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

Effect of Backfill Amendment on Growth of Red Maple

Timothy J. Smalley and Carleton B. Wood
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1995, 21 (5) 247-250; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1995.040
Timothy J. Smalley
Assistant Professor and Graduate Student, Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Carleton B. Wood
Supported, in part, by an International Society of Arboriculture Research Trust Grant
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Balled-and-burlapped red maple (Acer rubrum) trees were planted in holes backfilled with 1) native soil, 2) 50:50 (v/v) aged pine bark: soil, 3) 50:50 (v/v) Mr. Natural Concentrated Landscape Media (CLM): soil, and 4) 100% CLM. The CLM is an improved, proprietary soil amendment composed of top soil, pine humus, granite sand, crushed granite, expanded shale, and composted poultry litter. The CLM: soil treatment increased fibrous root growth within the planting hole after five months but did not increase shoot growth. Aged pine bark induced nitrogen deficiency symptoms and reduced shoot growth during the first year. Shoot growth of the treatments did not differ after two years. The data support use of native soil in backfilling planting holes.

Many studies have demonstrated that amending backfill soil of a planting hole with organic matter does not increase survival percentages and growth of woody plants (1,2,4). However, amending the backfill soil is still recommended by garden centers and still practiced by some landscape firms and the Georgia Department of Transportation.

Since the late 1980s, after most of the current backfill research had been completed, new regional soil amendment products such as Nature’s Helper (Smith Trucking Company, Cumming, Ga.) and Mr. Natural™ Concentrated Landscape Media (CLM) (Mr. Natural, Dahlonega, Ga.) were developed. Supplier and industry anecdotes supported the use of these products, but no studies comparing these new products had been conducted. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of Nature’s Helper, Mr. Natural CLM, and native soil on the root and shoot growth of red maple (Acer rubrum).

Materials and Methods

Listen

Balled-and-burlapped clonal Acer rubrum trees [3 cm (1.2 in) caliper, 30 cm (1 ft) ball] were planted on 6 & 8 April 1992 into 60 cm diameter (2 ft) by 30 cm deep (1 ft) holes. The clonal trees had been tissue cultured from an A. rubrum ‘Autumn Flame’ seedling. The Cecil sandy loam (63.4% sand, 21.5% clay, 15.1% silt) planting-site soil was compacted before planting with a tractor to a bulk density of 1.72 g/cc. The soil is typical of that found at landscape sites in the piedmont area of the Southeast. Planting holes were dug with a tractor-powered auger, and the sides of the holes were scored by shovels to promote root growth out of the hole. The backfill area between the rootball and sides of the hole was filled with 1) native soil, 2) native soil and Nature’s Helper (50:50, v/v), 3) native soil and Mr. Natural CLM (50:50, v/v) and 4) 100% CLM. On 25 August 92, the pH (H2O) of the treatments were 1) 5.0, 2) 4.9, 3) 5.2 and 4) 5.4, respectively.

Nature’s Helper, an aged pine bark locally sold in Georgia, had a 95 C:1 N ratio at planting as determined by a CR-12 combustion system (Leco, St. Joseph, Mich.) and a modified Kjeldahl N analysis. Mr. Natural CLM is a locally produced, proprietary, fabricated soil amendment composed of pine humus, granite sand, crushed granite, expanded shale, and composted poultry litter. Unlike a typical organic amendment like pine bark, CLM contains a nitrogen source, composted poultry litter, and components that will not decompose over time: granite sand, crushed granite, and expanded shale.

The backfill mixtures were homogenized in a cement mixer before placing around the root balls. Two trees were planted per treatment in each of eight reps in a randomized complete block design. Trees were planted in east-west rows, 2 m (6 ft) spacing in the row and 3.1 m (10 ft) spacing between rows. Planting holes were mulched with 10 cm (4 in) of pine needles, and the trees were provided 2.5 cm (1 in) of irrigation water per week during the first year after planting as needed. Trees were not fertilized.

Calipers of all trees at 15 cm (6 in) above the ground were measured on 19 August 1992 and 1 Dec. 1993. The lengths of the three and five longest current season’s shoots in the upper third of the crown were measured on 25 August 92 and 1 Dec. 93, respectively. On 25 August 1992, trees in three reps were excavated and the diameter of the root system from the longest root in the eastern quadrant to the longest root in the western quadrant was determined. New root growth in the east and west quadrant outside the planting hole was excavated by hand and smaller roots were recovered from the soil by sieving. Roots were dried after separation into ≤2 mm (0.1 in) and > 2 mm size classes. Roots in the planting hole and outside the original root ball were sorted and dried similarly.

Results and Discussion

Listen

For all treatments, most of the root-system growth out of the hole was along the surface soil: mulch interface because of soil compaction. Roots that penetrated the sides of the planting hole were below the compacted upper layer, which was 5 to 7 cm (2 to 3 in) deep.This observed surface rooting supported the recommendation for disturbing as large an area as possible to promote root growth.

The root-system width of the bark-amended treatment was greater than that of the other treatments, but only significantly greater than the width of the native soil treatment (Table 1). Root length has been shown to increase as nitrogen levels decrease (3), and the plants in the bark treatment exhibited nitrogen deficiency symptoms. Microbial competition for soil nitrogen caused the nitrogen deficiency symptoms, as the microbes utilized nitrogen in degrading cellulose in bark wood fragments. The pine bark had been aged, but was not fully composted. Wood et al. (8) observed similar nitrogen deficiency symptoms and increased root diameter results in Viburnumplicatum var. tomentosum ‘Mariesil’ planted in bark-amended soil.

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

Effect of backfill amendment on root growth of Acer rubrum.

The CLM:soil treatment had the greatest amount of small roots (≤ 2 mm), though not significantly different from the CLM or native soil treatment (Table 1). No differences in larger roots (> 2 mm) inside the hole or in both root-size classes outside the hole existed (Table 1).

Schulte and Whitcomb (4) noted fewer secondary and fibrous roots in Acersaccharinumtrees grown in bark-amended backfill. Similarly, we discovered lower amounts of finer roots in bark-amended plants in this study (Table 1), providing more evidence to support existing research that root length extension is promoted over root branching in nitrogen deficient plants (3).

Results did not support Schulte and Whitcomb’s (4) observation that roots were restricted to holes amended with organic matter. Byrnes (reported in 7) observed this restricted root growth phenomenon in sandy soils in Florida. Roots may have remained in the backfill area because the organic matter (peat) increased the plant-available water in the sandy soil. Adding organic matter to the clay soils in our study would not have such an appreciable effect on available water (8).

Increased root growth (roots ≤ 2 mm) of the CLM: soil plants did not prompt an increase in shoot growth after one or two years (Table 2). Reduced shoot growth in the bark treatment was caused by nitrogen deficiency. Whitcomb and Schulte (4) also observed reduced Acer saccharinum shoot growth after bark backfill amending.They alleviated the symptoms and offset the growth reduction by adding fertilizer.

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

Effect of backfill amendment on growth of Acer rubrum.

Treatment shoot growths did not differ after two seasons. Shoot growth of green ash also was not affected by amendments after two seasons (5).

Poultry compost, a potential source of nitrogen, in the CLM did not promote increased shoot growth of the red maples (Table 2). Afteramending backfill with leaf compost, Watson et al. (6) observed increased shoot growth in Cotoneaster apiculata, but not in Juniperus chinensis ‘Pfitzeriana Compacta.’

No differences in caliper were observed in both growing seasons.

Conclusion

Listen

No advantage was observed in using backfill amendments for transplanting red maples. These results concur with previous similar studies (1,2,4, 5). Even a potentially superior backfill such as CLM did not improve plant growth. This study suggested that native soil, even on a compacted clay site, is a satisfactory backfill for Acer rubrum.

  • © 1995, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. 1.↵
    1. Corley, W.L.
    1984. Soil amendments at planting. J. Environ. Hort. 2:27–30.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Hummel, R.L. and
    2. C.R. Johnson
    . 1985. Amended backfills: Their cost and effect on transplant growth and survival. J. Environ. Hort. 3:76–79.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. McDonald, A.J.S.,
    2. T. Lohammar, and
    3. A. Ericsson
    . 1986. Uptake of carbon and nitrogen at decreased nutrient availability in small birch (Betula pendula Roth.) plants. Tree Physiol.:61–71.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Schulte, J.R. and
    2. C.E. Whitcomb
    . 1975. Effects of soil amendments and fertilizer levels on the establishment of silver maple. J. Arboric. 1:192–195.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Watson, G.W.,
    2. G. Kupkowski, and
    3. K.G. von der Heide-Spravka
    . 1992. Theeffectofbackfillsoiltextureandplanting hole shape on root regeneration of transplanted green ash. J. Arboric. 18:130–134.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Watson, G.W.,
    2. G. Kupkowski, and
    3. K.G. von der Heide-Spravka
    . 1993. Influence of backfill soil amendments on establishment of container-grown shrubs. HortTechnology 3:188–189.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.
    1. Whitcomb, C. E.
    1987. Establishment and Maintenance of Landscape Plants. Lacebark Publications, Stillwater, Okla.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wood, C.B.,
    2. T.J. Smalley,
    3. M. Rieger, and
    4. D. E. Radcliffe
    . 1994. Growth and drought tolerance of Viburnum plicatum var. tomentosum ‘Mariesii’ in pine bark-amended soil. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119:687–692.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 21, Issue 5
September 1995
  • 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.
Effect of Backfill Amendment on Growth of Red Maple
(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
Effect of Backfill Amendment on Growth of Red Maple
Timothy J. Smalley, Carleton B. Wood
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1995, 21 (5) 247-250; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1995.040

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effect of Backfill Amendment on Growth of Red Maple
Timothy J. Smalley, Carleton B. Wood
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1995, 21 (5) 247-250; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1995.040
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
    • Conclusion
    • 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
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire