Table 1.

Regrowth, green biomass, and trim and chip time as compared to the untreated check.^¹

		Species and location
Treatment	Dose ^²	Silver maple (Ohio)		Willow oak (Virginia)		Water oak (Virginia)		Norway maple (Pennsylvania)
Regrowth and % of regrowth ^³,⁶
Drench	0.5	86a	32	12a	32	20b	54	27b	36
	0.75	85a	31	10a	27	12b	32	16b	21
	1.0	72a	27	4a	11	4a	11	32b	43
Implant	0.5	66a	24	10a	27	37c	100	6a	8
	0.75	77a	28	30b	81	27b	73	26b	35
Control		271b	100	37b	100	377c	100	75c	100
Green biomass and % of green biomass ^{⁴, ⁶}
Drench	0.5	336a	38	33b	29	237b	32	25a	21
	0.75	402a	45	28b	25	484b	65	25a	21
	1.0	194a	22	27b	24	244b	33	23a	19
Implant	0.5	213a	24	8a	7	78a	10	25a	21
	0.75	274a	31	17b	15	55a	7	25a	21
Control		887b	100	112c	100	750c	100	119b	100
Trim and chip time and % of trim and chip time ^{⁵, ⁶}
Drench	0.5	67a	48	15b	75	100b	64	11a	39
	0.75	67a	48	13a	65	111b	71	10a	36
	1.0	36a	26	8a	40	83b	53	9a	32
Implant	0.5	56a	40	5a	25	5Oab	32	10a	36
	0.75	58a	41	10a	50	28a	18	14a	50
Control		140b	100	20b	100	157c	100	28b	100

↵1 Trees measured in August 1992, three growing seasons after treatment.
↵2 Grams active per inch dbh.
↵3 Regrowth in inches of the total of seven longest shoots measured and averaged.
↵4 Pounds of biomass of each tree added together and averaged.
↵5 Actual time to trim tree and chip brush in minutes (does not include dumping).
↵6 Percent as compared to untreated control.
7 Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 10% level using Tukey’s pairwise comparisons.