Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Abstract

International Society of Arboriculture
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1975, 1 (9) 180; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1975.1.09.180a
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Hoitink, H. A. J., A. F. Schmitthenner, and L. J. Herr. 1975. Composted bark for control of root rot in ornamentals. Ohio Report 60(2); 25-26. (OARDC, Wooster).

Several attractive advantages are associated with composted bark growing media. A changeover from peat to composted bark could result in: 1) utilization of all available hardwood bark and subsequent elimination of environmental pollution caused by huge bark piles; 2) reduction of landscape destruction in peat bogs; 3) lower fuel consumption for production of ornamentals, and possibly other crops; 4) reduction, and for some crops elimination, of the need for soil fungicides and hazardous fumigants; 5) production of healthier plants for use in the landscape; and 6) reduction in production costs of some plants because of more rapid growth leading to shorter production cycles and reduced plant losses due to disease.

  • © 1975, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 1, Issue 9
September 1975
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abstract
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1975, 1 (9) 180; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1975.1.09.180a

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1975, 1 (9) 180; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1975.1.09.180a
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Correction
  • Efficacy of Bacillus Thuringiensis and Diflubenzuron on Douglas-Fir and Oak for Gypsy Moth Control in Oregon
  • Effect Of Trunk Injection Of Flurprimidol And Paclobutrazol On Sprout Growth In Silver Maple
Show more Article

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire