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

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
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

Comparison of Trunk Injected and Soil Applied Macronutrients

E. Thomas Smiley, Bruce R. Fraedrich and Donald C. Booth
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) December 1991, 17 (12) 322-324; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1991.17.12.322
E. Thomas Smiley
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28278
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruce R. Fraedrich
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28278
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Donald C. Booth
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28278
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Macronutrients (N,P,K,) deficient willow oaks (Quercus phellos) grown in parking lot islands were fertilized by trunk or soil injection. Foliar nitrogen levels improved significantly in soil fertilized trees. Foliar color improved most in the soil fertilized trees and not at all in the controls.

Fertilization of shade trees is a common arboricultural practice which improves tree growth (5,6). In areas with limited space for root development, such as along streets, parking lots and sidewalks, many arborists contend that trunk injection of macronutrients is more effective than soil application. Trunk injections is effective for microelements (3,4) nevertheless, no experimental data have been published for macronutrient (N,P,K) deficiencies and, thus, it is viewed more skeptically (7). This study was conducted to determine if trunk injection is more effective than soil application of macronutrients in areas of limited root space.

Methods

Twenty five willow oaks (Quercus phellos)established in parking lot islands of the Springs Recreation Complex in Ft. Mill, South Carolina were exhibiting general chlorosis symptoms and had foliar nutrient levels lower than optimum thus were considered to be macronutrient deficient. Trees were paired for size and chlorosis rating prior to randomly assigning treatments. The trees had an average diameter (dbh) of 9.3 inches and average height of 37 feet. The turf area within the dripline not covered by pavement and available for soil fertilization ranged from 63 to 1118 square feet (17-100% of the area within the dripline). The average area available was 443 square feet and 63% of the dripline area.

A 0.4-0.6-0.6 (NPK) soluble fertilizer marketed as Mauget Stemix Hi-Vol (Table 1) was injected at the product labeled rate on July 18,1989 and April 24,1990. Leaves were fully expanded at the time of each treatment. Feeder tubes and capsules were applied within four inches of the soil line according to manufacturers instructions. A 28-9-9 suspension grade slow release fertilizer (Table 1) was injected eight inches below the soil surface in holes spaced three feet apart within the dripline on July 18, 1989. The application rate was equal to 5.6 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet. Only turf covered areas were fertilized, no adjustment was made for paved surface within the dripline. Control trees were not treated.

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

Analyses and rates of fertilizers used

Foliar samples were collected from the southside outer branches between 15 and 20 feet above the ground line on July 17 (pretreatment), September 21, 1989 and June 25, 1990. Foliar nutrient levels were analyzed by the Clemson University Plant and Soil Analysis Laboratory. Foliar color was rated for each tree independently by three observers before treatment, September 21,1989 and July 20,1990. Color ratings were: 1 - very chlorotic, 2-Moderately chlorotic, 3-slightly chlorotic, 4-light green, 5-dark green.

Results

Foliar nitrogen levels increased consistently in trees receiving soil applied fertilizer. Average nitrogen levels in both the stem injected treated and control trees decreased in 1989, but increased slightly in 1990 (Table 2). Only soil fertilized trees had nitrogen levels that increased significantly (P =.10) compared to the pretreatment levels.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Average percent foliar nutrient levels in willow oaks

There were no statistically significant improvements in phosphorus or potassium levels for either treatment.

Comparing each tree before and after treatment, the number of trees improving in color was highest in the soil fertilized trees; none of the control trees displayed a color improvement (Table 3). Typical improvement was one color class.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Number of willow oaks that improved in color rating

Rainfall was five inches above the 15 inch normal for the June-September 1989 period and six inches below normal for the same period in 1990.

Discussion

Trees with limited rooting area often lack essential elements, resulting in chlorosis and dieback. There has been controversy about which method of fertilization is most effective for these trees. In this trial, one soil application of a complete slow release fertilizer increased the foliar nitrogen level and improved color more than two applications of trunk injected macronutrients. Increases in nitrogen levels from soil fertilization may have been even greater if there had been more rain during the summer of 1990. Precipitation levels should not affect leaf assimulation of trunk injected nutrients.

