ICFR Central Regional Field Day

ICFR Central Regional Field Day www.icfr.ukzn.ac.za Thursday 18th October 2012 Venue: Ignite Charcoal Factory, Paulpietersburg A special thanks to Willie Gevers and the Central Field Day Committee for their help with venue organisation and catering support. ICFR Central Regional Interest Group Field Day www.icfr.ukzn.ac.za Date: Thursday 18 th October 2012 Venue: Ignite Charcoal Factory, near Paulpietersburg (GPS: 27° 24' 45.83'' S; 30° 40' 33.39'' E) Time: 08h30 for 09h00 PROGRAMME 08h30 Meet for tea and coffee Indoor Presentations 09h00 Welcome and objectives for the field day Johan Nel TWK Testing pelargonic acid (Scythe) and pyraflufen-ethyl + 09h10 glyphosate (Guild) as alternatives to paraquate dichloride Keith Little ICFR (Gramoxone) for the preparation of tracer belts A comparison of different planting methods incorporating 09h25 hydrogels and fertiliser and their effect on survival and Marnie Light ICFR growth at rotation-end in a Eucalyptus grandis trial Is climate change happening? Comparing local 09h55 Ilaria Germishuizen ICFR knowledge and global predictions Results obtained from a pot trial to assess several 10h25 chemical and biological products to potentially control Ryan Nadel ICFR white grub 10h55 TEA Insect pests of Eucalyptus – challenges and opportunities 11h25 Brett Hurley FABI for their management Stellenbosch 11h55 Precision Forestry Simon Ackerman University The effect of compaction and residue management on 12h30 soil properties and early Eucalyptus growth on a granite- Diana Rietz ICFR derived soil Forest Engineering research and development’s latest 13h00 advancements, with a focus on compartment road Glynn Hogg FESA planning 13h30 LUNCH 14h30 Field Visits 15h00 Mulching for the future Willi Gevers Private 15h45 Discussion in-field on compartment road planning Glynn Hogg FESA 16h15 End of field day Please note: Hard hats and closed shoes to be worn for the field stop. ICFR Central Region Field Day © ICFR October 2012 Page | 2 Testing pelargonic acid (Scythe) and pyraflufen-ethyl + glyphosate (Guild) as alternatives to paraquate dichloride (Gramoxone) for the preparation of tracer belts Keith M Little [email protected] Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, PO Box 100281, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3209 Trial Information Company: Mondi Shanduka Newsprint Plantation: Willomere Estate Date Implemented: 22 April 2012 Weather: Clear, sunny and windless Date Completed: September 2012 Altitude: 1706 m Lat & Long: 19 o 25.840' E 29 o 51.016’ S Treatments Treatments Rate 1. Control (untreated) - 2. Scythe 2% or 2 L ha -1 3. Scythe 3% or 3 L ha -1 4. Scythe 4% or 4 L ha -1 5. Scythe 5% or 5 L ha -1 6. Scythe mix 2% (pelargonic acid) + 1% (glyphosate) 7. Guild 0.5% 8. Guild 1% or 1 L ha -1 9. Guild 2% or 2 L ha -1 10. Glyphosate 1% or 1 L ha -1 11. Paraquat 3.75% or 3.75 L ha -1 Sequence of events Date Implemented: 22 April 2012 • Time of spraying: 8h00 – 11h30 • Temp: 19-26 0C (shade); 22-29 0C (sun) 1st Assessment: 5 May (14 days after treatment) • 3 x images analysed for percentage cover of living vegetation per plot Burning of firebreak: Mid-May 2nd Assessment: Vegetation regrowth on 24 September ICFR Central Region Field Day © ICFR October 2012 Page | 3 Results Conclusions • Need a product that provides rapid “browning” (desiccation) of above-ground portion of vegetation = provides opportunity for burning of sprayed area when rest of area still green. • Need product that will not kill below-ground portion of vegetation = erosion + area open to invasion from unwanted vegetation. • Final assessment in Spring following regrowth (if any) will provide greater insight. ICFR Central Region Field Day © ICFR October 2012 Page | 4 A comparison of different planting methods incorporating hydrogels and fertiliser and their effect on survival and growth at rotation-end in a Eucalyptus grandis trial Marnie E Light, Paul WM Viero and Keith M Little [email protected] Institute for Commercial Forestry Research, P.O. Box 100281, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, 3209 Introduction In 2002, three trials were implemented to assess the effect of Aqua-soil ® (a soil-amended hydrogel combined with nutrients) versus regular granular fertiliser, on eucalypt re-establishment across diverse sites covering a range of soils, climate and tree species (Viero and Little, 2006). The aim of the trial series was to investigate the effect that different planting methods incorporating soil ameliorating products had on survival and growth of eucalypts on contrasting sites ( Table 1 ). Of the three trials (situated in Piet Retief, Zululand and the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands), two were prematurely terminated, whereas the KwaZulu-Natal Midlands trial at Eston ( Table 2 ) was continued until rotation-end. Experimental design and treatments • Four replicates in a randomised complete block design (RCBD) • 2 x 2 factorial: Stockosorb ® 400 K at 0 or 3 g L -1 and/or fertiliser at 0 or 120 g tree -1 • Three additional controls: dry plant, Aquasoil at 5 or 10 g L -1 • Tree spacing of 2 x 3 m (1667 stems ha -1) • Whole plot of 6 x 6 (36 trees); measured inner plot of 4 x 4 (16 trees) Table 1: Description of treatments for a Eucalyptus grandis re-establishment trial situated at Eston, KwaZulu-Natal. Treatment Description (per seedling) Seedling placed directly into planting pit dry plant (without any water, hydrogel or fertiliser) water plant 1 L water (added into planting pit) ® stock 3 g Stockosorb 400 K in 1 L water fert 1 L water + 120 g 3:2:1 (N:P:K, 22%) ® stock + fert 3 g Stockosorb 400 K in 1 L water + 120 g 3:2:1 aquasoil 5g 5 g Aquasoil TM in 1 L water aquasoil 10g 10 g Aquasoil TM in 1 L water Please note: The use of these products are not endorsed by the ICFR, and were used for experimental purposes. The hydrogel, Stockosorb ® 400 K, and Aquasoil TM are no longer commercially available and have been replaced by other products, which are newly formulated and different to those used in this trial, and thus cannot be used for comparative purposes. ICFR Central Region Field Day © ICFR October 2012 Page | 5 Table 2: Site characteristics and information for a Eucalyptus grandis re-establishment trial situated at Eston, KwaZulu-Natal. Latitude 29° 52’ 24” S Longitude 30° 24’ 04” E Altitude 900 m a.s.l. Mean annual rainfall / temperature 850 mm / 17 °C Climate Warm-temperate Taxonomy (SA) Mispah Parent material Dwyka Tillite Soils Effective rooting depth 0.4 m Texture Loam Organic carbon 4.12% Species planted E. grandis seedlings Date planted 22 November 2002 Mean, mean minimum Mean: 23.1 Conditions 7 days and mean maximum Mean min.: 16.4 prior to planting temperatures (°C) Mean max.: 30.7 Rainfall (mm) 0.7 Gravimetric soil water 15.2% Conditions on the content day of planting Rainfall (mm) 0.5 Mean temp (°C) 27.4 Mean, mean minimum Mean: 15.7 Conditions 7 days and mean maximum Mean min.: 9.3 after planting temperatures (°C) Mean max.: 24.8 Rainfall (mm) 21.8 24 June 2010 Date felled 2 771 d (7y;7m) Results Table 3: Treatment-related re-establishment operations and associated costs (R ha -1, rounded off to the nearest R10) for a Eucalyptus grandis re-establishment trial situated at Eston, KwaZulu-Natal. Costs are the total mean value associated with the different operations (2010 pricing), and will differ according to region and company. Re-establishment treatment Re-establishment dry plant water plant fert stock fert + stock aquasoil aquasoil operation 5 g 10 g Site preparation + + + + + + + Pre-plant spray + + + + + + + Mark and pit + + + + + + + Seedlings + + + + + + + Planting + + + + + + + Fertilisation - - + - + - - Water (1 L) - + + + + + + Stock_3 g - - - + + - - Aquasoil_5g - - - - - + - Aquasoil_10g - - - - - - + Total cost (R) 3540 3940 4890 4200 5150 4380 4810 ICFR Central Region Field Day © ICFR October 2012 Page | 6 Table 4: Ranking of treatments in terms of rotation-end tree performance (merchantable volume) and re-establishment input costs (R ha -1) in a Eucalyptus grandis trial situated at Eston, KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa). Re-establishment input costs as per Table 3 , which include costs from site preparation, up to and including planting. Treatment ranked according to level of significance at p < 0.05 for merchantable volume* a ab bc c Low water plant - - dry plant (< R4 000) Input costs Medium stock aquasoil 5 g - (Table 3) (R4 000 – R4 500) - High fert aquasoil 10 g - - (> R4 500) stock + fert * Merchantable volume (m 3 ha -1) determined on a hectare basis for underbark volume to a thin-end diameter of 5 cm. Conclusions • Planting without water or hydrogel gave the poorest survival and final merchantable volume. • Planting with water or Stockosorb ® 400K significantly improved survival. • Application of a granular fertiliser did not improve growth. • The use of Aquasoil TM gave inconsistent results and was not shown to be better than the treatments with granular fertiliser. • In terms of the best improvement at the lowest cost, the addition of 1 L of water into the planting pit (“puddle planting”) was shown to be the best method. • The use of Stockosorb ® 400K (or alternative hydrogel) is also a suitable option under adverse conditions, as supported by previous research (Viero, 2007; Viero and Button, 2007). References Viero PWM and Little KM. 2006. A comparison of different planting methods, including hydrogels, and their effect on eucalypt survival and initial growth in South Africa. Southern African Forestry Journal 208: 5-13. Viero PWM. 2007. Planting eucalypts using hydrogels. ICFR Technical Note 03/2007. Pietermaritzburg, Institute for Commercial Forestry Research. pp 1-4. Viero PWM and Button GA. 2007. Eucalypt re-establishment using water or hydrogels in comparison to dry planting for ten trials in South Africa.

Load more