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

Mycorrhizae of Landscape Trees Produced in Raised Beds and Containers

David Sylvia, Abid Alagely, Donald Kent and Roy Mecklenburg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 1998, 24 (6) 308-315; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1998.24.6.308
David Sylvia
1Soil and Water Science Department University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0290
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Abid Alagely
2Soil and Water Science Department University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0290
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Donald Kent
3Walt Disney Imagineering Research and Development, Inc., Box 1403, Cambridge MA 02142-0010
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Roy Mecklenburg
4Disney Animal Kingdom Landscape, Walt Disney World, Co., Inc., Lake Buena Vista, FL 32810
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mycorrhizal associations provide a linkage between tree roots and the soil, thereby contributing to the tolerance of trees to environmental stresses. Little, however, is known about the mycorrhizal status or dependency of many landscape trees. The objective of this study was to quantify mycorrhizal root colonization and spore formation on a diverse collection of ornamental tree species grown in raised beds or containers at an established tree farm in central Florida. In addition, root diameters were measured to determine if there was a relationship between this parameter and mycorrhizal formation. A total of 23 tree species were sampled; 9 were present both in containers and raised beds, 6 species were present in containers only, and 8 species were present as embedded plants only. The proportion of root length colonized by mycorrhizal fungi ranged from 0% to 83%. Mean arbuscular mycorrhizal spore numbers ranged from <20 to nearly 500 spores 100 g–1 (3.5 oz–1). Mean root diameters ranged from < 500 to > 1,000 pm (0.0197 to 0.0394 in.). No relationship was found between root coarseness and mycorrhizal root colonization or sporulation. The majority of trees formed mycorrhizae of the arbuscular type. Five species in the family Pinaceae or Fagaceae had the potential to form ectomycorrhizae; however, they were poorly colonized. Future research should be directed toward understanding the importance of mycorrhizae to landscape trees, including effects on tree survival and growth and the effect of fertilizer and pesticide applications on mycorrhizal development.

Under natural conditions, the fine roots of woody plants are colonized by mycorrhizal fungi (Brundrett 1991; Haselwandter and Bowen 1996). The resulting symbiotic associations provide a critical linkage between tree roots and the soil. Mycorrhizae are characterized by the movement of plant-produced carbon compounds to the fungus and fungal-acquired nutrients to the tree. Mycorrhizae usually produce a proliferation of fungal biomass both in the root and in the soil (Read 1992). The soilborne, or extramatrical, hyphae take up nutrients from the soil solution and transport them to the root (George et al. 1992). By this mechanism, mycorrhizae increase the effective absorptive surface area of a tree (O’Keefe and Sylvia 1991). As a result, mycorrhizal trees may have better establishment and greater tolerance of environmental stresses than nonmycorrhizal trees (Sylvia and Williams 1992). For example, Garbaye and Churin (1996) found that ectomycorrhizal (EM) inoculation improved growth of Tilia tomentosa in an urban setting, and Johnson et al. (1980) reported that arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) inoculation improved growth of several woody ornamentals even under high-fertility conditions.

Disturbances (e.g., mining, tillage, and construction activity) and certain cultural practices (e.g., high fertilization and pesticide use) may greatly reduce the number of mycorrhizal propagules in soil (Doerr et al. 1984; Thompson 1987; Johnson and Pfleger 1992; McGonigle and Miller 1993). Low propagule numbers may result in poor mycorrhizal development on plants and subsequent poor growth of mycorrhizal-dependent plant species placed in the landscape. Baylis (1975) first proposed that coarse-rooted plants are more dependent on mycorrhizae for nutrient uptake than are fine-rooted plants. Pope et al. (1983) confirmed this hypothesis in 4 hardwood tree species, finding that plant root fibrosity was inversely related to mycorrhizal dependency.

Trees are usually colonized by either arbuscular mycorrhizae, ectomycorrhizae, or in a few cases by both types of mycorrhizae (Haselwandter and Bowen 1996). However, little is known about the mycorrhizal status or dependency of many important landscape trees. Landscape trees are often grown in a nursery under high fertility and water conditions and subsequently transplanted to disturbed sites. The purpose of our study was to determine the extent of mycorrhizal development (root colonization and sporulation) on selected trees grown in containers and raised beds at an established tree farm in central Florida. In addition, we evaluated root coarseness (as indicated by root diameter) as a predictor of mycorrhizal development.

Materials and Methods

Sample collection

A total of 23 tree species were sampled between May 3 and June 8,1996, from an established tree farm at Walt Disney World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida (Table 1). The majority of the trees were of exotic origin, with only Magnolia grandiflora, Persea borbonia, and the 3 Quercus species being native to central Florida. Nine species were sampled from plants grown both in containers and raised beds, 6 species were sampled from containers only, and the remaining 8 species were sampled from embedded plants only. Five trees were sampled from each tree species in each growth environment where it occurred.

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

Landscape trees and growth environment (container or raised bed) sampled from an established tree farm at Walt Disney World between May 3 and June 8,1996.

Containers (60 cm high and 70 cm in diameter, or 24×28 in.) were constructed of perforated and corrugated aluminum sheets formed into cylinders and secured with 2 sheet metal screws. Containers were placed on pieces of woven plastic cloth (to provide drainage and restrict root growth into soil) and filled with a blend of approximately 35% sandy topsoil, 35% green pine bark, and 30% biosolids compost. Five-gallon-size trees were purchased from commercial nurseries and transplanted into the containers a minimum of 2 years prior to sampling. Containers were irrigated daily with a spray stake emitter.

Trees grown in the ground were on raised beds (30 cm [12 in.] high) in a sandy soil that was topdressed annually with approximately 5 cm (2 in.) of biosolids compost. Trees were planted as either 5- or 10-gallon-size plants and had been grown in the raised beds for a minimum of 2 years prior to sampling. Embedded trees were irrigated daily by overhead irrigation.

The same fertilizer regime was used for trees grown in containers and in raised beds. Fertility was maintained by the application of 10-5-10 granular fertilizer (2.5% ammoniacal N, 3.51% soluble organic N, 3.99% water-insoluble N, 1.51% Mg, and 1.55% Fe) at the rate of 0.97 kg N 100 m–2 (2 Ib 1,000 ft–2) for each of 3 applications made each year during February, June, and September. The fertilizer was broadcast on the top of the containers or placed in a 1.8-m-wide (6-ft) band adjacent to embedded trees.

Samples were collected by driving a sharpened steel pipe (4.5 cm in diameter, or 1.8 in.) to a depth of 25 cm (9.8 in.). Two samples were collected within each container or, for trees grown in raised beds, around the dripline of each tree. Samples were placed in plastic bags and kept cool until they were returned to the laboratory, where they were stored at 4°C (39°F). In the laboratory, the 2 samples from each tree were combined and mixed thoroughly before a 100-g (3.5-oz) subsample was removed for further processing. Roots and spores of AM fungi were extracted from the subsample by decanting and wet sieving (sieve size ranged from 45 to 1,000 μm, or 0.002 to 0.039 in.), followed by sucrose-density-gradient centrifugation for separation of spores (Sylvia 1994).

Clearing and staining protocols

Roots collected on the 1,000-μm (0.039-in.) sieve were cleared in 1.8 M KOH for 1 hour at 80°C (176°F) and washed in 3 changes of water. Roots of woody plants are often difficult to clear because they contain high levels of phenolic materials; therefore, 2 additional protocols subsequent to KOH treatment were evaluated on one sample from each plant species: 1) 30% H2O2 for 10 minutes at 50°C (122°F) and 2) 3% NaOCI, acidified with several drops of 5 M HCI, for 50 seconds at ambient temperature. Following clearing, roots were washed in 5 changes of water, acidified with HCI, and then stained with trypan blue for 30 minutes at 80°C (176°F) (Sylvia 1994). Clearing with NaOCI proved most satisfactory and was used for the preparation of the remainder of the samples.

Mycorrhizal root colonization, root diameter, and AM spore number

Cleared roots were spread evenly on a scribed, plastic Petri dish and total and colonized root lengths were estimated with a dissecting microscope using the gridline-intersect method (Giovannetti and Mosse 1980). Intersections were scored positive for AM only if arbuscules or vesicles were present, and positive for EM only if evidence of a fungal mantle or Hartig net was observed. Any questionable fungal structures within the roots were evaluated at 400× magnification with a compound microscope. To quantify fine-root diameters, 10 randomly collected root pieces of each species were mounted in water on a microscope slide and measured at 400× magnification with an eyepiece micrometer. The supernatant of the final centrifuge wash was placed in a scribed Petri dish, and AM spores were counted under a dissecting microscope. Again, any questionable structures were further evaluated at 400× magnification.

Results

Mycorrhizal root colonization

The proportion of root length colonized by mycorrhizal fungi ranged from 0% for Cinnamomum camphora (in containers), Ulmus parvifolia, and 2 Quercus species, to 83% for Bambusa ventricosa growing in raised beds (Figure 1A, Table 2, and Table 3). The growth environment did not have a consistent effect on root colonization (Figure 1A).

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

Mycorrhizal root colonization (A), AM spore number (B), and root diameter (C) of landscape trees samples both in containers and raised beds at Walt Disney World on May 3 or June 8,1996. Bars represent the mean of 5 replicates ± S.E.M.

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

Mycorrhizal root colonization, AM spore numbers, and fine root diameters of landscape trees sampled in containers only at Walt Disney World between May 3 and June 8, 1996. Values represent the mean of 5 replicates ± S.E.M.

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

Mycorrhizal root colonization, AM spore numbers, and fine root diameters of landscape trees sampled in raised beds only at Walt Disney World between May 3 and June 8, 1996. Values represent the mean of 5 replicates ± S.E.M.

The majority of trees sampled formed mycorrhizae of the arbuscular type. We did, however, sample 5 species that are in plant families dominated by ectomycorrhizae. Quercus laurifolia and Q. virginiana were not colonized (Table 3). Quercus myrisinifolia (Table 2) and Cedrus deodara (Table 3) had low levels of colonization, and the colonized regions had distinct mantles of an ectomycorrhiza. In contrast, Taxodium mucronatum was colonized by AM fungi in both containers and in raised beds.

AM spore number

Spores of AM fungi were present in all samples, but mean numbers ranged from < 20 to nearly 500 spores 100 g–1 (3.5 oz–1) (Figure 1B, Table 2, and Table 3). More than 75% of the spores observed were Glomus spp., with the remainder belonging to the family Gigasporineae. Samples from containers tended to have more spores (146 ±75 spores 100 g–1,or 3.5 oz–1) than samples from the raised beds (76 ± 24 spores 100 g–1, or 3.5 oz–1).

Fine root diameter

Mean root diameters ranged from < 500 μm (0.019 in.) for Ulmus parvifolia, Bambusa spp., and Gordonia lasianthus to > 1,000 μm (0.039 in.) for Quercus virginiana, Robinia idahoensis, and Taxodium mucronatum (Figure 1C, Table 2, and Table 3). When comparing plants growing in both environments, samples from the raised beds had greater root diameters (914 ± 97 μm, or 0.036 ± 0.004 in.) than samples from containers (684 ± 65 μm, or 0.027 ± 0.003 in.). No significant relationship was found between root coarseness and root colonization or AM sporulation.

Discussion

The sampled trees differed widely in the proportion of root length colonized by mycorrhizal fungi and associated AM sporulation. Because the trees were grown under similar conditions within growth environments, these data suggest some host control on mycorrhizal interactions (Graham and Eissenstat 1994). However, other factors such as variable inoculum density may have also contributed to differing levels of root colonization. For example, the trees were originally obtained from several different nurseries and likely had different exposures to mycorrhizal inoculum prior to their establishment at the tree farm.

The one host parameter we measured, root coarseness (as indicated by root diameter), was not a good predictor of mycorrhizal colonization or sporulation. However, one should not conclude that root coarseness is not related to mycorrhizal function because the absolute amount of colonization may not be directly related to nutrient uptake efficiency or other measures of functionality (Jakobsen 1994). Nonetheless, even though we do not expect to find a direct relationship between root colonization and mycorrhizal function, main-taining some “critical level” of colonization is important for obtaining a mycorrhizal response. Many factors affect the function of mycorrhizae in the field, so a definitive critical level cannot be given. Future research, however, should be directed toward defining a minimum level of inoculum and root colonization that is required to achieve a desired mycorrhizal response.

The ectomycorrhizal hosts were especially low in colonization. Cultural practices may have a negative impact on ectomycorrhizal development. Relatively low AM spore numbers (overall mean of approximately 1 spore g–1, or 0.035 oz–1) also suggest that cultural practices are impairing function of AM fungi in the tree farm. High rates of fertilization with inorganic nutrients and pesticides are known to inhibit mycorrhizal development (Nemec 1987). Use of less readily available fertilizers such as rock phosphate (Graham and Timmer 1985; Asmah 1995) and careful selection of compatible pesticides (Trappe et al. 1984; Moorman 1989) should be considered to achieve optimal mycorrhizal development.

Where root colonization is very low or absent, inoculation with a compatible fungus may be beneficial. Even in situations where root colonization is higher, inoculation may still be appropriate. It is important to distinguish infectiveness (amount of colonization) and effectiveness (plant response to colonization). Mycorrhizal fungi differ widely in the level of colonization they produce in a root system as well as in their impact on nutrient uptake and plant growth (Burgess et al. 1993; Mcarthur and Knowles 1993; Sylvia et al. 1993; Newsham et al. 1995). High nutrient levels may actually provide a selective pressure for ineffective fungi (Johnson 1993), resulting in colonization but no subsequent benefit to the host. Therefore, screening trials are a necessary prerequisite for recommending inoculation of trees with specific mycorrhizal fungi.

To effectively manage mycorrhizae for the benefit of landscape trees, arborists need to understand the 1) extent and diversity of mycorrhizal fungi associated with their plants, 2) mycorrhizal responsiveness of different trees species, and 3) impact of various cultural practices on mycorrhizal function. In this study, we addressed only the first concern. Further research is needed to understand the importance of mycorrhizae to landscape trees including effects on tree survival and growth, and the effect of fertilizer and pesticide applications on mycorrhizal development.

Acknowledgements

Published as Florida Agricultural Experimental Station Journal Series No. R-6043. Partial support for this project was obtained from Walt Disney Imagineering Research and Development, Inc.

  • © 1998, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. Asmah, A.E.
    1995. Effect of phosphorus source and rate of application on VAM fungal infection and growth of maize (Zea mays L). Mycorrhiza 5: 223–228.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Sanders, F.E.,
    2. B. Mosse, and
    3. P.B. Tinker
    1. Baylis, G.T.
    1975. The magnolioid mycorrhiza and mycotrophy in root systems derived from it, pp 373–389. In Sanders, F.E., B. Mosse, and P.B. Tinker (Eds.). Endomycorrhizas. Academic Press, New York, NY.
  3. ↵
    1. Begon, M.,
    2. A.H. Fitter, and
    3. A. MacFadyen
    1. Brundrett, M.C.
    1991. Mycorrhizas in natural ecosystems, pp 171–213. In Begon, M., A.H. Fitter, and A. MacFadyen (Eds.). Advances in Ecological Research vol. 21. Academic Press, New York, NY.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Burgess, T.I.,
    2. N. Malajczuk, and
    3. T.S. Grove
    . 1993. The ability of 16 ectomycorrhizal fungi to increase growth and phosphorus uptake of Eucalyptus globulus Labill. and E. diversicolor F.-Muell. Plant Soil 153:155–164.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Doerr, T.B.,
    2. E.F. Redente, and
    3. F.B. Reeve
    . 1984. Effects of soil disturbance on plant succession and levels of mycorrhizal fungi in a sagebrush-grassland community. J. Range Manage. 37:135–139.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Garbaye, J., and
    2. J.L. Chruin
    . 1996. Effects of ectomycorrhizal inoculation at planting on growth and foliage quality of Tilia tomentosa. J. Arboric. 22:29–34.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Read, D.J.,
    2. D.H. Lewis,
    3. A.H. Fitter, and
    4. I. J. Alexander
    1. George, E.,
    2. K.U. Häussler,
    3. S.K. Kothari,
    4. X.-L. Li, and
    5. H. Marschner
    . 1992. Contribution of mycorrhizal hyphae to nutrient and water uptake of plants, pp 43–47. In Read, D.J., D.H. Lewis, A.H. Fitter, and I. J. Alexander (Eds.). Mycorrhizas in Ecosystems. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
  8. ↵
    1. Giovannetti, M., and
    2. B. Mosse
    . 1980. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol. 84: 489–500.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Graham, J.H., and
    2. D.M. Eissenstat
    . 1994. Host genotype and the formation and function of VA mycorrhizae. Plant Soil 159:179–185.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Graham, J.H., and
    2. L.W. Timmer
    . 1985. Rock phosphate as a source of phosphorus for vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal development and growth of citrus in a soilless medium. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 110:489–492.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Haselwandter, K., and
    2. G.D. Bowen
    . 1996. Mycorrhizal relations in trees for agroforestry and land rehabilitation. Forest Ecol. Manage. 81:1–17.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Jakobsen, I.
    1994. Research approaches to study the functioning of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizas in the field. Plant Soil 159:141–147.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Johnson, C.R.,
    2. J.N. Joiner, and
    3. C.E. Crews
    . 1980. Effects of N, K, and Mg on growth and leaf nutrient composition of three container grown woody ornamentals inoculated with mycorrhizae. J. Amer, Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:286–288.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Johnson, N.C.
    1993. Can fertilization of soil select less mutualistic mycorrhizae? Ecol. Appl. 3:749–757.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Bethlenfalvay, G.J. and
    2. R.G. Linderman
    1. Johnson, N.C., and
    2. F.L. Pfleger
    . 1992. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae and cultural stresses, pp 71–100. In Bethlenfalvay, G.J. and R.G. Linderman (Eds.). Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl.
  16. ↵
    1. Mcarthur, D.A.J., and
    2. N.R. Knowles
    . 1993. Influence of species of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus nutrition on growth, development, and mineral nutrition of potato (Solanum tuberosum L). Plant Physiol. 102:771–782.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. McGonigle, T.P., and
    2. M.H. Miller
    . 1993. Responses of mycorrhizae and shoot phosphorus of maize to the frequency and timing of soil disturbance. Mycorrhiza 4:63–68.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Moorman, T.B.
    1989. A review of pesticide effects on microorganisms and microbial processes related to soil fertility. J. Prod. Agric. 2:14–23.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Safir, G.R.
    1. Nemec, S.
    1987. VA mycorrhizae in horticultural systems, pp 193–211. In Safir, G.R. (Ed.). Ecophysiology of VA Mycorrhizal Plants. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  20. ↵
    1. Newsham, K.K.,
    2. A.H. Fitter, and
    3. A.R. Watkinson
    . 1995. Multi-functionality and biodiversity in arbuscular mycorrhizas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:407–411.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Arora, D.K.,
    2. B. Rai,
    3. K.G. Mukerji, and
    4. G.R. Knudsen
    1. O’Keefe, D.M., and
    2. D.M. Sylvia
    . 1991. Mechanisms of the vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal plantgrowth response, pp 35–53. In Arora, D.K., B. Rai, K.G. Mukerji, and G.R. Knudsen (Eds.). Handbook of Applied Mycology. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
  22. ↵
    1. Pope, P.E.,
    2. W.R. Chaney,
    3. J.D. Rhodes, and
    4. S.H. Woodhead
    . 1983. The mycorrhizal dependency of four hardwood tree species. Can. J. Bot. 61: 412–417.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Allen, M.
    1. Read, D.J.
    1992. The mycorrhizal mycelium, pp 102–133. In Allen, M. (Ed.). Mycorrhizal functioning. Chapman Hall, New York, NY.
  24. ↵
    1. Weaver, R.W., et al
    1. Sylvia, D.M.
    1994. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi, pp 351–378. In Weaver, R.W., et al. (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2.
  25. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wl.
  26. ↵
    1. Linderman, R.G., and
    2. G.J. Bethlenfalvay
    1. Sylvia, D.M., and
    2. S.E. Williams
    . 1992. Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae and environmental stress, pp 101–124. In Linderman, R.G., and G.J. Bethlenfalvay (Eds.). Mycorrhizae in Sustainable Agriculture. Special Publication No. 54. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl.
  27. ↵
    1. Sylvia, D.M.,
    2. D.O. Wilson,
    3. J.H. Graham,
    4. J.J. Maddox,
    5. P.P. Millner,
    6. J.B. Morton,
    7. H.D. Skipper,
    8. S.F. Wright, and
    9. A.G. Jarstfer
    . 1993. Evaluation of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in diverse plants and soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 25:705–713.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Thompson, J.P.
    1987. Decline of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizae in long fallow disorder of field crops and its expression in phosphorus deficiency of sunflower. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 38:847–867.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. Trappe, J.M.,
    2. R. Molina, and
    3. M.A. Castellano
    . 1984. Reactions of mycorrhizal fungi and mycorrhizal formation to pesticides. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 22:331–359.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 24, Issue 6
November 1998
  • 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.
Mycorrhizae of Landscape Trees Produced in Raised Beds and Containers
(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
Mycorrhizae of Landscape Trees Produced in Raised Beds and Containers
David Sylvia, Abid Alagely, Donald Kent, Roy Mecklenburg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1998, 24 (6) 308-315; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1998.24.6.308

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Mycorrhizae of Landscape Trees Produced in Raised Beds and Containers
David Sylvia, Abid Alagely, Donald Kent, Roy Mecklenburg
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1998, 24 (6) 308-315; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1998.24.6.308
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
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • 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