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

Field-Grow Fabric Containers do not Affect Transplant Survival or Establishment of Green Ash

Janet C. Cole and David L. Hensley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1994, 20 (2) 120-123; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1994.022
Janet C. Cole
Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 and Associate Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
David L. Hensley
Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078 and Associate Extension Specialist, Department of Horticulture, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Survival and growth of green ash (Fraxinus Pennsylvania) transplanted as balled and burlapped or from field-grow fabric containers (FGFC) filled with field soil alone or field soil amended with hydrophilic gel, peat, or slow-release fertilizer were studied for two years at two locations. Height and trunk caliper increases were not affected by treatment at either location. Canopy width, dry weights, and root numbers also did not differ among treatments when the study was terminated. Plants grown in FGFC had roots which tended to circle in a manner similar to container-grown trees.

Field-grow fabric containers (FGFC) provide an alternative to balled and burlapped plants for installation in landscape sites. Proponents of FGFC suggest that establishment may be faster after transplanting since about 80 percent of the root system is retained in the bag during production (10), compared to as little as 2 percent of the root system remaining after balling and burlapping (9). Physiologically, there is evidence that supports more rapid establishment and higher survival rates for plants produced in FGFC. Chong, et al, (2) noted that carbohydrate concentration was 7 percent higher in leaves of poplar trees (Populus sp.) grown in FGFC in container mix and in the roots which were inside the bag compared to trees grown without the FGFC in the same mix. The total sugar content of primary roots of live oak (Quercus virginiana) was also greater in FGFC- grown than in field-grown trees; however, the sugar content of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) roots was less in FGFC-grown plants than in those grown without fabric containers (6).

Similarities in root regeneration of plants in FGFC, compared to the same type grown without FGFC, appears highly species dependent. Some trees produced in FGFC regenerated roots at the same rate as those produced without FGFC (3). Gilman and Harris (4), however, showed greater root regeneration in FGFC-grown slash pine (Pinus elliotti) and leyland cypress (x Cupressocyparis leylandii) than in field-grown plants without fabric containers ten weeks after transplanting. The production method did not affect root regeneration or growth of laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) and other species.

The objective of this study was to determine whether post transplant establishment and shortterm growth (one and two years) of green ash is influenced by the production and harvest method.

Materials and Methods

Listen

Green ash trees were grown under nursery conditions for two years in 30 cm diameter by 30 cm deep FGFC (Root Control, Oklahoma City, OK) containing field soil or field soil amended with 25 percent (by volume) peat, 4.7 kg/m3 18 N-2.6 P-10 K slow release release fertilizer (Osmocote, Grace-Sierra, Milpitas, CA), 1.2 kg/m3 hydrophilic gel (Hydrosource, Western Polyacrylamide, Castle Rock, CO), peat + hydrophilic gel, peat + slow release fertilizer, or hydrophilic gel + fertilizer (5). The trees were harvested and transplanted into a Norge loam (fine-silty, mixed, thermic Udic Paleustolls) soil at the same site at Stillwater, OK or into a Haynie very fine sandy loam (coarse-silty, mixed calcareous, mesic typic Udifluvents Entisols) soil at Manhattan, KS. Root bags were removed at the time of transplanting. Control trees were grown without root restriction in the same field. The control trees were balled and burlapped with ball diameters of approximately 36 cm, as recommended by the American Association of Nurserymen (1), and transplanted with the burlap intact around the root ball. Plantings were completely randomized with eight treatments and eight replicates per site. Trees were planted at both sites on November 21,1990, and remained in the field for two growing seasons in Oklahoma and for one year in Kansas before harvesting.

The trees at both sites received overhead sprinkler irrigation as needed. The trees transplanted in Oklahoma were fertilized with 227 kg/ha N as urea (43-0-0) broadcast over the entire study area each spring, while plants in Kansas received 112 kg/ha N as ammonium nitrate (33-00) in bands in April. Weed control was accomplished through an annual application of (2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6 methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamide) (metolachlor) in Oklahoma or (3,5-dinitro-N4, N4-dipropyIsuIfa-nilamide)(oryzalin) in Kansas and periodic hand cultivation.

Plant heights and calipers at 30 cm above the soil surface were measured monthly during 1991 and three times during the growing season beginning in mid-April (bud break) and ending in October (leaf abscission) in Oklahoma. Trees in Kansas were measured at the time of planting and at harvest. Canopy width was measured at the widest point. Upon completion of the study, the Oklahoma plants were harvested with a 76-cm diameter tree spade (Vermeer TS30, Baltimore, MD). The root balls were power washed and small (< 1cm) and large (> 1 cm) diameter roots were counted. Leaves, stems, and roots were separated and oven dried at 45°C for seven days before weighing. Analysis of variance procedures and Tukey’s w Procedure (8) were used to determine differences among the treatments.

Results and Discussion

Listen

All transplanted trees survived in both locations. There was no difference in short-term post transplanting height orcaliperincrease, regardless of production or harvest treatment, at either location (Table 1). There were also no differences in canopy width, leaf, stem, or root dry weight, or number of large (> 1 cm) or small (< 1 cm) roots, regardless of production treatment, for plants transplanted in Oklahoma (Table 2). Although root numbers did not significantly differ among the treatments, roots of plants in the FGFC tended to circle similar to those produced in container nursery production (Figure 1).

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

Initial height (cm), height increase (cm), initial caliper and caliper increase of green ash during 1991 and 1992 in Oklahoma and Kansas.

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

Canopy width, leaf stem and root dry weight and number of small (< 1 cm) and large (> 1 cm) roots on green ash two years after transplanting from field grow fabric containers or balled and burlapped in Oklahoma.

Previous authors speculated that a large majority of the root system is lost when a tree is balled and burlapped(9). The extent of retained root system is proportional to ball size and age of the plant at transplanting. One supposed advantage of the FGFC is that most of the root system is retained during transplanting. A balled and burlapped tree, therefore, would place much of its photosynthetic energy into root regeneration immediately following transplanting, at the expense of plant height. This has been shown with transplanted holly (//ex sp.) (7). Therefore, a tree produced in a FGFC might establish and initiate stem growth more rapidly than a balled and burlapped tree. More rapid establishment has been attributed to higher concentrations of leaf and root carbohy-drates of plants grown in FGFC (2). Results of this study, however, do not support this premise. Growth rates of balled and burlapped trees during the first and second season after transplanting equaled the FGFC trees. Production in field bags with or without amendment with peat, gels, or fertilizer did nothing to enhance stem or caliper growth.

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

Root system from a balled and burlapped tree (A) and a tree grown in FGFC (B) showing circling of the root system in the FGFC. Both root systems were approximately 76 cm in diameter.

Short term growth rates after transplanting are indicative of “establishment,” that is, successful growth of roots into native soil and root function. There were no differences in number of roots, or any stem growth parameter resulting from production or harvest method (Figures 1A and 1B).

Further research is needed to demonstrate advantages of FGFC in the production of more difficult to transplant species; however, there appears to be no real benefit to using FGFC when producing easily transplantable materials such as green ash.

Footnotes

Listen
  • Approved for publication by the Director, Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station. This research was supported under project H-2436.

  • © 1994, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    American Association of Nurserymen. 1986. American Standard for Nursery Stock. American Association of Nurserymen. Washington, D.C.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Chong, C.,
    2. G.P. Lumis,
    3. R.A. Cline and
    4. H.J. Reissmann
    . 1987. Growth and chemical composition of Populus deltoides x nigra grown in field-grow fabric containers. J. Environ. Hort. 5: 45–48.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Fuller, D.F. and
    2. W.A. Meadows
    . 1988. Influences of production systems on root regeneration following transplanting of five woody ornamental species. Proc. Southern Nurserymen Assoc. Res. Conf. 32: 148–153.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Gilman, E.F. and
    2. J.R. Harris
    . 1991. Post-transplanting management effects on transplanting container-grown, field-grown and fabric container-grown trees. HortScience 26: 689.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Henderson-Cole, J.C. and
    2. D.L. Hensley
    . 1992. Influence of field-grown fabric containers and various soil amendment on the growth of green ash. J. Environ. Hort. 10: 218–221.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    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
  7. 7.↵
    1. Randolph, W.Sand
    2. S.C. Wiest
    . 1981. Relative importance of tactable factors affecting the establishment of transplanted holly. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 106: 207–210.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Steel, R.G.D. and
    2. J.H. Torrie
    . 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, kA Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  9. 9.↵
    1. Watson, G.W. and
    2. E.B. Himelick
    . 1982. Root distribution of nursery trees and its relationship to transplanting success. J. Arboric. 8: 225–229.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Whitcomb, C.E.
    1985. Innovations and the nursery industry. J. Environ. Hort. 3: 33–38.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 20, Issue 2
March 1994
  • 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.
Field-Grow Fabric Containers do not Affect Transplant Survival or Establishment of Green Ash
(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
Field-Grow Fabric Containers do not Affect Transplant Survival or Establishment of Green Ash
Janet C. Cole, David L. Hensley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1994, 20 (2) 120-123; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.022

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Field-Grow Fabric Containers do not Affect Transplant Survival or Establishment of Green Ash
Janet C. Cole, David L. Hensley
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1994, 20 (2) 120-123; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.022
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
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • 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

  • Urban Trees and Cooling: A Review of the Recent Literature (2018 to 2024)
  • Aerial Imagery as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Tree Retention: Applications, Strengths and Challenges for Backyard Tree Planting Programs
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire