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

Nursery Production Alternatives for Reduction or Elimination of Circling Tree Roots

Bonnie Lee Appleton
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 1993, 19 (6) 383-388; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1993.060
Bonnie Lee Appleton
Hampton Roads Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Tech, 1444 Diamond Springs Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23455
Roles: Extension Nursery Specialist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Tree roots that circle during nursery production have the potential, once planted in the landscape, to enlarge and become girdling roots that may stress or kill trees. Several nursery production alternatives have been developed to address this problem including in-ground fabric, rigid plastic, and “potin-pot” containers, and above-ground modified rigid plastic, “low-profile”, “soil sock” and copper-treated containers. Coating the interior wall of rigid containers (above and in-ground) with the root-regulating copper compound appears to be the most effective and economically justifiable alternative.

A problem receiving increased recognition as a stress factor or potential killer of trees is girdling roots. Girdling roots are becoming more apparent as arborists learn to perform root-crown excavations or root-collar inspections in an attempt to diagnosis tree decline.

Girdling roots -- roots that grow around tree stems and other roots -- may shorten a tree’s life span by constricting the vascular system and restricting water and nutrient movement, and by failing to adequately anchor trees (15,18,33). Girdling roots may start as roots that circle in rigid plastic production containers (Figure 1), as roots that circle in structurally restrictive planting holes or planting holes with glazed clay walls, or as new lateral roots that develop behind the ends of primary roots cut during field-grown nursery stock harvesting (31).

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

Circling roots that developed on a tree grown in a container.

A common planting recommendation relative to container-grown trees is mechanical disruption of the root ball by slicing through or cutting away any circling roots found when the Container is removed (12,15). The value of these practices is questionable, with limited and contradictory research conducted primarily using shrubs (7,29,35).

While landscape professionals might be expected to mechanically disrupt overgrown or “pot bound” root balls, it is unrealistic to assume that most homeowners would be alert to tree root abnormalities. To insure greater tree transplant success it therefore seems appropriate to reduce or eliminate circling root formation during nursery production.

In-ground Production Alternatives

Listen

Several in-ground alternatives to conventional field production of bareroot and B&B (balled-inburlap) trees have been developed, including inground fabric containers, in-ground plastic containers, and pot-in-pot. Though mainly developed for nursery production purposes - ease of harvest, increased root harvest, reduced tree blow over, provision of a better (moisture and temperature) soil-root environment - each of these methods can influence directional root development.

In-ground fabric containers.

In-ground fabric containers, or grow bags, are the oldest of several new hybrid field/container production options (24). Numerous comparative studies of these containers vs. conventional field or container production have been conducted, with some tree species responding better to in-ground fabric container production, while others responded poorly (13,14,16,17,19).

Though in-ground fabric containers usually prevent circling root formation, circling roots have been observed at the bottom of these containers (personal observation). To address this issue, and to make fabric container removal easier at planting, alternative fabrics and container designs have been developed (Figure 2). One new fabric has holes of a size designed to allow only small roots to penetrate for absorption of water and nutrients from the surrounding soil, but not to impede harvesting (Figure 3).

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

A variety of in-ground container fabrics, and the rigid, in-ground container (left).

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

Small roots growing through the in-ground fabric container with the specially designed holes.

In-ground plastic containers.

For two major reasons, nurserymen have traditionally been discouraged from trying to grow trees in single, nonporous, rigid, plastic containers sunk into the ground. First, drainage of excess precipitation or irrigation water is impeded by the types of drain holes in the containers, often resulting in waterlogged roots. Second, roots are unable to penetrate the containers, preventing them from exploring the soil around the containers for supplemental water and nutrients.

A new rigid plastic container has been developed, however, with rows of small holes around the container sides, and throughout the container bottom (Figure 4). Both of the above mentioned problems are minimized, and small roots, which should not impede harvest, can be found growing out through the holes and into the field soil. This container is very new, with no comparative tests thus far having been reported, but the potential for circling root formation appears minimal.

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

New in-ground rigid plastic container with small holes for excess water drainage and small root exploration.

Pot-in-pot.

A very different approach to tree growing is the new pot-in-pot system (25). An outer or sleeve pot is sunk into the ground, and a second pot, the actual production pot that is harvested with the tree, is inserted within and rests upon the lip of the sleeve pot. The production container often has vertical basal ribs (Figure 5), or may be copper-treated (see below), to reduce root circling.

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

The plant is harvested with and sold in the inner pot while the sleeve pot stays for additional production.

Above-ground Production Alternatives

Listen

Modified container designs.

A variety of approaches have been used to modify conventional straight, smooth-walled, rigid plastic containers to reduce or eliminate circling root formation. Design modifications include container wall ribs, holes, baffles and other root deflecting or pruning devices (Figure 6), use of non-rigid containers (poly bags), and use of porous-walled containers.

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

The low-profile container that can be constructed in a variety of widths.

The various wall modifications and the poly bags have significantly reduced circling root formation on many species of plants (1,2,30,33,34), although sometimes with conflicting results relative to shoot growth (22,33). Once planted to the landscape, the effectiveness of the modifications in enhancing new root generation has been found to be species specific (30).

A porous-walled container with pin-hole perforations randomly punctuating the container walls produced roots superior to those in nonporous smooth and nonporous ridged containers (23). Air-root pruning behind the perforations prevented circling root formation except where the plastic was denser and container air porosity was limited.

Low-profile container.

In the landscape, the bulk of a tœe’s roots are found in a shallow, broad layer just beneath the soil surface (32). In an attempt to grow nursery-produced trees with a root profile more nearly approximating that found in nature, a container with a lower height and increased width was developed (20,21) (Figure7).

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

The low-profile container produces a dense, shallow root mat that often can even be rolled up to harvest.

Roots of trees grown in bottomless low-profile containers do not circle, particularly at the base, because roots are air-pruned at the junction between the container wall and the surface beneath the container. Transplant reestablishment is very rapid due to the large number of roots tips that grow radially from the edge and bottom of the shallow root ball.

Soil sock containers.

A new above ground container, that combines wire baskets used to protect field-grown tree root balls with a porous foam-rubber liner, is called the “Soil Sock” (28) (Figure 8). While the liner insulates the roots against temperature extremes, it allows air penetration, thereby air-pruning the roots and preventing circling root formation (Figure 9). The container sits above ground for production, but is reported by the manufacturer to be entirely plantable.

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

The “Soil Sock” container combining a wire basket with a foam liner.

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Air-pruned roots inside a “Soil Sock.” absorbed by the root tips from the carrier. The copper acts as a growth regulator, inhibiting root tip growth and stimulating branching. The manufacturer claims that root tips are not killed by the copper as they are with air-pruning.

Copper-coated containers.

One final strategy for the reduction or elimination of circling root formation is the use of rigid plastic containers with copper-coated interior walls (26) (Figure 10). Applied to the walls in a carrier, the copper is absorbed by the root tips from the carrier. The copper acts as a growth regulator, inhibiting root tip growth and stimulating branching. The manufacturer claims that root tips are not killed by the copper as they are with air-pruning.

Figure 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 10.

Containers painted with a root-inhibiting copper compound (Spin OutTM).

The effectiveness of the copper has been demonstrated on a large number of trees and shrubs (4,5,6,8,9,10,11,26,27). Results range from virtually no visible roots on the outside of root balls, to roots whose tendency to circle is stopped after one to two inches of growth (Figure 11). No impairment of root growth out into the surrounding soil has been reported for trees and shrubs after copper-coated container removal and field transplanting.

Figure 11.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 11.

Left - no tree roots on the outside of a root ball from a copper-coated container; Right - roots on the outside of a root ball from an untreated container.

The only containers thus far developed with copper incorporated into the container walls are fiber (peat/paper) containers. These containers were very effective at preventing root ball matting on azaleas (3), but thus far no reports have been published relative to their effect on tree roots.

Significance to the arboricultural industry

Listen

Arborists who have seen tree decline or death which they feel is partially or totally attributable to girdling roots should be aware that nursery alternatives exist that may reduce or eliminate the formation of circling roots during production. Whenever possible arborists should supply information about these new production alternatives to landscape designers, architects, contractors and engineers who write tree planting specifications. They should suggest that the spec writers consider requiring that trees be grown using one of these nursery production alternatives.

Sources of Nursery Production Alternatives.

Listen

In-ground fabric containers

  • Lacebark Inc., PO Box 2383, Stillwater, OK 74076; (405) 377-3539

    Root Control Inc., 7505 N. Broadway, Oklahoma City, OK 83116; (405) 848-2302

In-ground plastic containers

  • Rootmaker Grounder - Lacebark

  • Pot-in-Pot

    Lerio Corp., Mobile, AL; (800) 457-8112

    Nursery Supplies, 250 Canal Road, Fairless Hills,

    PA 19030; (215) 736-3641

Modified containers

  • Lerio, Nursery Supplies, others

Low-profile Container

  • Dr. Dan Milbocker, Hampton Roads Ag. Expt.Station, 1444 Diamond Springs Rd., Va. Beach, VA 23455; (804) 363-3909

    The Accelerator - Hold Em, Inc., 1283 Ranchette Rd., West Palm Beach, FL 33415; (407) 6837608

Soil Sock Container

  • BetterBilt Products, PO Box 559, Addison, IL 60101 (800) 544-4550

    Thomas’ Nursery, Rt. 2, Box 180A, Enterprise, MS 39330(601)659-9259

Copper coating

  • Spin Out™ - Griffin Corp., PO Box 1847, Valdosta, GA 31603-1847; (800) 237-1854

