How Do You Rate This Publication?       

Title:	Fate of Hexazinone and Picloram After Herbicide Site Preparation in a Cutover Northern Hardwood Forest
Author(s):	Neary, D.G.; Michael, J.L.; Wells, M.J.M.
Date:	1985
Source:	In: Mroz and Trettin, C.C., ed. Forest soils: A resource for intensive forest management: Proceedings 1984 Lake States Forest Soils Conference Miscellaneous Publication 85-1. School of FOrestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technological University Press; 55-72
Description:	Herbicides show promise to improve the efficiency and economics of forest stand conversion and regeneration. However, the impacts of herbicides on forest ecosystems and the ultimate fate of these chemicals are not completely understood. A major problem in pine regeneration in northern mixed hardwood forests is competition from fast-growing and easily sprouting species like red maple, northern red oak, aspen, and white birch. Three commonly used forest herbicides were applied to a cutover stand in Baraga County, Michigan, to study the ecological consequences of stand conversion and the movement and dissipation of herbicides in sandy-textured spodosols. A mixture of hexazinone (1.7 kg/ha), 2,4-D (1.1 kg/ha), and picloram (0.3 kg/ha) was aerially sprayed in July 1982. Picloram and hexazinone residues were analyzed in soil solution and streamflow samples collected over a 4-month period after herbicide application. Both chemicals are widely used in forestry, are low in toxicity to fauna, and have soil as well as foliar phytotoxic activity. Picloram and hexazinone are highly soluble and thus have the potential to move offsite.Picloram is more persistent in the environment than hexazinone or 2,4-D, the other herbicide used. Picloram moving through the soil profile peaked 2 weeks after application (40 µg/L) and hexazinone peaked (102 µg/L) 2 weeks later. Presence of an 0e horizon was instrumental in reducing herbicide residue movement deep into the soil by factors of 4 to 40. Streamflow contained only traces of hexazinone during the day of the application. Samples over the next 4-month period did not contain detectable residues. Picloram was never detected in streamflow. Water quality of streams adjacent to herbicide application areas was not affected.
	View and Print this Publication (274 KB)
Pristine Version:	An uncaptured or "pristine" version of this publication is available. It has not been subjected to OCR (Optical Character Recognition) and therefore does not have any errors in the text. However it is a larger file size and some people may experience long download times. The "pristine" version of this publication is available here: View and Print the PRISTINE copy of this Publication (1.4 MB)
Publication Notes:	We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information. This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain. Our on-line publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat. During the capture process some typographical errors may occur. Please contact the SRS Webmaster, srswebmaster@fs.fed.us if you notice any errors which make this publication unuseable.
	Get the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat reader or Acrobat Reader for Windows with Search and Accessibility