Control of Ailanthus altissima Using Stem Herbicide Application Techniques

Joseph M. DiTomaso; Guy B. Kyser

doi:10.48044/jauf.2007.007

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1.
Effect of herbicide timing intervals for cut stump and stump injection techniques on the percent of trees with sprouts. There were no significant differences (α = 0.05) for any of the timings within each herbicide treatment.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2.
Effect of herbicide timing intervals for cut stump and stump injection techniques on the vigor of resprouts. There were no significant differences (α = 0.05) for any of the timings within each herbicide treatment.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table 1.

Chemical techniques, location, timing, treatment, carrier, and rate used to control tree-of-heaven.

Treatment method	Treatment location	Year of October	Herbicide (trade name)	Carrier	Rate
Stem injection	University of California, Davis	1998	Imazapyr (Stalker)	None	Undiluted
		1998	Imazapyr (Habitat)	None	Undiluted
Cut stump	Putah Creek	2001	Glyphosate (Roundup Pro)	50% water	50%
		2001	Imazapyr (Chopper)	80% Hasten oil	20%
		2001	Triclopyr (Garlon 4)	80% Hasten oil	20%
Stem injection	Putah Creek	2001	Glyphosate (Roundup Pro)	None	Undiluted
		2001	Imazapyr (Chopper)	None	Undiluted
		2001	Triclopyr (Garlon 4)	None	Undiluted
Stump injection	Putah Creek	2001	Glyphosate (Roundup Pro)	None	Undiluted
		2001	Imazapyr (Chopper)	None	Undiluted
		2001	Triclopyr (Garlon 4)	None	Undiluted
Basal bark	Putah Creek	2001	Imazapyr (Chopper)	80% Hasten oil	20%
		2001	Triclopyr (Garlon 4)	80% Hasten oil	20%

View popup

Table 2.

Tree-of-heaven control using stem injection treatment with undiluted imazapyr as an emulsifiable concentrate (Stalker) or water-soluble (Arsenal) formulation^{^z}.

Treatment	Cutting date	Evaluation 8 MAT^*		Percent of stumps with sprouts	Evaluation 21 MAT
Treatment	Cutting date	Mean number of sprouts	Mean crown reduction (%)	Percent of stumps with sprouts	Mean number of sprouts on sprouting stumps	Mean height of sprouts (m)	Crown reduction (%)
Imazapyr (Stalker)
Small trees (4–8 cm diameter)	4 MAT	0	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	97.9 ±5.2
				12.5	1.0	0.4	—
Medium trees (8–16 cm diameter)	4 MAT	0	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	96.9 ± 4.4
Clumps, 1/2 dose	—	—	84.2 ± 14.6	—	—	—	99.3 ± 0.6
Clumps, 1/4 dose	—	—	76.0 ± 8.9	—	—	—	81.7 ± 18.9
Untreated small trees	4 MAT	2.75 ±3.10	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	0
		70.8	3.8	1.6	—
Untreated medium trees	4 MAT	2.75 ± 2.50	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	0
Imazapyr (Habitat)
Medium trees (8–16 cm diameter)	4 MAT	0	—	8.3	1.0	0.6	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	94.8 ± 5.8
Untreated medium trees	4 MAT	9.25 ± 4.27	—	75.0	4.0	2.0	—
	8, 12 MAT	—	26.3 ± 37.4

↵*Months after treatment (4 MAT = February 1999; 8 MAT = June 1999; 12 MAT = October 1999, 21 MAT = July 2000).

View popup

Table 3.

Results for cut-tree treatments in 2001 tree-of-heaven trial^{^z}.

						Means for sprouts^{^v}
		Vigor mean over all trees^{^y,^x}		Percent of trees with sprouts^{^w}		Vigor		Number		Height (m)
		2002	2003	2002	2003	2002	2003	2002	2003	2002	2003
Cut	Glyphosate	2.5 b	4.1 b	33.5 b	40.8 b	7.5	9.9	3.9	2.9	1.0	2.5
stump	Imazapyr	0.0 c	0.6 c	3.1 c	9.8 c	0.5	6.3	0.0	2.8	—	0.7
stump	Triclopyr	1.0 bc	0.5 c	21.0 bc	6.7 c	4.3	7.5	1.8	1.5	0.4	0.6
Cut control		8.3 a	7.4 a	85.7 a	85.7 a	9.7	8.7	7.3	6.0	1.1	2.4
Stump	Glyphosate	6.7 a	6.6 ab	85.7 a	92.9 a	8.0	7.1	5.5	4.2	0.8	1.7
injection	Imazapyr	0.9 b	1.5 c	35.8 c	32.1 c	2.1	4.0	6.1	6.3	0.2	0.7
injection	Triclopyr	4.8 a	5.0 b	60.7 b	62.5 b	7.9	7.7	3.3	2.4	0.4	1.2
Cut control		8.3 a	7.4 a	85.7 ab	85.7 ab	9.7	8.7	7.3	6.0	1.1	2.4

↵^zAll evaluations made in August 2002 and 2003. Values are means over all application timings. Within each treatment group, values followed by the same letter are not different at α = 0.05. Cut control values were used for separate comparisons with cut stump and stump injection treatments.
↵^yVigor is a visual evaluation scale where 0 = dead, 10 = healthy.
↵^xDifferences determined by analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls test.
↵^wDifferences determined by logistic regression.
↵^vOnly for trees with resprouting.

View popup

Table 4.

Results for standing-tree treatments in 2001 tree-of-heaven trial^{^z}.

			Canopy	Percent reduction	Canopy vigor^{^y}
Treatment method	Herbicide	Tree size	2002	2003	2002	2003
Stem injection	Glyphosate	—	82.3 ab	91.7 a	2.3 b	1.5 b
	Imazapyr	—	99.9 ab	100.0 a	0.1 b	0.0 b
	Triclopyr	—	66.7 b	31.4 b	6.2 a	6.7 a
Basal bark	Imazapyr	<4 cm dia	100.0 a	100.0 a	0.0 b	0.0 b
		>4 cm dia	99.8 ab	100.0 a	0.1 b	0.0 b
	Triclopyr	<4 cm dia	90.0 ab	86.7 a	1.3 b	1.7 b
		>4 cm dia	100.0 a	100.0 a	0.0 b	0.0 b
Uncut control		—	12.5 c	27.1 b	8.8 a	7.6 a

↵^zAll canopy percent reduction and vigor measurements made in August of 2002 and 2003. Within each treatment group, values followed by different letters are different at a = 5% (analysis of variance, Student-Newman-Keuls test).
↵^yVigor determined by visual evaluation on scale of 0 = dead and 10 = healthy.