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

Species Differ in Responses to Tree Shelters

Henry D. Gerhold
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1999, 25 (2) 76-80; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1999.011
Henry D. Gerhold
Professor of Forest Genetics, School of Forest Resources, Penn State University, 109 Ferguson Building, University Park, PA 16802
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Effects of tree shelters on height, caliper, and diameter at breast height of 11 landscape tree species and cultivars were investigated in 2 nurseries during a 4-year period; the ratio of height to caliper was calculated as an indicator of trunk sturdiness. Species differed greatly in their responses, ranging in the fourth year from none to 44% and 55% height increases of Magnolia ‘Merrill’ and M. stellata accompanied by 18% and 14% caliper increases. Acer griseum, Carpinus caroliniana, Cercis canadensis, Cornus ‘Celestial’ and ‘Constellation’, Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanzan’, and P. subhirtella autumnalis exhibited more modest height increases, but also caliper decreases, compared to controls without shelters. Malus ‘Adirondack’ and Syringa reticulata ‘Summer Snow’ did not benefit. Two shelter sizes and severe winter weather also affected the results of some varieties.

Key Words
  • Landscape trees
  • nursery
  • tree shelters
  • accelerated growth

Tree shelters may be able to accelerate the growth of certain species that are compatible with overhead utility lines. If their slow growth and branching habit could be improved, the limited number of species suitable for planting under wires could be amplified. A previous article (Witmer et al. 1997) discussed the growth responses of 14 species and cultivars grown in tree shelters for 1 or 2 years in 2 nurseries. Two years later, the trees nearly had attained marketable sizes, so that final results of the experiments can be reported now.

Other studies of tree shelters in nursery environments have been conducted in California (Burger et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1996; Burger et al. 1997). The most common use of tree shelters has been in forest conditions (Brissette 1995), but they also have been employed in urban situations (Jones et al. 1995).

Materials And Methods

Listen

The earlier report on the 2 experiments (Witmer et al. 1997) described materials and methods completely, so only the main features are repeated here.

Trees in Experiment 1 were planted in May 1994 at Root’s Nursery in southeastern Pennsylvania, located in USDA Hardiness Zone 6. Seven species and cultivars were planted in 6-tree plots, replicated in 3 randomized complete blocks. Tubex® tree shelters 8 to 11 cm (3.1 to 4.5 in.) in diameter and 1.5 m (5 ft) in height were placed over 3 trees in a subplot; the other 3 trees served as controls. After the second growing season, shelters were removed from 2 trees in each subplot and from the remaining tree after the third season.

Trees in Experiment 2 were planted in April and May 1995 at Nittany Trees nursery in central Pennsylvania, near the border of USDA Hardiness Zones 5 and 6. Nine species or cultivars were planted in 9-tree plots, replicated in 3 randomized complete blocks. Two sizes of Tree Pro Sr.® Tree Protectors were used, 9 cm (3.5 in.) and 18 cm (7 in.) in diameter, both 1.5 m (5 ft) in height; each size was placed over 3 trees in a subplot, leaving 3 trees as controls. Shelters were removed after the second or third growing season, as they had been at Root’s Nursery.

Trees were measured every year after summer growth was complete: total height, caliper at 15 cm (6 in.) above ground, and diameter at 137 cm (4.5 ft). An indicator of trunk sturdiness was calculated by dividing caliper by height.

Analyses of variance were conducted in which blocks, tree varieties, and shelter treatments within varieties were the main sources of variation. Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test was used to separate means at the 0.05 significance level.

Results

Listen

Statistically significant differences were detected among varieties and among tree shelter treatments nested within varieties (Table 1). These occurred in all years in measurements of height, caliper, and diameter at breast height. Blocks and interactions of blocks with varieties and treatments had much smaller effects, which were nonsignificant in most cases.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1. Results of analyses of variance in height, caliper, and diameter at breast height at Root’s Nursery and Nittany Trees Nursery.

Three species suffered severe dieback and mortality presumably due to low winter temperatures: Acer capillipes (24 of 30 trees died), Acer davidii (all 30 trees died), and Carpinus japonica (7 trees in shelters died and 9 trees in shelters had dieback, whereas 9 control trees were healthy). Therefore, these species were excluded from the analyses.

Trees that remained in shelters for 3 growing seasons had similar dimensions as those sheltered only 2 years. Accordingly, these 2 groups were treated as one in the analyses.

Heights of most varieties within 9-cm (3.5-in.) shelters increased greatly by the end of the second year but only moderately in the case of Malus ‘Adirondack’ (Table 2). The heights were even greater in the 18-cm (7-in.) shelters, except for the 2 Prunus varieties. At the end of the second growing season, most trees had emerged from the tops of the shelters. In subsequent years, the height advantages became smaller. Beneficial effects on heights of the 2 magnolias at Root’s Nursery and Carpinus caroliniana in the larger shelters at Nittany Trees were especially dramatic, and the height advantage persisted after removal of the shelters. Acer griseum and Cercis canadensis also retained a height advantage after the fourth growing season.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2. Heights of trees (feet) grown for the first 2 years at Root’s Nursery in 9-cm (3.5-in.) shelters and at Nittany Trees in 9- and 18-cm (3.5- and 7-in.) shelters, compared to trees grown all 4 years without shelters (percentage of control).

Harsh winters presumably caused some dieback in 1996 or 1997 at Nittany Trees. Practically all of the affected trees were within shelters: 4 of 9 Carpinus trees in each of the shelter sizes, 8 of 9 Magnolia trees in each of the shelter sizes, 3 of 9 Cornus ‘Celestial’ trees in small shelters, and 2 of 9 Cornus ‘Constellation’ trees in small shelters.

The caliper growth of trees in shelters was greatly depressed by the end of the second growing season in most cases (Table 3). The 2 magnolias were an exception at both nurseries, even though their height growth as a percentage of the control exceeded all other species. In the fourth year at Root’s Nursery, the magnolias were the only varieties for which the calipers of sheltered trees were greater than for the controls. At Nittany Trees, the dieback of sheltered trees, to the ground in many cases, reduced calipers substantially.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3. Calipers of trees (inches) grown the first 2 years at Root’s Nursery in 9-cm (3.5-in.) shelters and at Nittany Trees in 9- and 18-cm (3.5- and 7-in.) shelters, compared to trees grown all 4 years without shelters (percentage of control).

The sturdiness indicator of trees within shelters, expressed as caliper of the trunk divided by height, was reduced the most at the end of the second growing season (Table 4). After the tops of trees emerged from shelters and they were removed, sturdiness improved but was still inferior to the controls. The one exception, Malus ‘Adirondack’, had a higher sturdiness value because its height was depressed by shelters proportionally more than its caliper. The reduction in sturdiness was not a severe problem, but a few trees tended to bend over and were fastened to the stakes that were left in place after shelters were removed. The 18-cm (7-in.) shelters caused less of a reduction in sturdiness than the 9-cm (3.5-in.) shelters.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4. Sturdiness (caliper/height) of trees grown for the first 2 years at Root’s Nursery in 9-cm (3.5-in.) shelters and at Nittany Trees in 9- and 18-cm (3.5- and 7-in.) shelters, compared to trees grown all 4 years without shelters (percentage of control).

The shelters required little maintenance after they were installed shortly after planting. A few of them were bent over by a wet, heavy snowfall because their wooden stakes were defective. Branches inside the shelters remained relatively small. They could be pruned quickly when shelters were taken off. The plastic shelters appeared to deteriorate very little, and could be reused.

Discussion

Listen

Tree shelters were found to be useful in the nursery production of some species but not others. The heights of Magnolia ‘Merrill’ and Magnolia stełlata in shelters were about half again as tall as the controls, and their calipers were also somewhat greater. This size advantage occurred in USDA Hardiness Zone 6, but near the edge of Zone 5 it was nullified by dieback after severe winters. The modest height increases of Acer griseum, Cercis canadensis, Cornus ‘Celestial’, and Cornus ‘Constellation’ in shelters were offset by decreases in caliper and sturdiness; growing them in shelters appears to be advantageous mainly if they are to be sold before they attain 2.5 cm (1-in.) in caliper. The same may apply to Carpinus caroliniana in 18-cm (7-in.) shelters, but not the 9-cm (3.5-in.) size. Prunus serrulata ‘Kwanzan’ and Prunus subhirtella autumnalis can attain 2.5 cm (1 in.) in caliper and 2.7 m (9 ft) in height in 2 seasons inside 18-cm shelters, but after the third season there may be little advantage. Malus ‘Adirondack’ and Syringa ‘Summer Snow’ grew somewhat faster inside shelters for 2 seasons, but the height advantage disappeared afterwards, and caliper growth was inferior at all times.

The 18-cm shelters resulted in superior height and caliper growth compared to the 9-cm shelters and exhibited only minor differences in sturdiness values. In evaluating shelter size, the greater costs for materials and installation of the larger ones should be considered in relation to their biological benefits.

Additional benefits of shelters may apply in some situations. Where wildlife problems occur, shelters protect against deer browsing and rubbing their antlers, and also against bark gnawing by mice and voles. Furthermore, pruning can be deferred for 2 years and thus reduce costs and perhaps alleviate the scheduling of labor.

The results of these 2 experiments are consistent with other studies (Burger et al. 1992; Burger et al. 1996; Burger et al. 1997), although the other 2 studies were conducted with different species in a Mediterranean-type climate. Species differed in their responses to shelters. Generally they were taller than controls initially, and caliper growth was reduced. Root growth also was decreased in 1 study (Burger et al. 1997) and can be anticipated in other cases in which calipers are reduced.

Conclusions

Listen

The utility of tree shelters in the nursery production of smaller types of landscape trees depends on ascertaining biological effects, which then must be evaluated for economic and other practical benefits. The magnitude of height increases and caliper decreases that generally are caused before trees emerge from shelters can differ greatly among species. Tree shelter sizes and variable climatic conditions such as harsh winters also play a role.

Nurseries that may want to use tree shelters to accelerate height growth or protect against wildlife damage should investigate their effectiveness on particular varieties grown under local conditions over a period of at least 4 years. Generally the greatest increases in height and decreases in caliper occur in the first 2 years, after which shelters should be removed. After that time, height advantages decline and caliper growth recovers.

The most encouraging results were obtained with magnolias in a warmer portion of Hardiness Zone 5. Acer griseum, Carpinus caroliniana, Cercis canadensis, and Cornus kousa × florida hybrids also showed some promise. The faster growing Prunus serrulata and P. subhirtella varieties appeared to benefit only marginally. Malus and Syringa reticulata, each represented by only 1 cultivar, grew better without shelters.

  • © 1999, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Brissette, J.C.
    (Ed.). 1995. Proceedings of the tree shelter conference. USDA Gen. Tech. Report NE-221, 80 pp.
  2. ↵
    1. Burger, D.W,
    2. G.W Forister, and
    3. R. Gross
    . 1997. Short-and long-term effects of treeshelters on the root and stem growth of ornamental trees. J. Arboric. 23(2):49–56.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Burger, D.W,
    2. G.W. Forister, and
    3. EA. Kiehl
    . 1996. Height, caliper growth, and biomass response of ten shade tree species to treeshelters. J. Arboric. 22(4):161–166.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Burger, D.W.,
    2. P. Švihra, and
    3. R. Harris
    . 1992. Treeshelter use in producing container-grown trees. HortScience 27(1):30–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Jones, R.H.,
    2. A.H. Chappelka, and
    3. D.H. West
    . 1995. Use of plastic shelters for low-cost establishment of street trees. South. J. Appl. For. 20(2):85–89.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Witmer, R.K.,
    2. H.D. Gerhold, and
    3. E.R. Ulrich
    . 1997. Tree shelters accelerate slow-growing species in nurseries. J. Arboric. 23(1):40–48.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 25, Issue 2
March 1999
  • 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.
Species Differ in Responses to Tree Shelters
(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
Species Differ in Responses to Tree Shelters
Henry D. Gerhold
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1999, 25 (2) 76-80; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1999.011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Species Differ in Responses to Tree Shelters
Henry D. Gerhold
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1999, 25 (2) 76-80; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1999.011
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
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • 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
  • Identifying Essential Selection Criteria and Program Components to Improve Hawai‘i’s Exceptional Tree Program Based on Expert Consensus
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Landscape trees
  • nursery
  • tree shelters
  • accelerated growth

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire