Information from five surveys of slash pine ( Pinus ellioitti Engelm. ) and loblolly ( Pinus taeda L. ) pine plantations in East Texas between 1969 and 1987 indicated that infection rates for fusiform rust ( Cranatlium quercuum (Berle) Miyabe ex Shirai f. sp. fusiforme) have increased to about 50~ for slash pine and are continuing to increase for loblolly pine to current levels of 10- I 5:t

Hackett, Terry L.

Lenhart, J. David

SFA ScholarWorks

Stephen F. Austin State UniversitySFA ScholarWorksInformal Project Reports East Texas Pine Plantation Research Project2-1988Research Report No. 18, Fusiform RustOccurrence in East Texas Pine Plantations,1969-1987J. David LenhartArthur Temple College of Forestry and Agriculture, Stephen F. Austin State UniversityTerry L. HackettFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etpprp_project_reportsPart of the Forest Management CommonsTell us how this article helped you.This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the East Texas Pine Plantation Research Project at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been acceptedfor inclusion in Informal Project Reports by an authorized administrator of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contactcdsscholarworks@sfasu.edu.Recommended CitationLenhart, J. David and Hackett, Terry L., "Research Report No. 18, Fusiform Rust Occurrence in East Texas Pine Plantations,1969-1987" (1988). Informal Project Reports. Paper 56.http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/etpprp_project_reports/56FUSIFORM RUST OCCURRENCE IN EAST TEXAS PINE PLANTATIONS : 1969-87 by J. David Lenhart Terry L. Hackett REPORT NUMBER 18 TO PARTICIPATING COMPANIES IN THE EAST TEXAS PINE PLANTATION RESEARCH PROJECT A STUDY OF LOBLOLLY AND SLASH PINE PLANTATIONS II EAST TEXAS CENTER FOR APPLIED STUDIES SCHOOL OF FORESTRY STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY NACCX3D~HES,TEXAS 75962 This is the eighteenth in a continuing series of reports describing r~ult3 from the Eo:st Texo:s Pine Plontation R~ch Project. Subject and content of eoch ETPPRP report is regional in scope and of particular interest to lob lolly and slash pine plantation owners in East Texas. Any suooestions, icms or comments will always be welcomed. ********* Support from the participating companies ... Champion International Q>rporation, International Paper Q)mpany, Louisiana-Pocific Corporation and Temple-EasTex, Inc. is gratefully appreciated. ********* This report is based on work by J . David Lenhart , Professor and Mr. Terry L. Hockett , Stat1stic1an, Indian River International, N~hes, TX. Mr. Hockett received an MSF degree from SFASU in 1987. J. David Lenhart Project Director February 8, 1988 FUS I FORM RUST OCCURRENCE IN EAST TEXAS PINE PLANTATIONS: 1969-87 by J. David Lenhart School of Forestry, SFASU , ~hes, TX 75961 Terry L. Hockett 304 King Street, Nacorpx;hes, TX 75961 ABSTRACT. Information from five surveys of slash pine ( Pinus ellioitti Engelm. ) and lob lolly ( Pinus ID«il L. ) p1ne plantattons 1n East Texas between 1969 and 1987 1nd1cated that infection rates for fusiform rust ( CranBrlium quercuum (Berle) Miyabe ex Shirai f. sp. fusiforme) have increased to about 50~ for slash pine and are continuing to increese for lob lolly p1ne to current levels of 10- I 5:t. 2 INTRODUCTION As the planted stands of lob lolly and slash pines on non-old-fields (site-prepared land) in East Texas approach possible intermediate and final harvest, the occurrence of fusiform rust cankers may affect OOicisions on managing the plantations in an optimum manner. (',ompletion of the second measurement cycle for the East Texas Pine Plantation Research Project (ETPPRP) in 1987 has provided ErlJitional information on fusiform rust trends in East Texas. As a result, five fusiform rust surveys between 1969-1987 for lob lolly and slash pine stands in East Texas were included in the rust incirence 808lysis: 1. Mason and Griffin ( 1970) rescribed a 1969 survey of lob lolly and slash pine plantations throughout East Texas. The stulfy considered only stem infections. 2. A 1976 survey sampled natural and planted stands of lob lolly and planted stands of slash pine throughout Eest Texas ( Walterscheidt and Van Arsdale 1976). No infection differentiation by stem or branches was made in this stulfy. 3. loblolly and slash pine plantations in Southeast Texas (southern half of East Texas) were surveyed in 1980 by the Texas Forest Service ( 1982). Stem and branch infectlons were tall1ed separately. 4. Information from the completion of the first measurement cycle in 1984 of the ETPPRP permanent plots( Hunt and Lenhart 1985, 1986 ). Stem and brench infections were tallied separately. 5. In 1987, the second meesurement cycle of the ETPPRP plots was completed. Once (JJBin, stem and branch infections were tallied separately. Some of the mater ial in this report has been submitted to the Southern Journal of ~Plied Forestry for consireration for possible publication. 3 THE ETPPRP FUSIFORM RUST DATA When the ETPPRP permanent plots were remeasured for the first time during the summers of 1985-87, the occurrence of fusiform rust on each planted pine was recorred following the same format used during the 1982-84 initial measurement period: 1. Infected stem--Oell on stem or on a live branch within 12 in. of the stem. 2. Infected brench--Gall one live or deOO branch more than 12 in. from the stem. The requirement that a plantation hoo to be at least 5 years old for detecting fusform rust galls with confidence was also maintained. Since the initial me6Surement, meny 001itionel ETPPRP plots crossed the 5-yeer threshold. As a result, two data sets for eoch species were available for trend analysis: 1. For lob lolly pine, 71 of 79 original plots were still available for analysis and were remeasured for an oriainal cilta set, and 65 plots that came of~ were aiB1 to the original 71 for 136 plots es a combined data set. 2. For slash pine, all 38 original plots were still available for analysis and were remeasured for an original data set, and 28 plots that came of~ were !rlEd to the original 38 for 66 plots as a combined data set. 4 RUST I NCI DENCE Usfng fnformatlon from the romb1ned oota sets, Table I presents averf93 1nfect1on rates for the five survey pericxis. For both ~raphic areas, the occurrence of galls on slash pine stems has increased since 1969 until rust infections 6ppear to be currently stabilized at rates of 48-51 i . Since 1976, rust fnfections on slash pine stems 80d/or branches appears to be fairly constant with current rates of 52-54i. In rontrast, the occurrence of galls on lob lolly pine stems may be increasing. Current infection rates are 1 0- 1 2~. For East Texas, occurrence of galls on stems and/or branches is also Increasing to a current rate of 14i, while for the counties in Southeast Texas, the rate recreased for awhile then may be increasing aJBin to a current rate of 15i. Usfng infor mation from the oriainal data sets, Table 2 was compiled to show changes in rust incioonce for the same ETPPRP plots during a 3-year period. Over this relatively short period of time, a dramatic increase in the number of infected trees occurred. For eoch of the 8 catf!l1lries, the infection rates increased. For slash pine trees, three years ag.:> about 1 of every 2 trees hoo a gall, now almost 2 of every 3 trees has a gall. For lob lolly pine trees, over the three year period the 1nfection rates have increased by foctors of 1.5 to 5. s Table I . Average fusiform rust incidence in lobolly and slssh pine plantations by survey year and geogrnphic location in Texns. Survey year Species and rust location 1969 1976 1960 1964 1967 ......................................... " ........................................ . ................................................................... Easl Texasa ...... ........ ... ..................................... ........ . . Slash Stemb 6 46 46 Stem and/or branches 30 57 52 Loblolly Stemb Slam and/or branches 6 9 7 11 10 14 ............................................................... Southeast Texas .......................................................... .. Slash Slemb 19 32 47 5 1 Stem and/or branches 43 55 54 54 Loblolly Stemb Stem and/ or branches a Includes counties in Southeast Texas. b May or may not also have rust-infected branches . 6 8 18 3 9 12 15 Table 2 . Average changes In fusiform rust incidence over • t.hree- yur period for the origiHI 1984 survey plot.s. Survey year Species and rust location 1984 1987 Slash Slemb East Texasa Stem and/or branches Loblolly Stemb Stem and/or branches Slash Slemb Southeast Texas Slem and/or branches Loblolly Slemb Stem and/ or branches 46 57 7 11 47 54 3 9 a Includes counties in Southeast Texas. " ............. . 61 67 12 17 66 71 14 16 b Nay or may not also have rust-Infected branches. 6 7 LITERATURE CITED Hunt, E. V., Jr. and J . D. Lenhart. t 986. fusiform rust trends in East Texas. So. J. Appl. for. 10( 4):215-216. Hunt, E. V., Jr. 6nd J . D. Lenh6rl. 1985. Fusiform rust occurrence. School of Forestry. Sf ASU. ETPPRP Report No. 1. 16p. Mason, a. N. and J . K. Griffin. 1970. Evaluating the severity of fusiform rust in East Texas pine plantations. For. Farmer 29:8-9. Texas Forest Service. 1982. Texas forest pest octivitly 1980-1981 and Forest Pest Control Section Biennial Report. Publ. t 27: 17- 19. Walterscheidt, M. J. and E. P. Van Arsdale. 1976. Distribution of fusiform rust on slash and lob lolly pines in Texas. Plant Dis. Reporter 60:718-720. 

Research Report No. 18, Fusiform Rust Occurrence in East Texas Pine Plantations, 1969-1987

http://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=etpprp_project_reports

Research Report No. 18, Fusiform Rust Occurrence in East Texas Pine Plantations, 1969-1987

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SFA ScholarWorks