  • © 1993, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    Anonymous. 1991. Container designed to aid plant’s root development. Nursery Manager 7:22, 24.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Appleton, B.L.
    1989. Evaluation of nursery container designs for minimization or prevention of root circling. J. Environ. Hort. 7:59–61.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Appleton, B.L. and
    2. A. Salzman
    . 1993. Root modification of container-grown azaleas using Spin Out™. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 38:ln press.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Arnold, M.A.
    1992. Timing, acclimation period, and cupric hydroxide concentration alter growth responses of the Ohio production system. J. Environ. Hort. 10(2):114–117.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Arnold, M.A. and
    2. E. Young
    . 1991. CuCO3-painted container and root pruning affect apple and green ash root growth and cytokinin levels. HortScience 26(3):242–244.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Beeson, R.C. and
    2. R. Newton
    . 1992. Shoot and root responses of eighteen southeastern woody landscape species grown in cupric hydroxide-treated containers.Ĵ.Envimn. Hort. 10(4):214–217.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Blessing, S.C. and
    2. M.N. Dana
    . 1987. Post-transplant root system expansion in Juniperus chinensis L. as influenced by production system, mechanical root disruption and soil type. J. Environ. Hort. 5:155–158.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Case, G.N. and
    2. M.A. Arnold
    . 1992. Cupric hydroxide-treated containers decrease pot-binding of five species of vigorously rooted greenhouse crops. Proc. SNA Research Conf. 37:94–98
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Flanagan, P.C. and
    2. W.T. Witte
    . 1991. Effects of chemical root pruning on root regeneration and cellular structure of viburnum root tips. Proc. SNA Research Conf. 36:46–49.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Flanagan, P.C. and
    2. W.T. Witte
    . 1991. Development of a growth curve model for root regeneration of chemically root pruned viburnum. Proc. SNA Research Conf. 36:99–101.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Flanagan, P.C. and
    2. W.T. Witte
    . 1992. Root regeneration of sawtooth oak after chemical root pruning. HortScience 27:1166–1167. (Abstract)
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Flemer, W.
    1982. Successful transplanting is easy. Amer. Nurseryman 145:43–55.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Fuller, D.L. and
    2. W.A. Meadows
    . 1987. Root and top growth response of five woody ornamental species to fabric Field -Grow™ containers, bed height and trickle irrigation. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 32:148–153.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Fuller, D.L. and
    2. W.A. Meadows
    . 1988. Influence of production systems on root regeneration following transplanting of five woody ornamental species. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 33:120–125.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gouin, F.R.
    1984. Updating landscape specifications. J. Environ. Hort. 2:98–101.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Harris, J.R. and
    2. E.F. Gilman
    . 1991. Production method affects growth and root regeneration of Leyland cypress, laurel oak and slash pine. J. Arboric. 17:64–69.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    1. Harris, J.R. and
    2. E.F. Gilman
    . 1993. Production method affects growth and post-transplant establishment of ‘East Palatka’holly. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 188:194–200.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Holmes, F.W.
    1984. Effects on maples of prolonged exposure by artificial girdling roots. J. Arboric. 10:40–44.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Ingram, D.L.,
    2. U. Yadav, and
    3. C.A. Neal
    . 1987. Production system comparisons for selected woody plants in Florida. HortScience 22:1285–1287.
    OpenUrl
  20. 20.↵
    1. Milbocker, D.C.
    1987. Growing trees in low profile containers. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 32:127–128.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Milbocker, D.C.
    1991. Low-profile containers for nursery - grown trees. HortScience 26:261–263.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Neuman, S. and
    2. W. Follet
    . 1987. Effects of container design on growth of Quercus laurifolia Michx. Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bui. 12:7.
    OpenUrl
  23. 23.↵
    1. Privett, D.W. and
    2. R.L. Hummel
    . 1992. Root and shoot growth of ‘Coral Beauty’ cotoneaster and Leyland cypress produced in porous and nonporous containers. J. Environ. Hort. 10:133–136.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    1. Reiger, R. and
    2. C.E. Whitcomb
    . 1982. A system for improving root development and ease of digging field grown trees. Okla. Ag. Expt. Sta. Res. Report P-829:10–13.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Roberts, D.R.
    1993. How pot-in-pot systems save time, money. Nursery Manager 9:46, 48,50.
    OpenUrl
  26. 26.↵
    1. Struve, D.K. and
    2. T. Rhodus
    . 1990. Turning copper into gold. Amer. Nurs. 172:114–125.
    OpenUrl
  27. 27.↵
    1. Svenson, S.E. and
    2. D.L. Johnston
    . 1992. Faster growth of Radermachera sinica after transplanting from copper-treated liners. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 37:100–101.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.↵
    1. Tilt, K.
    1992. Growing solutions. Amer. Nurs. 176:62–65.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    1. Wade, G.L. and
    2. G.E. Smith
    . 1985. Effect of root disturbance on establishment of container grown Ilex crenata ‘Compacta’in the landscape. Proc. SNA Res. Conf. 30:110111
    OpenUrl
  30. 30.↵
    1. Warren, S.L. and
    2. F.A. Blazich
    . 1991. Influence of container design on root circling, top growth, and post - transplant root growth of selected landscape species. J. Environ. Hort. 9:141–144.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Watson, G.W.,
    2. S. Clark, and
    3. K. Johnson
    . 1990. Formation of girdling roots. J. Arboric. 16:197–202.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Watson, G.W. and
    2. E.B. Himelick
    . 1982. Root distribution of nursery trees and its relationship to transplanting success. J. Arboric. 8:225–228.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Whitcomb, C.E.
    1984. Container design: Problems and progress, pp 107–130. In Plant production in containers. Lacebark Publications, Stillwater, OK.
  34. 34.↵
    1. Whitcomb, C.E., and
    2. J.D. Williams
    . 1985. Stair-step container for improved root growth. HortScience 20:66–67.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Wright, R.D. and
    2. D.C. Milbocker
    . 1978. The influence of container media and transplanting technique on the establishment of container grown Rhododendron cv. Hershey Redin landscape plantings. SNA Nursery Res. J. 5(2): 1–7.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 19, Issue 6
November 1993
  • 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.
Nursery Production Alternatives for Reduction or Elimination of Circling Tree Roots
(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
Nursery Production Alternatives for Reduction or Elimination of Circling Tree Roots
Bonnie Lee Appleton
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1993, 19 (6) 383-388; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1993.060

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nursery Production Alternatives for Reduction or Elimination of Circling Tree Roots
Bonnie Lee Appleton
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1993, 19 (6) 383-388; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1993.060
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • In-ground Production Alternatives
    • Above-ground Production Alternatives
    • Significance to the arboricultural industry
    • Sources of Nursery Production Alternatives.
    • 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