Mulching of Ornamental Trees: Effects on Growth and Physiology

Francesco Ferrini; Alessio Fini; Piero Frangi; Gabriele Amoroso

doi:10.48044/jauf.2008.021

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

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.
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.

Tables

Figures

View popup

Table 1.

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

Parameter	Year	Pine bark	Compost	Control	P
Height increment (cm)	2004–2005	3.28 ab	5.76 a	1.54 b	*
	2005–2006	32.95	38.81	33.75	NS
Total height increment (cm)	2004–2006	36.23	44.57	35.29	NS
Diameter increment (mm)	2004–2005	11.89 b	18.11 a	12.69 b	*
	2005–2006	15.23	17.24	16.3	NS
	2006–2007	14.45	15.81	13.91	NS
Total diameter increment (mm)	2004–2007	41.57 b	51.16 a	42.9 b	**
Shoot length (cm)	2005	9.57 b	13.94 a	13.72 a	**
	2006	47.37	46.98	45.34	NS
	2007	54.72 b	62.6 a	55.34 b	**

↵^zData are reported as means and subjected to analysis of variance. Different letters within the same row indicate statistical differences at P ≤ 0.05 (*) or P ≤ 0.01 (**) using Duncan test.
NS = nonsignificant.

View popup

Table 2.

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

Parameter	Year	Pine bark	Compost	Control	P
Height increment (cm)	2004–2005	12.5	20	11.11	NS
	2005–2006	67.61 ab	77.83 a	51.08 b	**
Total height increment (cm)	2004–2006	80.11	97.83	62.19	NS
Diameter increment (mm)	2004–2005	9.5 ab	8.73 b	10.41 a	*
	2005–2006	16.3 b	19.17 a	14.09 b	**
	2006–2007	17.04	18.17	16.39	NS
Total diameter increment (mm)	2004–2007	42.84 b	46.07 a	40.89 b	*
Shoot length (cm)	2005	20.02 b	25.97 a	18.14 b	**
	2006	75.45 b	83.57 a	58.83 c	**
	2007	82.94 a	79.8 a	63.67 b	**

↵^zData are reported as means and subjected to analysis of variance. Different letters within the same row indicate statistical differences at P ≤ 0.05 (*) or P ≤ 0.01 (**) using Duncan test.
NS = nonsignificant.

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}

Parameter	Year	Pine bark	Compost	Control	P
A (μmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	6.75	6.91	6.95	NS
	2006	8.43	8.85	8.53	NS
E (mmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	2.66 a	2.81 a	2.46 b	**
	2006	1.76	1.96	1.78	NS
WUE (A/E)	2005	2.65 ab	2.56 b	2.93 a	*
	2006	5.60	5.04	5.11	NS
Gs (mmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	149.01 a	148.11 a	124.85	**
	2006	98.84	107.05	101.02	NS
Ci (ppm)	2005	178.06	171.75	160.58	NS
	2006	181.95	190.00	192.26	NS
Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm)	2005	0.75	0.74	0.73	NS
	2006	0.75	0.74	0.74	NS

↵^zData are reported as means and subjected to analysis of variance. Different letters within the same row indicate statistical differences at P ≤ 0.05 (*) or P ≤ 0.01 (**) using Duncan test.
NS = nonsignificant.

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}

Parameter	Year	Pine bark	Compost	Control	P
A (μmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	8.65 b	9.65 a	8.88 b	**
	2006	7.63	7.93	7.67	NS
E (mmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	3.18	3.32	3.23	NS
	2006	1.84	1.75	1.69	NS
WUE (A/E)	2005	2.90	3.11	2.88	NS
	2006	4.32 b	4.9 ab	5.06 a	*
Gs (mmol/m⁻²/s⁻¹)	2005	187.65 b	199.54 a	186.78 b	*
	2006	111.67 a	108.59 a	97.46 b	*
Ci (ppm)	2005	178.63	169.89	175.01	NS
	2006	223.2 a	214.37 a	202.37 b	**
Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm)	2005	0.76	0.75	0.77	NS
	2006	0.77	0.77	0.74	NS

↵^zData are reported as means and subjected to analysis of variance. Different letters within the same row indicate statistical differences at P ≤ 0.05 (*) or P ≤ 0.01 (**) using Duncan test.
NS = nonsignificant.