The reason for good results with trunk injected micronutrients (3,4) and poor results with macronutrients has to do with the quantity of the nutrient injected and amount required by the tree. For example, a typical manganese (Mn) deficient red maple will have less than 30 ppm of manganese in the leaves (6) while a non-symptomatic tree may have 100 ppm. For a 10” dbh tree with 25 lbs. (10 kg) dry weight of leaves, it would require about 0.025 ounces (0.7 g) of manganese to increase this amount. Using 2% Mn solution in five 6 ml capsules, the added manganese would be nearly what is required.

Macronutrient deficient trees may start with 1.4% nitrogen and need to be raised to 2.0%. For the same 10” dbh tree 2.1 ounces of nitrogen (60 g) would be required to make this change. Using a 0.4% N Solution in five 6 ml capsules this tree would receive 0.005 ounces (0.12 g) of nitrogen, not enough to relieve the deficiency. To inject the entire 60 g of nitrogen, 2500 capsules would be required.

There are two ways to improve injection efficiency, by using higher nitrogen concentrations or by using higher volumes. With current soluble fertilizers, phytotoxicity is encountered long before the necessary concentration can be achieved with small volumes (i.e. 6 ml). A high volume, low concentration trunk injection may be a feasible alternative.

With soil applied nitrogen fertilizers, it is generally believed that 50-90% of the nitrogen is taken up by the plant (1). To achieve the uptake of 60 g N, application of up to 120 g may be required. At an application rate of 5.6 lbs. N/1000 sq. ft. (2440 g N/1000 sq. ft.) 49 sq. ft. or a 7 ft. x 7 ft. area would be required to take up the necessary nitrogen, assuming the very conservative 50% uptake rate.

Planting trees in no less than 100 sq ft. area with 3 feet of depth is the current standard recommendation (2). Using this 100 sq. ft. guideline, soil applied fertilizer should provide adequate nutrients especially if yearly applications are made. In areas with less than 50 square feet of soil surface, replacing large growing trees with smaller species may be the best management option. In these very small spaces water is usually more limiting than nutrients and lack of rooting space may lead to poor anchorage thus a potentially hazardous situation.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mike Simmons of Tree Inject Systems for providing Stemix Hi-Vol used in this experiment; Howard Knox for providing the trees; and Lynn Roberts, Gary Connor, Mary McKay-Swanson, Karen Warner and Walt Dages for technical assistance.

  • © 1991, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.↵
    Anonymous. Recovery of nitrogen from nitroform. Bui Al-107B. Hercules Agricultural Chemical Company, Wilmington, DE
  2. 2.↵
    1. Goldstein, J.,
    2. N. Bassuk,
    3. P. Lindsey and
    4. J. Urban
    . 1991. From the ground down. Landscape Architecture Jan:66–68.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Kielbaso, J. J. and
    2. K. Ottman
    . 1976. Manganese deficiencycontributing to maple decline. J. Arboric. 1:27–32
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Neely, Dan.
    1973. Pin oak chlorosis: trunk implantations correct iron deficiency. J. Forestry 71:340–342.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Neely, Dan.
    1980. Tree fertilization trials in Illinois. J. Arboric. 6:271–273.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Smiley, E.T.,
    2. J.B. Hart and
    3. J.J. Kielbaso
    . 1985. Foliar nutrient diagnosis of urban sugar and red maples in the great lakes region. J. Environ. Hort. 3:104–107.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Smith, E.
    1978. Fertilizing trees in the landscape: A six year evaluation. OARDC Res. Circ. 236:38–40.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 17, Issue 12
December 1991
  • 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.
Comparison of Trunk Injected and Soil Applied Macronutrients
(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
Comparison of Trunk Injected and Soil Applied Macronutrients
E. Thomas Smiley, Bruce R. Fraedrich, Donald C. Booth
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1991, 17 (12) 322-324; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1991.17.12.322

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of Trunk Injected and Soil Applied Macronutrients
E. Thomas Smiley, Bruce R. Fraedrich, Donald C. Booth
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Dec 1991, 17 (12) 322-324; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1991.17.12.322
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • 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

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire