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

Mulching of Ornamental Trees: Effects on Growth and Physiology

Francesco Ferrini, Alessio Fini, Piero Frangi and Gabriele Amoroso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2008, 34 (3) 157-162; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2008.021
Francesco Ferrini
Francesco Ferrini (corresponding author), Dipartimento di Ortoflorofrutticoltura, viale delle Idee 30, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), 50019 Italy,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Alessio Fini
Alessio Fini, Dipartimento di Ortoflorofrutticoltura, viale delle Idee 30, Sesto Fiorentino (FI), 50019 Italy,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Piero Frangi
Piero Frangi, Fondazione Minoprio, Centro Mirt, viale Raimondi 54, Vertemate con Minoprio (CO), 22070 Italy,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Gabriele Amoroso
Gabriele Amoroso, Fondazione Minoprio, Centro Mirt, viale Raimondi 54, Vertemate con Minoprio (CO), 22070 Italy,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Listen

Two organic mulching materials applied to newly planted Tilia × europaea and Aesculus × carnea trees were evaluated for effects on tree growth and physiology. Both mulches were efficient in maintaining a cleared area around newly planted trees, although pine bark was more durable than coarse compost from mixed green material. Trees mulched with compost generally had greater height, trunk diameter, and current-year shoot growth. Differences were more evident in the first year in Aesculus and in the second year in Tilia. Mulching with compost increased carbon assimilation of linden leaves in 2005 when compared with pine bark and chemical weeding. Both mulching materials increased transpiration of horsechestnut in 2005. Little effect on gas exchange was found in 2006 in both species. However, because mulched trees were larger with longer shoots, whole plant leaf gas exchange was probably greater. Mulching had very limited effects on chlorophyll fluorescence. Results of this project have shown that mulching materials applied around trees after planting can positively affect tree growth without significantly affecting tree physiology.

Key Words
  • Aesculus × carnea
  • chlorophyll fluorescence
  • compost
  • leaf gas exchange
  • mulching
  • pine bark
  • Tilia × europaea

A key to success for new tree planting both in open-field nurseries and in the urban environment is the protection of young plants from noncrop plant species (including some hardwoods, shrubs, grasses, and forbs). These fast-growing plants often kill or greatly suppress desired trees by competing with them for light, water, and nutrients needed to grow. As a result, nurserymen, arborists, and urban forest managers generally use herbicides to suppress noncrop vegetation.

However, the European Union’s Fifth Environmental Action Program (5EAP) set out a series of targets for the year 2000, including “the significant reduction in pesticide use per unit of land under production, and the conversion to methods of integrated pest control.”

As a consequence, to protect young trees, environmentally sound, effective, cost-efficient, and socially acceptable techniques for managing noncrop vegetation are needed.

In this scenario, we focused on the need for environmentally friendly establishment and low-cost management methods of the urban green areas. Mulching and its skilled use can contribute to such a development by improving organic matter content in the soils and by affecting other soil characteristics (Harris et al. 2004).

Even if mulching is a worldwide practice in urban green areas and different materials can be used for this purpose (mainly shredded wood, chipped woods, pine bark, and, above all, composted materials) (Rakow 1989), little research has been done in Italy to determine the effectiveness of this practice.

Positive effects after organic mulch application have been obtained by previous research, which has shown beneficial effects on soil physical and chemical properties (Fraedrich and Ham 1982; Litzow and Pellett 1983; Watson 1988; Appleton et al. 1990; Himelick and Watson 1990; Smith and Rakow 1992; Iles and Dosmann 1999; Tiquina et al. 2007; Dahiya et al. 2007) and on plant growth and physiology (Watson 1988; Green and Watson 1989; Appleton et al. 1990; Himelick and Watson 1990). Also, the invertebrate diversity can be positively affected by mulching (Jordan and Jones 2007). However, sometimes the results from mulching are variable being affected by the different environmental conditions and by the different tree species (Whitcomb 1979; Iles and Dosmann 1999). Moreover, if the quality of the mulching materials supplied by the producers is not satisfactory, tree performances can be affected in a negative way. This can be related either to its quality or to its misuse, i.e., adding too much material, which can negatively affect soil oxygen content (Gilman and Grabosky 2004; Hanslin et al. 2005), although Watson and Kupkowski (1991) found no detrimental effect from the application of 0.45 m (1.5 ft) of wood chip mulch over the soil in which the roots of trees were growing. The application of bark mulch can sometimes decrease growth in the first year, but the effect on plant growth is positive when examined in the long term (Samyn and de Vos 2002). This can be caused by a temporary nitrogen depression until the microorganisms are able to decompose a sufficient amount of organic material to provide the needed nitrogen (Craul 1992).

Composted materials need to be well characterized for nutrient values, stability, and other properties for the support of tree growth and effect against weeds. In a review of the use of composts for mulching and soil amendments, Sæbø and Ferrini (2006) suggest designing the composts to fit the specific effects that are wanted. For example, composts for mulching should consist of layers of compost of different particle sizes so that both nutrients can be supplied and weeds are not given good germination conditions.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of mulching materials and their possible influence on growth and physiology of two shade tree species widely grown in the urban environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Listen

Plant Material

In 2004, before bud break, uniform, 2.5 to 3 m tall (8.3 to 9.9 ft), 3 to 4 cm (1.2 to 1.6 in) in diameter (measured at 1.3 m [4.3 ft] height), balled and burlapped (size of the root ball was approximately 30 cm [12 in] in diameter) Aesculus × carnea (red horsechestnut) and Tilia × europaea (european linden) trees were planted in an experimental plot located at the Fondazione Minoprio (Como) (45°44′N, 9°04′E). Planting holes were two times the width and one-and-a-half times the depth of the root ball to ensure a greater volume of loose soil within the planting hole. The sides of the planting pit were scarified with a shovel. Before planting, some soil mixed with peat (50% in volume) was placed at the bottom of the planting hole. At planting, care was taken that the root flare was not positioned below the soil level. All trees with almost identical size characteristics were obtained from the same nursery and planted at the same time.

Trees were planted in a randomized block design with three blocks and four plants per block (12 plants per each treatment, 36 plants per species) and provided supplemental irrigation. Treatments included:

  • Mulching with coarse compost derived from green material left after sifting (coarse compost) (layer 5 to 8 cm [2 to 3 in]);

  • Mulching with pine bark (layer 5 to 8 cm [2 to 3 in]); and

  • Control (weeding by herbicide).

In 2004, no data were collected with the exception of plant height and trunk diameter at the end of the growing season. In 2005 and 2006, the following parameters were measured:

  • 1) Plant height and trunk diameter (determined on each plant at the end of each growing season; plant diameter was also measured in 2007);

  • 2) Shoot length (determined on 20 shoots/plant at the end of the growing season; shoot length was also measured in 2007);

  • 3) Leaf gas exchange (instantaneous net photosynthesis [Pn], transpiration rate [E], water use efficiency [WUE, calculated by dividing Pn by E], stomatal conductance [gs], and internal CO2 concentration [ci]; measured eight times in 2005 and five times in 2006); and

  • 4) Chlorophyll fluorescence (measured four times in 2005 and three times in 2006).

Leaf gas exchange was measured during the whole growing season using the CIRAS-2 portable infrared gas analyzer (PP Systems, Hertfordshire, U.K.). The readings were taken between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., which was presumed to be the diurnal period when photosynthetic rates would be maximal, in sunny days under fixed CO2 concentration (360 ppm) and saturating irradiance (1300 μmol/m−2/s−1 provided by a built-in red light-emitting diode radiation source) on six plant per each thesis on five fully expanded leaves from the outer part of the crown and at different heights per plant per treatment. Chlorophyll fluorescence was measured on the same plants by using a HandyPEA portable fluorescence spectrometer (Hansatech Instruments Ltd., King’s Lynn, U.K.) four times from mid-May through the end of July (Percival 2005). Fluorescence values were obtained by placing leaves in darkness for 30 min by attaching light-exclusion clips to the leaf surface of whole trees. Upon the application of a saturating flash (3,000 μmol/m−2/s−1 for 1 sec), fluorescence raises from the ground state value (Fo) to its maximum value, Fm. In this condition, QA, the first electron acceptor of photo-system II (PSII), is fully reduced. This allows the determination of the maximal or potential photochemical efficiency or optimal quantum yield of PSII given by Fv/Fm = (Fm−Fo)/Fm where Fm is the maximum value. Fv/Fm is considered a quantitative measure of the maximal or potential photochemical efficiency or optimal quantum yield of PSII. In healthy leaves, this value is always above 0.75 to 0.8, independent of the plant species studied. A lower value indicates that a proportion of PSII reaction centers are damaged, a phenomenon called photoinhibition, often observed in plants under stress conditions (Maxwell and Johnson 2000; Krause and Weis 1991; Percival 2005; Lazár 2006).

Statistical Analyses

All data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance using SPSS statistical package for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, U.S.). Difference between means of investigated parameters were tested with Duncan’s multiple range test (P ≤ 0.05). Data on leaf gas exchange and on chlorophyll fluorescence have been processed per single sampling date, merged together, and processed again to obtain the average value on an annual basis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Listen

Tables 1 and 2 summarize growth data for both species. In horsechestnut, height increment was higher in trees mulched with compost only in the first year, whereas no difference emerged either in the second year or considering the total height increment (Table 1). Similarly, trunk diameter was positively affected by compost mulching in the first year compared with pine bark and control trees. This parameter was also higher considering the total increment after 3 years from planting. Shoot length was generally higher in trees mulched with compost.

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

Effect of soil management techniques on and plant height (cm), trunk diameter (cm), and shoot length of Aesculus × carnea.z

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

Effect of soil management techniques on and plant height (cm), trunk diameter (cm), and shoot length of Tilia × europaea.z

In linden trees, the effects of mulching were more evident in the second year after planting when trees mulched with compost generally showed higher values of the parameters measured than control trees (Table 2). Total diameter increment was higher in trees mulched with compost, whereas plant height was not statistically affected.

In 2005, coarse compost was more effective to increase mean annual net photosynthesis of Tilia × europaea than pine bark and control. On Aesculus × carnea, no statistical differences were found among the different management techniques (Table 3). However, because mulched trees were larger with longer shoots, whole-plant leaf gas exchange was probably greater.

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

Net photosynthesis (A), transpiration (E), water use efficiency (WUE), stomatal conductance (Gs), substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), and chlorophyll fluorescence values in Aesculus × carnea young trees under different cultivation techniques.z

Mulching with both compost and pine bark increased transpiration of horsechestnut in 2005 compared with chemical weeding, whereas no effect was found in 2006. No differences were found on Tilia × europaea in both years for this parameter (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Net photosynthesis (A), transpiration (E), water use efficiency (WUE), stomatal conductance (Gs), Substomatal CO2 concentration (Ci), and chlorophyll fluorescence values in Tilia × europaea young trees under different cultivation techniques.z

Net photosynthesis also showed a declining trend over time in both species in 2005, whereas this trend was not observed in 2006. An explanation for this behavior is the higher rainfall during August in 2006 than in 2005. Differences were only noted in linden at the beginning and at the end of the growing season, when control trees showed lower Pn values compared with those mulched with compost (Figure 1). No differences were found in horsechestnut (Figure 2). Comparing the findings of the 2 separated years, the Pn for horsechestnut trees was higher in 2006, probably as a result of the different environmental conditions. In this regard, it needs to be stressed that individual leaf photosynthesis has demonstrated high variability compared with whole plant gas exchange, and it is sometimes complicated by a poor relationship of dry matter production to yield (Klingemann et al. 2005), but it is the only way to measure leaf gas exchange in adult trees.

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

Net photosinthesis (μmol/m−2/s−1) in Tilia × europaea young trees under different cultivation techniques. Different letters indicate statistically differences at P < 0.05 using Duncan test.

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

Net photosinthesis (μmol/m−2/s−1) in Aesculus × carnea young trees under different cultivation techniques. Different letters indicate statistically differences at P < 0.05 using Duncan test.

Water use efficiency, in this research considered as the ratio of carbon gain during CO2 assimilation (A, μmol/m−2/s−1) to water loss during transpiration (E, mmol/m−2/s−1), is of major importance to the survival, productivity, and fitness of individual plants and it was higher in control trees only in 2005 in Tilia and in 2006 in Aesculus. Actually, the two species showed different patterns in the 2 years. Tilia × europaea had higher Pn and E values in 2005 compared with Aesculus × carnea, which in 2006 showed higher values of photosynthesis but not a corresponding increase in transpiration, which was actually lower. As a consequence, this species showed higher values of WUE.

It has been generally demonstrated that increased WUE can be a water conservation measure indicating that more carbon can be accumulated for growth with the use of less water (Nilsen and Orcutt 1996; Jones 2004).

Stomatal conductance (Gs) was higher in trees mulched with compost in both species and it showed superior values in 2005 than 2006. The relation of WUE and Gs clearly indicates that these two variables are, in this case, inversely correlated. A decrease in stomatal conductance causes a proportionally larger decrease in transpiration than in carbon assimilation, with the net result being a higher WUE.

In this regard, it also has to be underlined that instantaneous WUE refers to a comparison of CO2 assimilated versus H2O transpired by individual leaves (or canopies) and is affected by environmental and genetic factors (Glenn et al. 2006) and it also varies among years considered (Fageria et al. 2006). Therefore, studies of instantaneous WUE by gas exchange techniques are difficult in field situations because environmental conditions around the leaves are always changing and it is hard to determine an average plant WUE (Nilsen and Orcutt 1996). Also, differences in WUE determined at the leaf level may be reduced substantially at the canopy level (Lambers et al. 1998), and it can be finally hypothesized that, being mulched trees bigger and with longer shoots, they would be expected to have a higher leaf gas exchange on a whole plant basis.

Leaf internal CO2 concentration was not affected in both species in 2005, whereas it was higher in mulched Tilia trees in the second year and, in general, showed superior values in 2006.

Photochemical efficiencies of PSII (Fv/Fm) of the two species, measured during both growing seasons from June to September, were similar on an annual basis, and their values were comprised between 0.74 and 0.77 (Tables 1 and 2). No differences emerged among the different treatments, even when considering the single sampling date, except for the last measurements in 2006 on Aesculus, when mulched trees showed higher values. The highest Fv/Fm values were observed in July and were 0.8 on average among the treatments (data not shown).

CONCLUSION

Listen

Mulching significantly promoted growth of red horsechestnut and european linden trees and had limited influence on leaf gas exchange and on internal fluorescence features of PSII. Therefore, we recommend application of mulching material obtained from composted wood chips and shredded wood to improve growth performance of the two species tested. Furthermore, as stated by Harris et al. (2004), several of the benefits, including improvements in soil structure, quality, and plant health, are accrued over time and are difficult to measure in short-term experiments.

In the 2 different years, some differences in physiological behavior were found between the two species; thus, further research is needed into the effect of different mulching materials in different species on leaf gas exchange as well as on soil characteristics, which can affect plant physiology.

Acknowledgments

Listen

We thank Regione Lombardia Project “Progetto di Sperimentazione Regionale sul Florovivaismo Tecniche eco-compatibili di gestione del vivaismo e del verde ornamentale” (TECOGEST). Support for this project also came in part from the Regione Toscana (Italy) inside the research project “Research on multipurpose green areas” (RISVEM).

  • © 2008, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE CITED

Listen
  1. ↵
    1. Appleton, B.L.,
    2. J.F. Derr, and
    3. B.B. Ross
    . 1990. The effect of various landscape weed control measures on soil moisture and temperature, and tree root growth. Journal of Arboriculture 16: 264–268.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Craul, P.J.
    1992. Urban Soil in Landscape Design. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
  3. ↵
    1. Dahiya, R.,
    2. J. Ingwersen, and
    3. T. Streck
    . 2007. The effect of mulching and tillage on water and temperature regimes of a loess soil: Experimental findings and modeling. Soil and Tillage Research 96: 52–63.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Fageria, N.K.,
    2. V.C. Baligar, and
    3. R.B. Clark
    . 2006. Physiology of Crop Production. Food Product Press, Inc., Binghamton, NY. 345 pp.
  5. ↵
    1. Fraedrich, S.W., and
    2. D.L. Ham
    . 1982. Wood chip mulching around maples: Effect on tree growth and soil characteristics. Journal of Arboriculture 8: 85–89.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. J. Grabosky
    . 2004. Mulch and planting depth affect live oak (Quercus virginiana Mill.) establishment. Journal of Arboriculture 30: 311–317.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Glenn, D.M.,
    2. R. Scorza, and
    3. W.R. Okie
    . 2006. Genetic and environmental effects on water use efficiency in peach. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 131: 290–294.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Green, T.L., and
    2. G.W. Watson
    . 1989. Effects of turfgrass and mulch on the establishment and growth of bare root sugar maples. Journal of Arboriculture 15: 268–271.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Hanslin, H.M.,
    2. A. Sæbø, and
    3. O. Bergersen
    . 2005. Estimation of oxygen concentration in the soil gas phase beneath compost mulch by means of a simple method. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4: 37–40.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Harris, R.W.,
    2. J.R. Clark, and
    3. N.P. Matheny
    . 2004 Arboriculture. 4th ed. Prentice Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  11. ↵
    1. Himelick, E.B., and
    2. G.W. Watson
    . 1990. Reduction of oak chlorosis with wood chip mulch treatments. Journal of Arboriculture 16: 275–278.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Iles, J.K., and
    2. M.S. Dosmann
    . 1999. Effect of organic and mineral mulches on soil properties and growth of fairview flame red maple trees. Journal of Arboriculture 25: 163–167.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Bacon, M.A.
    1. Jones, H.
    2004. What is water use efficiency? pp. 27–40. In: Bacon, M.A. (Ed.). Water Use Efficiency in Plant Biology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  14. ↵
    1. Jordan, K.K., and
    2. S.C. Jones
    . 2007. Invertebrate diversity in newly established mulch habitats in a midwestern urban landscape. Urban Ecosystems 10: 87–95.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Klingemann, W.E.,
    2. M.W. van Iersel,
    3. J.G. Kang,
    4. R.M. Augé,
    5. J.L. Moore, and
    6. P.C. Flanagan
    . 2005. Whole-plant gas exchange measurements of mycorrhizal ‘Iceberg’ roses exposed to cyclic drought. Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey) 24: 309–317.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Krause, G.H., and
    2. E. Weis
    . 1991. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: The basics. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 42: 313–349.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. ↵
    1. Lambers, H.,
    2. F. Stuart Chapin III., and
    3. T.L. Pons
    . 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York. 540 pp.
  18. ↵
    1. Lazár, D.
    2006. The polyphasic chlorophyll a fluorescence rise measured under high intensity of exciting light. Functional Plant Biology 33: 9–30.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Litzow, M., and
    2. H. Pellett
    . 1983. Influence of mulch materials on growth of green ash. Journal of Arboriculture 9: 7–11.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Maxwell, K., and
    2. G.N. Johnson
    . 2000. Chlorophyll fluorescence—A practical guide. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 659–668.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Nilsen, E.T., and
    2. O.M. Orcutt
    . 1996. Physiology of Plants Under Stress: Abiotic Factors. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 689 pp.
  22. ↵
    1. Percival, G.C.
    2005. The use of chlorophyll fluorescence to identify chemical and environmental stress in leaf tissue of three oak (Quercus) species. Journal of Arboriculture 31: 215–227.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Rakow, D.A.
    1989. The Types and Uses of Mulches in the Landscape. Cornell Coop. Ext. Fact Sheet. p. 700.10.
  24. ↵
    1. Sæbø, A., and
    2. F. Ferrini
    . 2006. The use of compost in urban green areas—A review for practical application. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4: 159–169.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Samyn, J., and
    2. B. de Vos
    . 2002. The assessment of mulch sheets to inhibit competitive vegetation in tree plantations in urban and natural environment. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 1: 25–37.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Smith, A.M., and
    2. D.A. Rakow
    . 1992. Strategies for reducing water input in woody landscape plantings. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 165–170.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Tiquina, S.M.,
    2. J. Lloyd,
    3. D.A. Herms,
    4. H.A.J. Hoitink, and
    5. F.C. Michel Jr.
    . 2007. Effects of mulching on soil nutrients, microbial activity and rhizosphere bacterial community structure determined by analysis of TRFLPs of PCR-amplified rRNA genes. Applied Soil Ecology 21: 31–48.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Watson, G.W.
    1988. Organic mulch and grass competition influence tree root development. Journal of Arboriculture 14: 200–203.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Watson, G.W., and
    2. G. Kupkowski
    . 1991. Effects of a deep layer of mulch on the soil environment and tree root growth. Journal of Arboriculture 17: 242–245.
    OpenUrl
  30. ↵
    1. Whitcomb, C.E.
    1979. Factors affecting the establishment of urban trees. Journal of Arboriculture 5: 217–219.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 34 (3)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 34, Issue 3
May 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • 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.
Mulching of Ornamental Trees: Effects on Growth and Physiology
(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
Mulching of Ornamental Trees: Effects on Growth and Physiology
Francesco Ferrini, Alessio Fini, Piero Frangi, Gabriele Amoroso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2008, 34 (3) 157-162; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2008.021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Mulching of Ornamental Trees: Effects on Growth and Physiology
Francesco Ferrini, Alessio Fini, Piero Frangi, Gabriele Amoroso
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2008, 34 (3) 157-162; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2008.021
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • 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

  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Aesculus × carnea
  • chlorophyll fluorescence
  • compost
  • leaf gas exchange
  • mulching
  • pine bark
  • Tilia × europaea

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire