_O. (Ft.) No. Git.) No. (Ft.) No. m.) CNo.) (Ht.) 5 u.u 6 3.5 M 2.0 7 2.2 .23 .15 did the two inch trees. On an average, sepen of larger diameter classes Sprouted more than did those of smaller diameter classes. There was no merged trend, due to range in diameters, in the average number of Sprouts produced per treated tree. This applied to 1 I O I all Species and seasons. Some combinations produced more Sprouts at larger diameters, some produced more at lower diameters, and some produced fairly equal numbers throughout the entire diameter range. There was a noticeable difference due to diameter range, although not so definite as with the axe treatment, in the average height of the Sprouts which were produced by red maple and aspen, but not with ~ 2 I oak. Sprout height, on the average, decreased for aspen and maple as parent tree diameter increased. This was true for most of the season combinations of these two Species. Cost. The number of man-hours eXpended and the amount of chemical used for the ammate treatment, and thus cost, varied on a rather narrow 3 basis between seasons. The number of man-hours was lowest in the summer and equally highest in the Spring and fall while amount of chemical was lowest in the fall and highest in the winter. ANALYSIS or T22 2.u_D TssAnunnr The average number of Sprouts and the average Sprout height per treated tree, two years after treatment, diameter classes combined, 1 A See Tables lb, 22, 28 and 32 in Appendix. 2See Tables 16, 22, 2s, and 32 in Appendix. '1 JSee Table 57 in Appendix. P.) \C) were computed by species and seasons (Table 5). The same information was computed for the three Species combined (Table 6). Since the 2,M-D treatment did not kill all treated oak and red maple, a separate analysis was done for the individuals of these two species which were dead five Years after treatment. Information was computed in the same manner as for treated trees (Table 7). Effect of Season on Number of Sprouts -roduced per Treated Tree. Significantly fewer Sprouts were produced per treated oak after fall treatment as compared to summer and Spring treatments, at the 5% and 1% levels respectively. The average number of oak Sprouts resulting from winter treatment was also significantly smaller at the 1% level than the average number resulting from spring treatment. Fall, Spring and summer treatments for red maple each produced significantly fewer sprouts per treated tree (1% level) than did winter treatment. There was no significance in seasonal differences for the average numbers of Sprouts produced per treated aSpen. Effect of S seen on Eeig t of Sprouts Producedgper Treated Tree. There was no significance between the seasonal differences in sprout height for treated oak. As regards average Sprout heights for treated maple, the fall and summer heights were each significantly smaller at l; and the Spring height significantly smaller at 5% than the winter height. The summer height for maple was also significantly smaller than the Spring height, at the 1% level. The average heights of fall and summer Sprouts for aSpen were significantly smaller at the 13 level than the heights of winter and Spring sprouts. Also, winter height was significantly smaller at 13 than spring height. 30 Effect Qf Season on Number and Heightgof Sprouts Produced by the Three Species Combined. For the three Species combined (treated trees) there were no significant differences between the average numbers of Sprouts produced after the four seasonal treatments. However, the sum- mer and fall average Sprout heights were significantly smaller at 1% than the winter and Spring heights. Influence of Diameter Rang, on Sprouting of Treated Trees. For the range of diameters included under the 2,h—D treatment there were no definite differences in the percentages of treated trees which sprouted. Trees of larger diameters Sprouted as readily as those of 1 smaller diameters. This was true for all three species and for treat— ment in each of the four seasons. Likewise, there was no marked trend, due to diameter range, in the averate numbers of Sprouts produced per treated tree or in the 2 average Sprout heights. This applies to all species and seasons. Effect of Season on Number ofggprouts Produced per Killed Tree. For killed oak the seasonal differences in average number of Spropts per tree was not significant. For killed red maple, however, summer and fall treatments produced Significantly fewer Sprouts (1% level) and Spring significantly fewer sprouts (5% level) than did winter treatment. Effect of Season on Height of Sprouts Produced_per Killed Tree. For both killed oak and killed red maple the seasonal differences in average sprout height per tree were not significant. 1See Tables 37, M3, M9 and BM in Appendix. PSee Tables 17, 23, 29 and 33 in Appendix. TJEEB "'7" m? .L I'll: ' AVERAGE HUREER AED HEIGHT CF SPROUTS PER TREE REGEIVIEG 2, M-D TREETLEhT, EY SEEGIES RhD axesoE, ALL DIyHE ER CLASSES comsIEED. TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMENT ===t‘ 1 Winter Spring Summer Fall Seasons 8 ecies * Combined p Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. s.:E. S. E. No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) no.) (Rt.) Oak 2 1.2 8 2.5 6 1.8 1 2.0 1.u5 .55 Red Maple 6 3.7 2 2.8 1 1.7 1 2.3 .EM .20 Aspen u 3.0 u u.o 1 2.2 { h 1.9 .70 .25 TmmE6 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE RECEIVIEG THE 2, h—D TREATMEET, BY SEASON, DIAEETER CLASSES AND SPECIES COMBINED, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATEEET Winter Spring Summer Fall Seasons Combined Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. 5. E. s. E. No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) (No.) (Ht.) “ 3.0 5 3.0 3 1.8 2 2.0 2.01 .Iu TABLE 7 AVERAGE mum-Tm AED m: GET OF SPROUTS FIVE YEARS ETER TREATIJEEQ‘T, RY SEASON, ALL DIAMETER CLASSES GOEEIRED, PER OAK AND RED MaPLE KILLED BY TE 2, 1+..D TREATY) Winter Spring Summer Fall 595§9n3 Species Comgpned * Ht. Rt. Ht. Rt. S. E. s. E. No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) (Ko.) (Ht.) Oak 2 2.3 3 1+.o 1 1+.2 2 3.; .97 .1} [Red.Maple h 5.6 2 5.9 l h.5 1 h.o .63 .b0 .32 Influence of Diameter Range on Sur uting_of Killed Trees. Diameter range of parent trees had some influence on the number of oak killed by the 2,h—D treatment which subsequently Sprouted. Generally a smaller percentage of oak in the larger diameter classes Sprouted than did . . . 1 those in the lower diameter classes. Red maple was almost entirely represented by trees in the two and four inch diameter classes; each 2 class sprouted about equally. There was no marked difference due to diameter range in the average number of red maple Sprouts produced per killed tree, but average height of the Sprouts from winter and spring treatments increased with 3 diameter increase of parent trees. The average number of oak Sprouts produced per killed tree decreased with diameter increase, but there was no definite trend in the average heights of these Sprouts due to diameter difference in parent trees. Cost. The number of man-hours expended varied on a narrow basis between seasons while the amount of chemical used varied on a wide 5 basis. The number of man—hours was lowest in the fall and highest in the Spring. Amount of chemical used was lowest in the winter and highest in the summer. 1See Table 38 in Appendix. 2See Table nu in Appendix. 3See Table 2k in Appendix. ”See Table 18 in Appendix. 5See Table 57 in Appendix. 33 INALYSIS OF THE 2.MlErT TREATHHET The average number of sprouts and the average sprout height per treated tree, two years after treatment, diameter classes combined, were computed by species and seasons (Table 8). The same information was computed for the three Species combined (Table 9). Since the 2,u,5-r treatment did not kill all treated oak and red maple, a separ~ ate analysis was done for the individuals of these two species which were dead five years after treatment. Information was computed in the same manner as for treated trees (Table 10). #4, Effect 0 Season on Number of Sprouts Produced ner Treated Tree. There was no Significance between the seasonal differences in averag number of sprouts produced per treated oak. For red maple, however, fall treatment produced Significantly fewer Sprouts than did winter treatment (5% level). The average number of Sprouts produced per treated aSpen after the Spring treatment was significantly greater at the 1% level than the average numbers of fall, summer and winter sprouts. In addition, fall and summer treatments produced significantly fewer Sprouts per tree at ifi than did winter. Effect of Season on Height of Sprouts Produced per Treated Tree. For both oak and red maple the average heights of sprouts produced after fall, summer and winter treatments were significantly smaller at 1% than the average height of Sprouts resulting from Spring treatment. In addi- tion, for maple only, the average fall height was significantly smaller m; at 1% than the average summer and winter heights. The average hei,hts of aSpen Sprouts produced after the summer and fall treatments were significantly smaller at the 5% level than the average winter height. 3h Also, the aversre fall height was significantly smaller at 53 and the average summer height at 1% than the average spring height. Effect of Season on Number and Height of Sprouts Produced by the Three Species Combined. For the three species combined the average number of fall sprouts was significantly neller at the 1% level than the average numbers for summer, winter and Spring, and the average numbers for summer and winter were significantly smaller at 1% than the average number for Spring. As concerns average Sprout height for the three Species combined, summer was significantly smaller at 1% than fall, winter and spring; winter was significantly smaller at 1% than fall and spring: and fall was significantly smaller than Spring at 5%. Influence of Diameter Range on Serouting_of Treated Trees. For the range of diameters included under the 2.M,5-T treatment there were a few trends in the percentages of treated trees which Sprouted. Fall percentages throughout the diameter ranges for each of the three Species were generally smaller than the percentages for the other three seasons. Oak treated during the fall and winter did not sprout at all in the higher diameter classes, and no red maple treated during the iall Sprouted. Otherwise, trees of larger diameter classes generally sprouted as readily as those of smaller diameter classes. There were no marked differences due to diameter range in the average numbers of Sprouts produced per treated tree or in the average 9 sprout heights. This applies to all Species and seasons.“ lSee Tables 39, H5, 50 and 55 in Appendix. 2 _ . - see Tables 19, 2;, 30 and 3h 1n Appendix. Effect of Season on Number of Sprouts Produced ner Killed Tree. For killed oak, fall. summer and winter treatments produced significantly fewer sprouts at the 5% level than did Spring treatment. For killed red maple the seasonal differences in average number of Sprouts pro- duced per tree were not significant. Effect of Season on Height of Sprouts Producedéper Killed Tree. For both killed oak and maple the seasonal differences in average Sprout height per tree were not significant. Influence of Diameter Range on Sprouting of Killed Trees. There were no definite trends due to diameter ra ge in the percentages of oak and red maple which Sprouted.1 Likewise there were no definite trends due to diameter of parent trees in the numbers and average heights of Sprouts produced by these two Species. Eggt. The number of man-hours eXpended for the 2,M.5—T treat— ment varied on a narrow basis between seasons, being lowest in the fall and highest in the Spring, while the amount of chemical used varied on a rather wide basis, being equally lowest in the winter and fall and highest in the Spring. 1 f See Tables MO and he in Appendix. 9 ‘See Tables 20 and 26 in Appendix. 383s Table 57 in Appendix. TfiEES 36 AVEhAGE NUIABEZi AND HEIGHT OF SPNOUTS PER TREE RECEIVING CEILIJO g,’ 1+, Ei-q3 UjEilLJXT x. H, 5:. ALL DIA.LlaR CL m, & «CT-‘1 :1;)~J:JE; C;\/1L. L‘i \'~1 :4 BY SPECIES alD omrqOV TVJO YEA—RS A: Tl‘JR TILEJ‘.i wi": T Winter snring Summer Fall sees?“s , ‘ Combined SpeCleS , . nt. ht. ht. ht. o. E. S. E. No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) No. (It.) No. (Ft t.) (No. ) (Ht.) Oak 3 1.7 1+ 2.1; 1+ 1.6 1 1.5 .91 .17 Red Maple 2 2.1 1 M.2 l 2.1 O 0 1.10 .25 Aspen 6 3.0 13 3.7 3 2.1 2 2.2 .16 .22 TABLE 9 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPRCUTS PER TREE RECEIVING THE 2, U, 5— T TREATMENT, BY SEASON, DIAIETER CLASSES AND SIECII IS COLBINED, THO Yr InRS AFTmR TP EATEENT Seasons S 1 Summer Fall Winter pr ng Combined Ht. Ht. Ht. Ht. S. E. S. E. No. (Ft.) No. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) NO.) (Ht.) u 2,u 6 3.h 3 1.8 1 3.0 .51 .13 TABLE 10 AVERAGE NUMBER.AND HEIGHT or SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY senses, ALL DIAMETER CLASSES PER OAK.nl?D sen MnPLE KILLED BY THE. 2, Lt, 5—T TREAT (v tlalxm, Winter Spring Summer Fall Seasons Conbined Species ” , .r .. V ‘ ht. ht. mt. at. S. L. S. 3. N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) N0. (Ft.) (N0.) (Ht .) Oak 1 2.“ 1+.5 1 2.7 1 3-0 .33 .37 Red Maple 2 ‘06 509 2 307 O O 062 058 37 COHFARISON OF ALL iREATKHfiTS BY SEASCN QEE- The average numbers of Sprouts and the average sprout heights per treated tree are shown for oak by season and treatment in Table 11. Of the sixteen treatment-season combinations, each of the twelve chem- ical combinations resulted in far less Sprouts than each of the four axe combinations. 2,M—D and 2,h,5—T applied during the fall resulted in the fewest average numbers of Sprouts (one sprout each) while the axe treatment during the Spring resulted in the highest average num— ber of Sprouts (23). As regards average sprout height, eight of the chemical combinations resulted in lower averages than all of the four axe combinations and all of the chemical combinations resulted in lower averages than two of the axe combinations. Ammate "pplied during the summer resulted in the smallest average Sprout height (0.9 feet) while the axe treatment during winter and Spring resulted in the largest average sprout heights (3.0 feet each). Red Maple. The average numbers of Sprouts and the average sprout heights per treated tree are shown for red maple by season and treat- ment in Table 12. Of the sixteen season-treatment combinations, each of the twelve chemical combinations resulted in less sprouts than each of the four axe combinations. 2,U,5-T applied during the fall resulted in the fewest average number of sprouts (none) while the axe treatment during fall and winter resulted in the highest average number of Sprouts (ten each). As regards average sprout height, nine of the chemical combinations resulted in lower averages than all of the four are combi- nations and all of the chemical combinations resulted in lower averages than two of the axe combinations. 2,“,5-T applied during the fall 38 resulted in the smallest average Sprout height (none) while the axe treatment during the winter resulted in the largest average Sprout height (6.8 feet). Aggen. The average numbers of Sprouts and the average Sprout heights per treated tree are shown for asPen by season and treatment in Table 13. As regards average number of Sprouts, the chemical combi- nations do not stand apart from the axe combinations, as was the case with oak and red maple. 2,H—D applied during the summer resulted in the fewest average number of Sprouts (one) while the axe treatment in winter resulted in the highest average number of sprouts (2h), The chemical combinations also do not stand apart from the axe combinations in average sprout height. 2,U—D ahplied during the fall resulted in the smallest average Sprout height (1.9 feet) while 2,u-D applied dur- ing the spring resulted in the largest average sprout height (M,O feet). Oak1_Red Marie. and.asgen Combined. The average numbers of sprouts and the average Sprout heights are shown for the three Species combined by season and treatment in Table 1M, Of the sixteen treatmentmseason combinations, each of the twelve chemical combinations resulted in far less Sprouts than each of the four axe combinations. 2,U,5—T applied during the fall resulted in the fewest average number of Sprouts (one) while the axe treatment during the winter resulted in the highest aver~ age number of Sprouts (18). As regards average sprout height, five of the chemical combinations resulted in lower averages than all of the four axe combinations and all of the chemical combinations except two resulted in lower averages than two of the axe combinations. 2,“,5—T and 2,H—D applied during the summer resulted in the smallest average sprout TABLE 11 39 AVERAGE NIB/BER MID HEIGHT OF SPROU'I‘S PER TREE, BY SEASON AND TREATMENT, ALL DIAMETER CLASSES COMBINED, FOR OAK TWO YEARS AFTER 'I‘REr‘tTMiZJT l”... S eason Treatment No . Season Treatment Ht , Fall 2, 14.1) 1 H Summer Ammate 0.9 Fall 2, 14, 5—1' 1 Winter Ammate 1.0 Winter Ammate 2 Fall Ammate 1,2 Winter 2,1+..D 2 Winter 2, 14.1) 1.2 Spring Ammate 2 Fall 2, 1:, S-T 1.5 Winter 2, It, 54 3 Summer 2, 1+, 5-1? 1.6 Fall Animate 3 Winter 2, it, 5—5? 1.7 Summer Ammate 3 H Summer 2, 1L-D 1,8 Spring 2, 14, 54 )4 Summer Axe 1,9 Summer 2, h, 541‘ 1+ Fall 2, 14—13 2.0 Summer 2, LL—D 6 Spring Ammate 2,0 Spring 2, Ln 8 Fall Me 2.1 Fall Axe 19 i Spring 2, h, 5.9: 2.14 ' Winter Axe 21 Spring 2, L1) 2.5 , Summer Axe 22 Winter Axe 3.0 Spring Am 23 Spring Me 3 .0 TABLE 12 M'ERAGE NULC‘ZER AI‘JD HEI GII'I‘ OF SPROUTS PEP. TREE}, BY SEASON AED TREATMENT, ALL DIAMETER CLASSES COEBINSD, FOR arm n‘ LE TWO YEARS AFTER TREAIYEEK‘I ==== Season Treatment No. Season Treatment Ht, Fall 2, n, 5.7: 0 Fall 2, h, S-T 0 Summer 2, 11-1) 1 Fall Ammate 1.1 Summer 2, u, S—T 1 Summer 2, u—D 1,7 Spring 2, u, 541* 1 Winter 2, u, 5.91 2.1 Fall 2, 1H) 1 Summer 2, 1+, 54' 2.1 Winter 2, h, B-T 2 Summer Ammate 2,2 Spring 2, Ln 2 Fall 2, L1) 2.} Summer Ammate _ 3 Spring Ammate 2.7 Fall Ammate l4 Spring 2, M) 2.8 Winter 2, N-D 6 Summer Axe .2 Spring Ammate 7 Winter 2, L1) 3.7 Winter Ammate Fall Axe 3,9 Spring Axe 9 Winter Ammate ”.0 Summer Axe 9 Spring 2, u, 5—T 14,2 Winter Axe 10 Spring Axe 5,M Fall Axe 10 Winter Axe 6,8 —_.—‘v;~A-"£-$ I. . _. .3! v ‘27 i" duh—‘1- o J AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT or SPRCUTS FER TREE, BY sensor ALD TREATMENT, ALL DIAMETER CLAsseS COMBINED, TABLE 13 FOR ASPEN TWO YEnRS AFTER TREATMERT Season Treatment No, “Season Treatment Ht, Summer 2, LI) 1 F311 2, 1+4) 1.9 Fall 2, u, 5-T 2 Summer 2, h, S-T 2,1 Summer 2, h, S-T 3 Fall 2, u, 5—T 2.2 Fall 2, Ln 1+ Summer 2, 14—1) 2.2 Winter 2, h-D h Summer Axe 2,M Spring 2, H-D u Summer Ammate 2.5 Summer Axe h Fall Ammate 2.8 Fall Axe 5 Winter 2, u—D 3.0 Winter 2, M, 5-2 6 ll Winter 2, u, 5-T 3.0 Winter Ammate I Spring Axe 3.0 Summer Ammate Winter Ammate 3,1 Spring Axe 9 Fall Axe 3,2 Spring Ammate 12 Spring Ammate 3,6 Spring 2, H, 5-T 13 Winter Axe 3,6 2;;11 Ammate 15 +Spring 2, u, 5-T 3,7 Winter Axe 2h Spring 2, u-D h,o hi rim-q «A vii-{y mu...- '.'1 an? ‘lflth' MM Sprouts per tree than did Spring treatment in one case and winter treatment in the other case. Sprout Height, The analysis for treated trees by Species was concerned with three Species and four treatments, for a total of twelve combinations, For three of these combinations, namely oak and ammate, oak and 2,M~D, and SSpen and ammate, there were no significant seasonal differences between average heights of Sprouts produced.per tree, Of the nine remaining combinations, however, either summer treatment or fall treatment or both resulted in a significantly smaller average Sprout height per tree than did Spring treatment or winter treatment, or both, The analysis for treated trees with the three Species combined was concerned with four treatments, for a total of four combinations, For the ammate treatment there were no significant seasonal differ- ences between average heights of Sprouts produced per tree, Of the three remaining combinations, however, either summer treatment or fall treatment or both resulted in a Significantly smaller average sprout height per tree than did Spring treatment or winter treatment or both, The analysis for killed trees was concerned with two species and two treatments, for a total of four combinations, Not any of these combinations had significant seasonal differences between average heights of sprouts produced per tree, Influence of Diameter Rang_, With the exception of the ammate treatment, treated trees of larger diameter classes generally sprouted as readily as those of smaller diameter classes, As regards the ammate treatment, large oak did not sprout at all; more four-inch red maple sprouted than did two-inch red maple; and more aSpen of large diameter classes Sprouted than did aspen of small diameter classes, Diameter range of parent trees generally had no effect on the average number of Sprouts produced per tree, but in some instances had an effect on the average height of Sprouts produced per tree, The height of Sprouts resulting from the axe and ammate treatments gen- erally decreased with diameter increase of parent trees, Conclusions, Under the range of conditions characterizing the study, season of application of the four hardwood release methods studied has a definite effect, for certain species-treatment combina- tions, on the number and height of Sprouts which subsequently develOp, Certain factors which may have influenced the results of the study must be taken into consideration, however, Fall or summer would seem to be the best time of the year to apply any of the four release methods for control of at least one, and in some cases two, of the three hardwood Species studied, which fall into the two— to twelve-inch D,B,H, class, The species for which fall and summer treatments seem to be the most effective are not the same for each release method, but vary between methods, In a situation where oak, aspen and red maple from two to twelve inches D,E,H. occur in equal numbers, and control by individual Species is not desired, each treatment except 2,U-D would seem to be the most effective if applied during fall or summer, 2,M—D in such a case seems to be equal— ly effective if applied during any season, Some of the Sprouts resulting from summer treatment which were produced during that same growing season may have been killed by adverse fall and winter weather conditions soon after they appeared, However Sprouts resulting from fall treatment did not appear until the follow- ing growing season and they were generally as few in number as the summer produced Sprouts, Sprout height was measured two years after treatment, During these periods Sprouts produced after treatment during one season may have had more favorable or more adverse growing seasons than sprouts produced after treatment during another season, Browsing by wildlife may have occurred on some S“TOUtS and not on others, These and other factors may have influenced Sprout height, Overhead shade was not an influencing factor, however, since the hardwoods selected for study were all in the open and not over-topped by other hardwoods, Before it could definitely be concluded that SUmmer and fall hardwood release is the most effective for certain treatment—species combinations in lower Michigan, more intensive studies would have to be made of the influence of the several variable factors involved, The importance of such work cannot be overemphasized; if a definite time of year can be absolutely established as being most effective for a certain combination of treatments, Species, and conditions, much time and money can be saved by lessening the amount of re-release work, PART IV -- APPENDIX MS TABLE 15 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPRCUTS PER TREE, BY EASON AND DlixETER CLASS, FOR OAK RECEIVING THE AXE TREATMENT, TWO YEARS AFTER TREETnEnT W DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No, Ht.(Ft,) a 2 17 3.0 11 2.9 21 2.2 2h 2.2 g z u 25 3.1 22 2.u 23 1.8 18 2.3 i 6 28 3.5 32 2.7 11 1.9 11 1.8 i 8 1h 0.9 31 h.7 20 2.1 16 2.8 E 10 9 h.1 13 1.3 20 0.9 20 2.8 12 7 1.5 9 1.- 10 1.6 29 3,3 TABLE 16 AVE-RAGE NLECBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON Ann DIAKETER CLASS, FOR OAK RECEIVING TEE EuniTE TREATL-JEECT, Two YEARS AFTER TERTJT W DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No‘k Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Rt.(Et.) 2 h 1.8 2 2.5 3 1.0 7 1.5 u 2 0.2 6 2.u u 0.8 1 0.3 6 1 0.5 0 0 1 0.2 5 1.0 8 2 1.h 5 1.M 2 1.6 0 o 10 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 12 0 0 - - h 0.7 2 2.6 TABLE 17 AVERAGE 11 EIBER AND HEIGHT CF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIE-.‘E'T’ER CLASS, FOR OAK RECEIVING THE 2, 14—3 Luau. TREATE-iENT, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATLEEIJT Winter Spring Sujie;=:: Fall DBH Class No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) 2 6 1.3 12 2.. 9 1.6 2 0.9 h 1 0.8 6 2.3 5 1.u 1 1.2 6 1 0.1 15 2.7 3 2.6 1 2.0 8 0 0 0 0 9 2.3 0 0 10 0 0 1 0.9 20 1.9 5 2.6 12 0 0 - - 0 o o 0 TABLE 18 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS EIVE YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY SEASON AND DIAEETER CLASS, PER OAK KILLED BY THE 2, h-n TREATEEET =================:l -:I:=Ew ::__ =s v;j=== DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No, Ht.(Ft.) No, Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 h 1.5 6 3.3 5, 1... 9 2.1+ h 2 2.3 5 3.3 1 0.9 3 3S1 6 - - 5 2.2 2 2.1 3 2,2 8 O 0 O O O O - - 10 .. .. - - O O 3 2.0 12 - - - - - - - - 50 TABLE 19 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS. FOR OAK RECEIVING THE 2, h, 5-T TREATMENT, Two YEARS AFTER TREATMENT m gm. ‘ ‘ mp1 SW F1 Cla°° No. Ht.(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft,) 2 n 1.6 u 1.5 6 1.3 1 0.8 n 5 1.7 h 2.6 n 1.6 1 2.6 6 O o h 2.9 h 1.6 1 0.6 8 O O 3 2.5 1 0.7 1 1.0 10 O o 1 0.5 5 2.- 0 o 12 0 0 3 2.0 0 0 O 0 TABLE 20 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS, PER OAK KILLED BY THE 2, h, 5-‘1‘ TREATMENT DBH Winter Spring Sumner Fall Class No. Hum.) No, Ht.(Ft.) No. Rt.(Ft.) No. Ham.) 2 5 2.0 1 0.6 o o l 0.6 h 3 0.7 3 1-7 1 0'5 2 2'7 6 _ - 1 1.2 1 0.3 2 0-7 8 _ _ O 0 O o h h,h 10 - - 0 0 ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ 12 - - - “ ‘ ‘ ’ ' 51 E3 T53 21 AVERAGE NWA’BER AND ”RIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON RD DIREETER CLASS, FOR RED RIFLE RECEIVING TEE AXE TRE ATET , Two YEARS AFTER TREAn-.»-:EI~:T DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht,(Ft,) No, Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) b r: i 2 8 5.5 8 5.3 8 2.7 9 5.1 g u 15 8.2 13 8.9 12 3.3 13 3.2 . 6 - — - a - - - - g - - - - - _ - - 10 - - - - - — — - 12 - - - - - - — — TABLE 22 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIMJETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE FECEIVII‘IG THE AMMATE TREATY-SENT, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATL’EETT DBH Winter 1 Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) 2 5 3.9 7 2.7 * 3 - 2.3 1+ 1.0 h In u.o 8 2.7 3 1.7 5 1.u 6 - - 0 o 0 0 - r 8 - - - - O O - - 10 - ~ ~ - - - ' - - 12 - - - - - - - - _. NP: s'_v.3_ \fi [‘0 TABLE 23 AVERAGE NUMBER.AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAEETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE RECEIVING THE 2, h—D TREATMENT, THO YEARS AFTER TREATNENT WW DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No, Ht,(Ft,) No, Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft,) No, Ht.(Ft.) 2 6 3.5 3 2.6 1 1.7 2 2.3 u 10 u.6 1 u.o O O 0 O 6 - - 6 1.3 - - - - g - - - - - - _ _ 10 - - - — - - - — 12 - - - - - - - — TABLE 24 AVERAGE NUEBER AND HEIGHT CF SPROITIS FIVE YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY SEASON AND DIANETER CLASS, PER RED EAPLE KILLED BY THE 2, h—D TREATEENT “WWW DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class , No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) No, Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft,) 2 h 5.1 2~ 3.1 1 1.7 1 1.8 u 12 7,6 2 u.1 1 1.2 O 0 6 - - h 7.9 - — - - g _ - - - - - - - 10 — - - - — - - - AND DI MET TABLE 25 \J1 AVERAGE IV’IREER AND HEIGHT OF SPROU’I‘S PER TREE, BY SEASON ER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE RECBI VIEFG THE 2, u, 5—T TREEVEETIT, TWO YEARS AMER TREAT‘LET “W DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 2 2.1+ 1 5.1 1 2.1 O O 1+ 2 0., 2 2.5 O O O O 6 - .. 1 2.0 - - O O 3 .. .. - - .. .. .. .. 10 - - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - — - - TABLE 26 AVERAGE LUMBER AI-ID HEIGHT OF SPROUTS FIVE YEARS ALTER TREATI-JENT, BY SEASON AND DIALLETER GLASS, PER RED MAPLE KILLED BY TH" 2, 1», 5-‘1‘ TREMLEIT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 1 2.6 1 2.7 1 0.9 O O 1+ 1 1.7 1 0.9 O O O O 6 — - 1 1+.3 .. - O O 3 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 - .. .. .. .. .. .. _ 12 - .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1? .——~,- .1,__.,..__.. . —-—~——- ’1‘] F .nn‘. _v 7' “$1627 5h TABLE 27 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT CF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAEETER CLASS, FOR ASPEN RECEIVING TEE TREATEENT, Two YEARS AFTER TREATMENT A ’1 DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. BLOW.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 20 u.3 3 2.8 1 2.0 3 302 u N3 u.6 2 3.5 2 “.0 1 3.9 6 _ _ - _ 3 3,5 10 6.0 8 20 h.0 - - 1 2'0 ' - 10 - - - ’ ‘ ‘ - ’ 12 - - ~ ‘ ’ ‘ ' ' TABLE 23 AVERAGE WEBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIMETER CLASS, FOR ASPEN RECEIVING THE AL’JJATE TREATMEJT, TWO YEARS AFTER TREmrime W DEE Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) 2 3 3.5 12 2.6 3 5.5 5 3.3 u 5 2.8 12 N.5 5 2.6 1 2.h 6 6 3.0 11 6.1 10 2.0 1 u.7 8 6 2.0 - - - — 3 2.0 10 - - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - - _ \n \J'l TABLE 29 AVERAGE NLIEER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAHETER CLASS, FOR ASPEN RECEIVING THE 2, h—D TREATY-GM, TWO YEARS AFTER MPELIEKT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht,(Ft.) 2 1 2.0 6 h.3 O O 0 0 u 1 u.5 6 5.0 0 0 O O 6 2 6.0 o 0 - - 0 0 g .. .. .. — — - O O 10 - - - ‘ “ ‘ ‘ ' 12 - - - - ° ‘ ' ‘ TABLE 30 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS, FOR ASPEN RE‘EIVING THE 2, h, 5—T TREnflLHZ'I', TWO YEARS ART-ER TREAI‘I.IEL‘~IT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Glass NO. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 1 2.1 7 u.9 0 0 O O h 1 3.0 19 3.7 0 0 0 O 6 - - 10 h.h 0 0 - - 8 — - - - 0 O - - 10 - - - - — - - — 'V ’D' ' “~— .I ”sojnmsr’ l4— » Fm; \n 0\ TABLE 31 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, RY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED RECEIVING TEEE AXE TREAEIEET, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATHENT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) 2 11 h.9 7 h.h 9 2.u 11 u,; u 20 u,6 18 u.u 17 2.5 11 3,1 6 28 3,5 32 2.7 '9 2.u 11 2.3 8 16 1.7 31 u,7 17 2.1 16 2.9 10 9 u.1 13 1.3 20 0.9 20 2.8 J 12 7 1.5 9 ' 1.2 10 1.6 29 3.3 57 TARLE 32 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON AND DIAIAIETER CLASS, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED RECEIVING TEE AlfialATE TREATI'.‘"“€T Two YEARS AFTER TREATEERT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Cl 8“ No. mm.) No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft,) 2 N 3.5 7 2.7 3 2.6 5 1.3 u 7 3,3 9 2.0 h 1.6 2 1.2 6 2 1,6 11 6.1 2 1.3 3 1,6 3 3 1.6 5 1,h 2 1.6 3 2.0 10 O o o O O o O O 12 o o o O u 0.7 2 2,6 58 TABLE 33 AVERAGE NUMBER AND HEIGHT OF SPROUTS PER TREE, BY SEASON ARD DIAMETER CLASS, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED RECEIVING THE 2, h.D TREATMENT, Two YEARS AFTER TREAEMENT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class 110. BLOW.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) 2 5 2.7 5 2,8 2 1,2 2 1.8 u 2 2.8 u 3.8 u 1.0 1 0.5 6 1 2.1 13 2.u 3 2.6 1 2.0 8 O O o o 9 2.3 O O 10 o o 1 0.9 20 1.9 5 2,6 12 O O - - O O O O 59 TABLE 3h 9 AND DIALLETER LASS, FOR ALL SPECIES COLIBINED RECEIVING TEE 2, u, 5-T TREATMENT, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMENT DBH Winter Spring Summer Fall Class No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht.(Ft.) No. Ht,(Ft,) No. Ht.(Ft,) 2 2 2,2 3 u,5 1 1.6 0 0 h 3 2.0 6 2.8 2 0.8 1 1.0 6 0 O 5 2.1 h 1.5 1 0.5 8 0 0 3 2.5 1 0.7 1 1.0 10 0 0 1 0.5 5 2.2 0 0 12 0 0 3 2.0 0 0 0 0 TARLE 35 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCII‘TG SPROUTS, TWO YEARS ASTER TREATMENT, BY SEASON AND DIAB’IETER CLASS, FOR OAK RECEIVI‘I‘IG THE AXE TREEA‘LE‘IT DEB Winter S rino' Summer Fall Class p b ‘ 2 100 100 100 100 u 92 100 100 100 6 88 100 100 100 8 33 100 8a 100 10 100 50 100 100 12 100 100 66 100 TABLE 36 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRCDUCII‘TG SPROUTS, TWO YEARS 1:31:11. TREARIE‘IT, BY SEASON AND DIEIEJI‘E‘B CLASS, FOR OAK RECEI INC TliE EJMAI‘E TREA’I‘LEI‘TT 1m :1:— 4'1“ 02:36 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 17 17 21 60 u 15 60 25 9 6 13 7 17 20 8 13 17 20 0 10 0 0 0 0 12 O - .. o 61 TABLE 37 P* CENT AGE OF TREES PFC DUCING SPROUTS, TWO YE ABS AFTE R TREKEEEM BY SEASON AND DIANETER CLASS, FOR OAK RECEIVING THE 2, “-D TREATNEEIT 1* :E F: DEB W1 t s 1 5 Fall Class n er pr ng ummer 2 75 75 100 100 u 20 90 92 22 6 5o 82 50 33 8 17 o 75 o 10 o no 50 5o 12 o - - 0 TABLE 38 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCII G SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AFTER TREAEim BY SEASON AND DIANE TER CLASS, FOR OAK KILLED BY TAR 2, 11-11 TREARA WT CTEES Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 78 75 Mo 100 u 75 67 18 100 6 - 60 no 50 8 O O 20 _ 10 - - O 50 12 - — - - TABLE 39 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, Two YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY SEASON AED DIAMETER CLASS, FOB OAK RECEIVING THE 2, u, 5-T TREATLENT - 0138: Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 71 67 50 20 h 53 86 67 36 6 20 50 50 29 8 O 57 33 33 10 O 50 67 O 12 O 100 O 0 TABLE no PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AFTER TREATEENT, BY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS, FOR OAK KILLED BY THE 2, 1+, 5..T TREATLJAT ============a=============f======?-*==-- ,______.. 022$: Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 67 20 o 67 u 29 29 22 29 6 - 17 20 - 8 - 2o 0 - 10 - o o - 12 - - — - .Lm.\.1.v.— . ‘. ’v a; ta _.-a I uiofig ESE TABLE ul PERCLJJTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMEJT, BY SEASON AND DIjfixiETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE RECEIVING THE AXE TREATMENT DBH Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 100 100 70 100 u 100 100 60 100 6 - - - .. 8 - - - 100 10 - - - .. 12 - - - - TABLE 1&2 . Juno! 4 .3”; PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREMUEEIT, BY SEASON AND DIM‘EETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE RECEIVIE‘IG THE ALIMATE TREE-53¢ W 02:}: 3 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 M5 65 29 60 u 60 6o 60 80 6 - o o - 8 - - O - 10 - - - - 12 - - .. .. f, 3.3..“ a. “win Ifhflfi. H‘h-‘ G... t . _ . 6% TABLE M3 BY SEASON AND DIAMETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE RECEIVING TEE 2, h—D TREATEEE Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 85 75 33 33 u 100 36 o O 6 - 66 - _ g - - - - 10 - - - ‘ 12 - —- - - TABLE uh A PERCENTAGE OF T EE PRODUCING SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AITER TREAT-35mm, BY SE ON AND DIAEETER CLASS, FOR RED MAPLE KILLED BY THE 2, LD TPERI‘ILEZIT DBH Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 85 63 33 39 u 100 60 33 o 6 - 100 - - g - _ - - lO - .. .. _ 12 - - _ _ £955 .32 an._...ua.._.... _.. 11.31... I .6 .6 . . .r. LIIIL TABLE R5 PERCRITAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUT S, TWO YEARS AFTER TREAELE‘I‘ET, BY SEASON AID DIAMETER CLAS S, FOR RID: {ARLE RECEIVIIIG TH E 2, u, 5-T TREAT: :IIIT ——um .0.‘ ‘ ugaa r_.fla' .4‘ Jude“: . h. I a DBH _ Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 65 3M 26 o 1* 75 33 O O 6 0 75 - o g - - - _ lO - - .. .. 12 - - _ _ TITLE M6 PERCE‘III‘AGE OF TEE“ Es PRODUCING SPROUTS FIVE YEARS AFTER TR EAEzEIIT, BY SEASON AED DI (ETER CT ASS FOR? ED LIA: “LE KILLED BI IRE 2, 1+, 5..T TTREATIEET W DBH . _ Class Wlnter Sprlng Summer Fall 2 53 “2 2M 0 h 50 33 o o 6 - 100 _ 0 g - - - - 10 .. .. - _ 12 .. - ,, __ ERIE... .. :33} . .w .L 66 TABLE M7 PERCEITAGE OF TREES PRODUCII‘IG SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREA'I‘IfiENT, BY SEASON AND DI mLLfl CLASS, FOR ASPEN RECEIVING THE AXE 'I'i‘t‘EAlfixiZ-J’I‘IT W DBH Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 100 75 78 so u 100 100 100 67 6 - o 100 o 8 100 - 100 100 10 - - - - 12 - - - - TABLE M8 PERCEITAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPEOUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREmeI-IT, BY SEASON AND DIN-JET”? CLASS, FOR ASPEN RECEIVING TIE ALLIJATE TREELLEEET 0113233 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 60 no no 100 h 100 80 100 60 6 130 75 100 63 8 100 - - 100 10 - - - - 12 - - - - ,QK e3. . 2.1.6... f...1.7l!- EM, it. TTBLE 1+0 J 67 3T3033T T03 03 T331335 RODUCIZEG ST-ROUTS, '1‘?va 3,335 TTT .3 T EATIJTJIIT BY ST JASON T: D BIT-T. 33733 CLASS, FCB ASPEN RECEIVING “HIE 2, L13 TF33‘1’MZICT DBH Class Winter Spring S‘mer Fall 2 33 50 0 o 1+ 38 50 o o 6 100 o - o g .. - .. - 10 - - - - 12 - - - - TTBLT: 50 P‘T‘KiCEITAGE. OF TFGLES PRODUCING SFRCUTS, BY SEAS ON 3303:. IVING THE 2, 1+, 5.. T TTTTTTI _.:T TWO YEARS AFTER TREAZ‘ZJE AND DIAIZLTER CLASS, FOR ASPEN DBH Class Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 67 50 o o 1+ 67 100 o 13 6 - 1+0 0 .. s .. .. - - 10 — .. .. .. 12 IT, ‘T‘T— - fin“;- ”AXE“ . .‘a;{~ _ ‘ Q T... .. .‘4...L...6 J27»..- . . . .Irz. reek,“ H.391 .hm 4.2-. 3.1flfirl' ‘ L [Ill TABLE 51 PERCEITAGE OF TRE: IS PRODUCIIxG SPROU'VS, TJO YEARS AFTER TREATMENT; BY SP SCIES, TRE‘IAIMflTT, AND SEASON; ALL DIAETER CLASSES COMBINED Winter Spring Summer Fall Species Treatment Oak Axe 88 97 91+ 97 Oak Ammate 16 19 21+ 20 Oak 2,h-D 37 68 73 30 Oak 2,M,5-T 39 65 52 26 Red Maple Txe 100 100 67 100 #_ Red Maple Ammate h8 63 28 63 Red Maple 2,n_D 87 59 26 _¥ 27 Red. Maple 2,h,5.T 66 6o 28 o Aspen Axe 100 87 93 87 Aspen Ammate 93 83 90 83 Aspen 2,h-D 7o 69 50 5h Aspen 2,11, 5-‘1‘ 83 76 50 1‘5 :h‘. a)". l' L f. .. 'J:\.*2‘-m~m~m m‘ 97:12.:- K I I ’1! ‘Vq‘ .. .r. ,1... .5? N. gn...,q............ ‘ 3 ”3. 53...... sill..- — w. ill TABLE 52 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPRCUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMEN , BY DIALETER CLASS MID SEASON, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED RECEIVING TEE AXE TREATMENT DBH ”M 013.88 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 100 79 91 97 u 100 86 100 88 5 92 100 93 100 8 67 92 100 100 10 100 83 50 100 12 100 - 100 100 £2.31.....:,...2... 5.4.7.- pill TABLE 53 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMENT, BY DIAMETER CLASS AND SEASON, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED 70 RECEIVING THE A-LMAII‘E TREATMENT .: DBH . . 7 Class Wlnter Sprlng Summer Fall 2 us ‘ 2h 50 53 M 50 N6 52 32 6 23 25 26 no 8 15 17 10 10 10 O - O O 12 O 100 O O L4 --1 1.73. 14.4....zhwfi 1......Aiun1 _ . Fl.“ 5... 2 ,. . .33 __ , . .. Ill PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPRCUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TREATMEET, TABLE 5h BY DIAMETER CLASS AND SEASON, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINED RECEIVING TEE 2. D TREATMENT 71 DBH I Winter Spring Summer Fall Class m-F'N 10 12 77 36 33 17 f. 36 69 “7 50 25 57 8h M2 10 30 50 .Hfi-v‘ o -3.‘ .. o 1.139.304. ufiwvvi‘lis‘ . 1.. 7.“. IL. .._ TABLE 55 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER T.EATRENT, BY DIAMETER CLASS AED SEASON, FOR ALL SPECIES COMBINE RECEIVING THE 2, M, 5-T TREATMENT 01:23 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2 71 27 an 7 H 62 36 66 17 6 13 MI 51 3h 8 o 33 75 33 10 O 33 5O 0 12 o 0 50 O IE" .0 " u.LJ.-"'9l u‘ra‘ vtuu~mnmni .L... , i mu: 1"; . .4 2 Km. . Shana—L . duwflwwqdfiwfifl _ .L.‘ 73 TABLE 56 PERCENTAGE OF TREES PRODUCING SPROUTS, TWO YEARS AFTER TRErmmEN , BY SEASON, ALL SPECIES AND DIANETER CLASSES COMBINED, FOR THE AXE, AENATE, 2, h—D, AND 2, h, 5-T TREATMENTS Treatment Winter Spring Summer Fall Axe 96 9“ 55 95 Ammate N9 53 1+8 5M 2, h—D 63 65 53 36 2, h, 5-T 61 62 M3 26 ; r I luv.’ I'D i'f‘n-A 2": F I As m-KT'W‘MJ‘D nor. 7-. | - ll.'n O. z , _. 3.4.31.4.14 ,_§KE_.._.. . 7 .6 ‘ L. (IN MAN HOURS AND AMOUNTS OF SILVICIDES) TABLE 57 COSTS PER TREATEENT BY SEASON '— 7N T “! ‘2? “Ag-m' ff. r1" ' 2‘ “ 0' o Winter Spring Summer Fall Treat- Man Chemical Man Chemical Man Chemical Man Chemical ment Hours (Lbs.) Hours (Lbs.) Hours (Lbs.) Hours (Lbe,) Axe 8.3 None 9.9 None 5.3 None 7.6 None Ammate 10.3 27.1 11.2 2h.8 9.2 25.0 11.2 23.8 2,u_D 6.3 9h.O 6.h 165.6 5.3 178.1 u.3 137,5 2,u,5-T u.5 125.0 5.8 189.1 h.8 1M3.8 h.2 125,0 ICE“ LEW“ .h ..,.,-,:.\..¢u..:..:.3¢41~iIIII-L\ 2“! ILL APPENDIX IDIAL-YSIS 9}; VARI ANCE “AI.“ “7!? ' a "3 - r." T ’2' i, A.“ NW» REVERE OF SPRCUTS -- OAK —- AXE TFEATXEIT Source 4; Total 136 Seasons 3 Error 133 287.0 93.0 291.0 F 2 .32 a no significance SoEo : 2.9 There was no significance between seasons. Source 22 Total 119 Seasons 3 Error 116 N§ 38-9 5.3 39.5 XE TREATHENT F3013: no significance S.E. . 1.10 There was no significance between seasons. 76 NUKBER OF SPROUTS .- "“=I -- £33 T EATNENT Source 22 Total 117 Seasons i Error 11 F=m+00= 1% significance S.E. = l.hl By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer, fall, and Spring are significantly different at 1% from winter. Xq!‘ ‘E CUE— ME .1. ..3...:_. 251.91! e.» il a. .- 77 NUMBER OF SPROUTS -- OAK -- AKMATE TREATNEKT Source 23 ES. F = ,16 = Total 135 ”7.2 no significance Seasons 3 7.7 Error 132 h8.l S.E. = 1.19 There was no significance between seasons. NULEBER OF SPROUTS .. RED 3.1,:an .. MATE ”‘9...ij Source 21:: ES F a 2.77 = Total . 118 70.” 5% significance Seasons 3 186.5 ' Error 115 67.3 SOB. 3 1.50 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer is significantly different at 5% from winter. NUMBER OE SPPOUTS -- ASPEN .. ANTATE TREATNENT ”source E E): F 3 5073 = Total 119 78.1 1% significance Seasons 3 399.7 Error 116 69.8 S.E. g 1.56 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer and winter are significantly differ- ent at 5% from Spring and at 1% from fall. at" d’ r_~‘n& era‘s.“ =- “I t, Eh“ IW‘QI. “HEW. a v. w... “n In fiduflnw‘l'llu 78 {UNRER CF SPROUT -- OAK _- 2 u-D TREATNENT Source 25 §§ F a 5.20 a Total 15o 79.7 1% significance Seasons 3 378.0 Error 135 73.0 50E. = 1.1-:5 m_ By use of studentized ranges it was determined : that fall is significantly different at 5% from ; ‘1 summer and at 1% from Spring and that winter is significantly different at 1; from spring. g: NFNRER 0F SPROUTS -— RED MAPLE .- 2._h—D TREATTENT Source Q}; E F 3 12.70 -_-, Total 117 18.0 1% significance Seasons 3 178.0 Error 11h 1u.O 50E. = 070 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall, winter, and spring are significantly different at 1% from winter. UNDER 01“ SPROUTS .— ASPEN .. 2 14.1) TREATIf-EIT LA _______Source .2 L F =8 1.38 = Total 116 8.h no significance Seasons 3 11.h Error 113 8.3 SoEo : 5)"L There was no significance between seasons. o 7.». 4.4.. . . i l.‘ Acacia. ... _ ELI rnli. » {IL NUERER OE SPROUTS -- OAK -— 2._u .53T TEEATHHNT Source 23. E F a 2.06 = Total 136 29.2 no significance Season 3 58.9 ‘_ Error 133 28.6 There was no significance between seasons. NUNRER OP SPRCUTS -- RED MAPLE -- 2 41, -T TREATNENT k Source 2E. E§_ F a 2.83 = Total 117 6.3 5% significance Season 3 17.0 Error 11 6.0 S.E. = ,M5 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall is significantly different at 5% from winter. NUMBER OE SPROUTS --7é§PEN .. 2. u. 5.T TREAngxm Source 22_ y__ F g 35.80 g Total 121 “6.5 1% significance Season 3 89H.0 Error 118 25.0 ‘ S.E. a 1.10 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall, summer, and winter are significantly differ— ent at 1% from Spring and that fall and summer are significantly different at 5% from winter. a"? p F I .4 _—-.,-. 7 .v 1" "uflw-‘Lu‘ -. ‘4 fl \ 'IE Iowan: 1.3.2. Eran. itemil? 80 NUMBER OF SPROUTS - ALL SPTCIES - AXE TREATMENT Source 22_ NE, F g 5.33 g Total 37H 195.6 1% significance Seasons 3 1006.7 Error 371 189.0 S.E. : 1.h1 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall and summer are significantly differ- ent at 1% from winter; that spring is signifi- cantly different at 5% from winter; and that summer is significantly different at 5% from spring. NUMBER OF SPRCUTS -- ALL SPECIES -- AKMATE T.3ATMENT Source 2E 3.3L F :- 2.91 g Total 380 73.3 5% significance Seasons 3 210.0 Error 377 72.0 S.E. g .28 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall is significantly different from Spring at 5% and from winter and summer at 1%; that spring is significantly different from winter at 5% and from summer at TE; and that winter is significantly different from summer at 5%. than." Essa... ”trunniidfll _ R {IL NUMBER OF SPRCUTS -- ALL Source £2: E§_ Total 373 39 Seasons 3 159 Error 370 35 81 CIES -- g. h-D TREATMENT F = n.10 = 1% significance 50E. z 2.01 There was no significance between seasons. NUMnER or SPTOUTS .. ALL SPECIES .- 2. h. S-T TREATMENT L Source 2E. t; Total 375 30. Seasons 3 77 Error 372 2 F c 30.90 s 1% significance 50E. 2 051 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall is significantly different at 1% from summer, winter, and spring and that summer and winter are significantly different at 1% from Spring. I Wq._ A A . - E: é . Gina}. TH: 1.3.395,“ e... A ,Q ill-L NUMBER OF SPROUTS -- KILLED OAK -- 2, u.D TREATMENT Source p}; 1313‘, F .- 3.0 g Total 72 18.6 5% significance Seasons 3 51.0 Error 69 17.2 503- 3 097 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that there was no significance between seasons. NUMBER or SPRCUTS .. KILLED OAK —- 2. u, figT TREATVVVT .5.-4J- Source 22: ELS- F g 21.3 a Total 66 5.1 1% significance Seasons 3 27.7 Error 63 1.3 S.E. . .23 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall. summer and winter are significantly different at 5% from Spring. NUMBER OF SPRCUTS -— KILLED RED MAPLE .. g. h=§,TREnTMENT Source 2E, gs F n 12.3 . Total 81 11.3 1% significance Seasons 3 98.0 Error 78 8.0 80E. 23 063 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall and summer are significantly different at 1% from winter and that spring is significantly different at 5% from winter. 82 5.1-Iv h n r‘m‘r' pr II‘ ._._v-rs ii as. . 7.5.2,. Milan” , ,. .31.! . . ._ I”, er, “E.“ F. m . n . L nurses 0F SFROUTS -- KILLED FED MAPLE .. 2. u- 5—T Tnaaniaf Source SE ES F n 13+ : Total 8H 8.1 no significance Seasons 3 11.3 Error 81 8.0 S.E. . .62 There was no significance between seasons. SPROUT HEIGHT —- OAK -— AXE TREATMENT Source 22_ ES, F 2 3.7 a Total 138 1.2 1% significance Seasons 3 h.l Error 135 1.1 S.E. a 0.6 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall and summer are significantly different at 1% from winter and Spring and that fall is significantly different at 5% from summer. SPROUT HEIGHT -- RED HAPLE -- AXE TREATHENT source 22‘: N2 F g 11.1 a Total 119 7.8 1% significance Seasons 3 89.3 Error 116 8.1 50E. . 052 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that winter is significantly different at 1% from fall and summer and that spring is signif- icantly different at 1% from summer. 83 .{ig p in 3'“:an -M- ‘. .1.‘ ”2‘: ‘Q' . J17 \‘ia’.’ *Imae SPROUT HEI Source SEE Total 117 Seasons 3 Error 11h By use of studentized ranges it was determined V that winter is significantly different at 1% from summer. an- -- All: 131-. -- AXE TREATHEN F-sna 1% significance S.E. g .29 T -- OAK -- AL"TE TREATMEKT a? SPROUT E31 Source 2: Total 138 Seasons 3 Error 135 \NNKN F = .51‘. : no significance S.E. = .009 There was no significance between seasons. SPROUT HEIGHT -- RED MAPLE -- AHMATE TREATNHFT Source SE. Total 119 Seasons 3 Error 116 F — h.3 . 1% significance «lmo 5.3. a .30 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that winter is significantly different at 1; from Spring, summer, and fall; that spring is significantly different at 1% from fall. and that summer is significantly different at 5% from fall. 347.3. is? ._.. , n L SPROUT HE GET -- ASPEN -- EAEI‘EATE TFEA'IWIEICT Source 2;: E F ._., 1.08 g Total 119 .2 no significance Seasons 3 1.7 Error 116 1.6 S.E. a .23 There was no significance between seasons. fi— SPBCUT HEIGHT -- OAK -- 2, h_n TREATHEHT Source 21: ii F a 57.0 = Total 1M0 1.2 1% significance Seasons 3 57.0 Error 137 1.0 SOEO 3 055 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that there was no significance between seasons, SFROUT HEIGHT -- RED MAPLE —- sick—n Tasnsusrr Source QE, E§. F a 15.9 g Total 119 2.6 1% significance Seasons 3 30.0 Error 116 1.9 5.3. = .25 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that winter is significantly different at 5% from spring and at 1% from fall and summer; and that Spring is significantly different at 1% from summer. gas: can as es... i, 2.431. s.“ _ - .L STOROUT HEY. GET .— ASPEN .. 2’ 1.}..1) TPEATKKT‘IT Source 23 1Q F = 2.7 a Total 119 1.3 5% significance Seasons 3 3.1 ___ Error 116 1.2 50E. = .20 By use of studentized ranges it was determined b that fall and summer are significantly differ- L53 ent at 1% from winter and spring and that winter is significantly different at 1% from Spring. saaour HEIGHT -- OAK -- glen S-T TREJTEEET a! ”source l E F . 509M 2 Total 137 1.1 1% significance Seasons 3 5.7 Error 13h 1.0 50E. 3 .17 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall, summer and winter are significantly different at 1% from Spring. SPRCUT HEIGHT —— RED MAPLE - 9. n. 5-T TREAINTVT Source pl 2:5. F ,, 9.2 . Total 118 1.7 1% significance Seasons 3 13.0 Error 115 1.H SQEO : .22 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that fall is significantly different at 1% from Spring, winter and summer and that summer and winter are significantly different at 1% from spring. SE has... a n i ..,. .si..:,,i._.€—I’. LIL 87 spRoUT HEIGHT -- ASPEN -— 2.3h .firT TREATnENT Source Q§_ M§ F g 15.0 a Total 119 2.u 1% significance Seasons 3 27.0 Error 116 1.8 3.3. 8 .25 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer is significantly different at 5% from winter and at 1% from Spring and that fall is significantly different at 5% from winter and spring. SPRQUT HEIGHT -- ALL SPECIES -- AYE TREATKENT Source 21':- Mfi F a 11.1 g Total 37h 5.1 1% significance Seasons 3 52.0 Error 371 ”.7 8.3. g .22 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer is significantly different at 1% from spring and winter and that fall is signi. ficantly different at 1% from winter. SPROUT HE GHT -- ALL SPECIES -- BIMATE T333353? Source 1}} MS F 3 2.2 g Total 378 2.3 no significance Seasons 3 5.0 Error 375 2.3 80E. = 015 There was no significance between seasons. -Jl 5-2.2585'1 u& *7. '1'. 3&3“. Gas." 1.1 .4 a d .4 .....!.3.d. “3’ 1. IL. 88 Source SE ES F -_- 38.5 g Total 380 2.H 1% significance Seasons 3 72.0 Error 377 1.9 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer and fall are significantly different at 1% from spring and winter. SPROUT HEIGHT -- ALL SPECIES —_ 2 M.d5.T TREATMENT Source _D_l_"_ g F = 17.6 a Total 375 1.9 1% significance Seasons 3 30.0 Error 372 1.7 8030 = .13 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that summer is significantly different at 1% from winter, fall and Spring; that winter is significantly different at 1% from fall and Spring; and that fall is significantly differ- ent at 5% from spring. SPROUT TEIGHT -- KIELED 02' -- a. u-D Tasinia: Source 23 ES F g 1.14 = Total 72 55.5 no significance Seasons 3 7.7 Error 69 5.5 S.E. a .11 There was no significance between seasons. 3 P ffif -‘c \ «nu-s -M‘. wlvmgm—lm cm “5. a ._ a a... a. ii} is SPROJT HEIGHT -- KILLED OAK -~ 2 Source E Total 66 Seasons 3 Error 63 MS unknun 0 \flth4 no significance S.E. 2'." 037 There was no significance between seasons. SPROUT HEIGHT -- KILLED RED MAPLE .- 2; Ln TREW‘ET Source 23. Total 81 Seasons 3 Error 78 It? (NH NW0 0 ‘UKDCD F a 11.5 n 1% significance S.E. : .60 By use of studentized ranges it was determined that there was no significance between seasons. fi ‘3 JJLJ FALL MAD - 2- h. 5~T Tiltinimm SERCLT HEIGHT -—- KI * Source SE Total 8h Seasons 3 Error 81 F a .80 n no significance S.E. - .58 There was no significance between seasons. 00 KO {Hag-1.“.nfim." 7.5.2.}: .- . ”vut‘ .. —’—. ' ..,..Bi§.s ,. _.:_... _. a L 45., _ PART V -- BIBLIOGRAPHY £8 32.....- .._: . I .34 LL. Arend, John L. and Joseph R. Stephenson. 1952. Some Costs and Effects of Chemical Release of Pine in Northern Michigan. Lafie States Forest LXperiment Station Technical Note 30], l p. mimeo. Frill. Girdle Tests 'nith 2.9 —T in and L. L. Coulter, 195 a? ates Forest EKPeriment Station Techni- ”J L. Lower Michigan. La“ S cal Note 385, 1 p. misleo. (1*. ('D 1952. Effects of Season on Snckering of Scrub Asoen Treated With Bas;l Sura;s. (Abstract). North Central Weed Control Conierence Research Report 9:52. Mimeo. . 1953. Cont rolling Scrub Ashen h’ith Ba -s- ul Serays. Down To Earth, Volume 9, ho. l. Beatty, R. H. 19M1. Killing u’ood1_P1ants on a 121 onth Sorgy Schedule. North Central Weed Control Conierence Pioceedings 0:53-" C wnpbell, R. S. and Fred A. Peevy. 1950. Chemical Control of Un- desirable South ern Hardwoods. Journal of Range Management 3(2): 115—12h. Illus. April. Chaiken, L. E. 1951. The Use of Chemicals to Control Inferior Trees in the Hanagenent of Loblgllz Pine. Southeastern Forest EXperi— ment Station Paper 10. 3M pp., illus. Coulter, L. L. 1951. Two Primary Factors Influenc1n' Results in the Control of ,ak During_the 4T)orm ”n Period. North Central Weed Control Conference Proceedings 8: 70-77. Day, Maurice W. 19kg. The Chenical Control of Certain Forest Shrubs. A.Progress Resort. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly Bulletin 30 (M): 427-Ljo. May. 1950. How to Control Undesirable Trees and Shrubs. Michigan M. Agricultural EXperiment Station Quarterly Bulletin 32 (M): /\ USO-491. . 1951. The Effe ct of Easel Stem Serags on Asoen. North Central Weed Control Conference Researcn Report 8: 131. Mimeo. _ . 1952. A Frill Girdle Treatment for Aspen. North Central Weed Control Conference Research Report 9: :1, Mimeo. 3Dingle, Richard W. 1950. The Use of Chemicals for the Elimination of Low—Value Species as“§_Forest lmnrovement_§g§§u£g. Weed and Sprout Control Short Course and Conference Proceedings Progress Report 9: 29-32. Nissouri Agricultural Experiment Station. March. Grano. Charles X. 1955. Pehavior of Sovth Arkansas Cris Girdle d in Different Seasons. Journal of Forestry 53 (12): 88 o— 888. December. . 1957. ”:19n Should Che ical Hardwood Control be Done? Forest Farmer lo: 13, p. 12. -7. Greth. John W. 1957. Axe Girdl ingrhllls Large Crll Frrdwoods. Cen- tral States Forest ‘ Jper; ment Station Note No. 107. Hackett, David P. 1952. Enterinents in the Control of N rdwoods in liorthegstern Forests. Northeastern Weed Control Con ierence Proceedings No. b. Hansen, Henry L. and Clifford E. Ahlgren. 1950. Effects of Va rions Foliage Sgrrvs on QLfflfi" Ashen at the Qpetico-Soperior Wilder— ness Research Center. North Central Weed Control Conference Research Report 7: 239. Ximeo. Harvard Forest Staff. 95”. P ejress Report on the Chemical Control of Hardwoods at the Earvard iorest. Northeastern Weed Control Conierence Proceedings No. 8:whal-M29. Little, 8. and H. A. Somes.195u.Effect of on Unwanted Growth in OaK-Yel.lcw Poclar St: nds in 1es Jerse". Northeastern Forest E} eriment Station Researcn Note No. 29. April. Martin, s. Clark and Nelson F R0 zers 1955. 2.155-111 Better Than Girdlin; for Killing7Trees. Centr alS tates Forest ExPeriment Station Note No. 88. June. McQuilken, W. E. 1955. Use Anna te in Notches for Deadering Trees Only “Lri- Pthe Cronin; Northeastern Forest NXperiment Station Re rch Note No. 52. Morrow, H. N. 1953. . Down to Earth. Volume 9, No. 2. jPeevy, Fred A. 19h9. Now to Control South rn Igland Narawoods With Ammate. Southern Forest Experiment Station. and Robert S. Cangbell. 19h9. Poisoning Southern ULland Weed Trees. Journal of Forestry #7: 493—447. Pr EdlnéS of t”e LaKe States Forestry Clinic on ‘ 11L;\‘D is: 1 Cor- trols in 1orest IanagementJ. 1953. Lake State; Forest EXperi- ment Station hiscellaneous Report No. 21. b8} Rudolph, Paul C. 1951. Chemical Control of Brush and Tree Growth for the Late States. Lane States forest Experiment Station Liscel- (1.4 b laneous Report No. 15. 30 pp. Mimeo. Mu. \ .1"___.,...,. . ‘E‘ Jaws-n“ '5. -. ‘i‘ Shipman, Robert D. 355. Fett+—r Sweet 'rm Control With 9 h 5-T ‘LL'.# 0 Southern Forest Experiment Station Research Note No. 8+ StoecKler. J. H. 19h7. When is Plantation Relo c8 ort E‘fective? _ - _' 1. fl _ Journal 01 Forestry L5: 4. p. erg. --——' ° Sasson Of CNPtin; difects Nopen SorO‘mt n: Lake States Forest Experiment Station iecnnical Lote Lo. Worley, D. P., W. C. Bramble. and E. H. Ch' Scrub Oak and As00cizted uOOCiy Snec Stravs. Northeastern need Control man. 9. S G I . {’qu “7. R. B§vrnes.1953. 3 atdS eastern need Control Conierence Proceedings . . . 199“. Sucgering of Asoen. Northeastern he ceedings No. 8. pp. 4h7-h52. ed Cont 1 1. W1 th Co 11ferenc Effect of .eas on 1 Bass 2.)”). Effect of Placement of Dormant Easal S: ay on To:— rilli n: 1- routing of Scrub Car. North- No. 7. l Sprain on Root rol Conference Pro— 4’ ’ —"L_" ""14... nut .. _ 1 a? .3ch flicfpl ’ll‘lllll llr «XX! X a? 9* (515. Q J” fiflx? "m Date Due Demco-293 MICHIGAN STATF Uh vFiRS lTr lLllE'HJf ‘F‘ H "