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 ArticleArticles

Effects of Turfgrass and Mulch on The Establishment and Growth of Bare-Root Sugar Maples

Thomas L. Green and Gary W. Watson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 1989, 15 (11) 268-272; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1989.057
Thomas L. Green
Plant Pathologist and Root System Physiologist, The Morton Arboretum Lisle, Illinois 60532
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Gary W. Watson
Plant Pathologist and Root System Physiologist, The Morton Arboretum Lisle, Illinois 60532
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstracts

Listen

Bare-root, 5-6.25 cm (2-2.5 in) diameter Green Mountain sugar maples (Acer saccharum ‘Green Mountain’) were planted with one of four treatments: 1) lawn, 2) an 2.5 m (8 ft) circle of organic mulch on the soil surface, 3) soil tilled and lawn replaced, 4) soil tilled and similar mulch applied. Mulching resulted in significant Increases in diameter growth, crown development, and root development. Tilling had no effect. Landscape features around the trees, such as pavement, did have an effect on above-ground growth but not on root development. Mulching can enhance establishment of trees in a minimal maintenance landscape situation.

The benefits of organic mulch are well established. The beneficial effects on soil properties include moisture conservation, structure improvement, temperature moderation, and increased fertility when compared to bare soil (3, 5). The mulched soil environment is very similar to the soil environment found associated with natural forest leaf litter. This favorable soil environment, associated with the use of mulch in the landscape, results in increased top growth (4, 6) and root development (2, 11). Grass competition reduces the root development (11, 12). Reduction of top growth of woody plants is attributed to competition for soil nitrogen (1, 7) and water (3). Allelopathic properties of turfgrass have also been reported to reduce the growth of trees (9, 10).

Despite the well documented benefits of mulch and disadvantages of turfgrass around trees, lawns continue to dominate the urban landscape. Most urban soils in newly developed areas consist of a thin layer of topsoil with compacted, structureless, poorly drained, and poorly aerated subsoils. A relatively small turf-free mulched area around newly planted landscape trees could make a difference in their establishment and growth, particularly if the landscape situation does not allow for intensive maintenance.

Methods

Listen

Forty bare-root sugar maples (Acer saccharum ‘Green Mountain’) were planted in the fall of 1981. The planting hole was dug with a 1 m (36 in) diameter auger. The trees were 5-6.25 cm (2-2.5 in) diameter bare-root stock at the time of planting. They were planted in a typical parkway with compacted clay subsoil disturbed by construction activity, with approximately 5-7.5 cm (2-3 in) of topsoil. After planting, the planting hole circle was free of turf. Trees were planted in a single line 2.5 m (8 ft) from the curb. Little, if any, supplemental maintenance or watering was performed after planting.

The experimental design was a 2 × 2 factorial with four treatments. The forty trees were divided into 10 blocks of four trees, with one replication of each treatment in each block.

Treatments were: 1) Sod laid in the bare soil area to the base of the trunk (this treatment represents the “typical” urban landscape tree); 2) Five cm (2 in) each of composted leaves and wood chips applied to the soil surface to a distance of 1.2 m (4 ft) from the trunk; 3) soil tilled with a rototiller outside the planting hole and within a 1.2 m (4 ft) radius of the trunk with sod laid over the tilled area and the planting hole; 4) soil tilled as in treatment 3 and mulch applied as in treatment 2.

Final growth measurements were taken after the 1986 growing season. Diameter measurements were taken 15 cm (6 in) above the ground at the time of planting and again in 1986. Four root samples were taken from each tree in the form of a 7 cm (2.75 in) diameter, 15 cm (6 in) long core divided into three equal parts. Tree root densities were determined by measuring the surface area of fine roots (>3 mm [1/8 in] diameter) with a Delta-T Area Meter after removing the soil and grass roots. Crown development was compared by photographing the trees under standardized conditions and measuring the surface area of the tree silhouettes on photographic prints with the Delta-T Area Meter.

Statistical procedures were performed using the SOLO Statistical System Version 2.0. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to study the effect of treatments and blocks. Separation of means was by the Duncan’s Multiple Range procedure with significance at 5 percent (0.05).

Results and Discussion

Listen

Survival was good for all treatments. Five of the forty trees failed to establish, but treatment was not considered a factor in survival. Mulched trees were observed to be larger, greener, and less stressed (as judged by leaf scorch) than trees without the turf-free mulch circle. Crown development comparisons showed a signficant increase in size as a result of the mulch treatment (Figures 1 and 2, Table 1). Crowns of mulched trees were almost twice as large as unmulched trees. Tilling had no effect.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Typical trees from each treatment: A) Lawn over entire root zone; B) 2.5 m (8 ft) diameter mulched circle; C) 2.5 m (8 ft) diameter tilled area with turf replaced. D) 2.5 m (8 ft) diameter tilled area with mulch.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Comparison of lawn, mulch, and till treatments on crown development and caliper increase for four growing seasons. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at the 5 percent level.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

The effects of mulch, lawn, and tilling treatments on the growth of bare-root landscape trees.

Diameter increases were signficantly greater for mulched trees (Table 1, Figure 2). The diameter increase of the mulched trees was approximately three times that of the trees surrounded by turf. Tilling had no effect on diameter growth, whether associated with the mulch or turf treatments.

Though all trees were exposed on one side to the harsh environment caused by pavement, the environment on the opposite side varied. Those at the west end of the planting (block 1) had pavement on both sides. Those at the other end had a grassy area and trees on the opposite side, and the transition in between was gradual. Analysis of diameter increase and crown development by block reflects this gradual change in environment (Figure 3).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

The Influence of block (i.e. location and landscape features) on crown development and caliper increase. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at the 5 percent level.

Root development was influenced by turf or mulch treatment but not by tilling (Table 1, Figure 4). Mulch treatment root densities were significantly higher. In the natural forest environment fine root development is nearly always best near the soil surface and decreases with depth (8). The root density profile of the mulch treatment exhibits this natural pattern. Root development in the upper 5 cm of soil of the tilled and mulched plot was not as good. There is no clear reason why the initial tilling would have reduced root development. Root samples tend to be highly variable, especially in disturbed soils, and the unexpected low density is probably attributable to this variability.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Comparison of lawn, mulch, and till treatments on root density at three depths. Values with the same letter are not significantly different at the 5 percent level.

Turf nearly completely excluded tree roots in the top 5 cm (2 in) of soil, with as much as a 15-fold difference between the mulch and turf treatments. Root density differences between turf and mulch treatments were also significant at the 5-10 cm (2-4 in) and 10-15 cm (4-6 in) soil depths, though the contrast was not as extreme. It is clear that elimination of lawn and addition of mulch enhances root development and contributes to rapid recovery and vigorous growth of transplanted trees.

The effectiveness of the tilling treatment was disappointing. Though tilling probably reduced compaction and increased porosity temporarily, over time the structureless soil was not able to sustain these improvements. Even high-quality garden soils must be tilled regularly, and perhaps it is not surprising that a single tilling of this clay soil did not affect growth or root development. Incorporation of organic matter, or some other material, to improve aggregation may have produced better results.

There were no significant differences in root density attributed to blocks. The underground environment is resistant to rapid changes and would not be easily influenced by pavement and other above-ground factors. Disturbed soils along roads can be highly variable, but in this case the soil was apparently consistent and caused no differences in root development.

Conclusion

Listen

The negative effect of turf on tree growth has been well documented for forest trees and fruit trees. However, the landscape industry has been slower to respond to this knowledge. It is difficult to overcome the common expectations of landscapes with manicured lawns right up to the base of every tree. This presents a challenge to landscape designers to make attractive landscapes without grass around trees. Where plain mulch is not acceptable, plantings of shrubs and perennial groundcovers would be a less competitive alternative to lawns.

The mulch will also help prevent lawnmower injury, which is a most serious problem of newly planted trees. Mulch must be used correctly. Mulch piled up against the trunk can cause damage. Maintenance personnel will have to learn how to control weeds growing in the mulch, mechanically or chemically, without harming the landscape plants.

Acknowledgments

Listen

The authors would like to express their appreciation to the College of DuPage for allowing us to conduct the experiment on their property; and to Kerstin von der Heide-Spravka, Ann Holtz, and the many Morton Arboretum volunteers who assisted in setting up the experiment, as well as collecting and processing samples.

  • © 1989, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Fales, S.L. and
    2. R.C. Wakefield
    . 1981. Effects of turfgrass on the establishment of woody plants. Agron. J. 81:605–610.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Fraedrich, S.W. and
    2. D.L. Ham
    . 1982. Wood chip mulching around maples: Effect on tree growth and soil characteristics. J. Arboric. 8:85–89.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Harris, R.W.
    1983. Arboriculture: Care of Trees, Shrubs and Vines in the Landscape. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Hensley, David L.,
    2. Robert E. McNiel and
    3. Richard Sundheim
    . 1986. Management influences on growth of transplanted Magnolia grandiflora. J. Arboric. 14:204–207.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Jacks, G.V.,
    2. W.D. Brind and
    3. Robert Smith
    . 1955. Mulching. Commonwealth Bureau of Soil Science, Tech. Comm. No. 49.
  6. 6.↵
    1. Litzow, M. and
    2. H. Pellett
    . 1983. Influence of mulch materials on growth of green ash. J. Arboric. 9:7–11.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Neely, Dan
    . 1984. Grass competition for nitrogen around landscape trees. J. Environ. Hort. 2:86–88.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Perry, Thomas O.
    1978. Physiology and genetics of root-soil interactions on adverse sites. In: Proceedings of the Fifth North American Forest Biology Workshop, pp. 77–97.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Todhunter, M.N., and
    2. F. Chan
    . 1979. Effect of fescue on black walnut growth. Tree Planters Notes, Summer, 20–23.
  10. 10.↵
    1. Walters, D.T. and
    2. A.R. Gilmore
    . 1976. Allelopathic effects of fescue on the growth of sweetgum. J. Chem. Ecol. 2:469–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Watson, Gary W.
    1988. Organic mulch and grass competition influence tree root development. J. Arboric. 14:200–203.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Weaver, J.E. and
    2. P.J. Kramer
    . 1932. Root system of Quercus macrocarpa in relation to the invasion of prairie. Bot. Gaz. 94:51–85.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 15, Issue 11
November 1989
  • 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.
Effects of Turfgrass and Mulch on The Establishment and Growth of Bare-Root Sugar Maples
(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
Effects of Turfgrass and Mulch on The Establishment and Growth of Bare-Root Sugar Maples
Thomas L. Green, Gary W. Watson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1989, 15 (11) 268-272; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1989.057

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of Turfgrass and Mulch on The Establishment and Growth of Bare-Root Sugar Maples
Thomas L. Green, Gary W. Watson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1989, 15 (11) 268-272; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1989.057
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstracts
    • Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • 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

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Assessing Biodiversity Associated with Four Monumental Trees in Madrid Region (Spain)
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire