Research ArticleArticles

Above and Belowground Growth of Corymbia maculata in a Constructed Soil: The Effect of Profile Design and Organic Amendment

Karen Smith, Peter May and Robert White
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2010, 36 (1) 11-17; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2010.002

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • Table 1.

    Sieve analysis of the sand used in profile construction.

    Sieve size (mm)Percentage retained (by weight)
    2.00  0.7
    1.00  3.0
    0.7110.0
    0.5052.9
    0.2521.3
    0.10610.6
    Dust (<0.106)  1.5
  • Table 2.

    The effect of organic matter type on shoot dry weight of C. maculata (back-transformed means).

    Organic matterShoot dry wt (g)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green waste
    Meany58.6c91.8a78.3b

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from three replications.

    • ↵y Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

    • Since the means are back-transformed no SE values are shown. Mean shoot dry wt in unamended sand = 66.0 g.

  • Table 3.

    The effect of the interaction between organic matter type and concentration on foliar P concentration of C. maculata.

    Organic matter %Foliar P concentration (mg g−1)z
    CoirComposted BiosolidsComposted green waste
    5y2.5 (0.1)e4.3 (0.7)b3.7 (0.2)c
    102.5 (0.2)e5.0 (0.9)a4.2 0.8)b
    203.0 (0.2)d3.8 (0.4)c2.8 (0.2)d

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from three replications, standard error in parentheses.

    • y Means in the table followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05), LSD = 0.3.

    • Mean foliage P in unamended sand = 2.8 mg g−1.

  • Table 4.

    The effect of the interaction between profile design and organic matter type on foliar P concentration of C. maculata.

    Profile designFoliar P concentration (mg g−1)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green waste
    Layered profiley2.8 (0.1)c3.1(0.2)c2.8 (0.3)c
    Uniform profile2.8 (0.2)c5.6 (0.5)a4.4 (0.4)b

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from 6 replications, standard error in parentheses.

    • ↵y Means in the table followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05), LSD = 0.4.

    • Mean foliage P in unamended sand = 2.8 mg g−1.

  • Table 5.

    The effect of organic matter type on foliar K of C. maculata.

    Organic matter typeFoliar K concentration (mg g−1)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green waste
    Meany2.8 (0.2)b3.6 (0.3)a3.5 (0.1)a

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from nine replications, standard error in parentheses.

    • ↵y Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05), LSD = 0.4.

    • Mean foliage K in unamended sand = 3.1 (0.4) mg g−1.

  • Table 6.

    The effect of the interaction between sample depth and organic matter type on root density of C. maculata (back-transformed means).

    Sample depth (mm)Root density (cm cm−3)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green waste
    0–150y2.0a2.4a2.8a
    180–3301.2b2.4a2.4a
    350–5000.8c2.2a2.2a

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from three replications.

    • y Means in the table followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

  • Table 7.

    The effect of the interaction between sample depth and profile design on root density of C. maculata (backtransformed means).

    Sample depth (mm)Root density (cm cm−3)z
    Layered profilesUniform profiles
    0–1502.5a2.2a
    180–3301.6b2.4a
    350–5000.9c2.7a

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from three replications.

    • y Means in the table followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

  • Table 8.

    The effects of organic matter type and profile design on root density of C. maculata at sample depth 180–330 mm (7–13 in) (back-transformed means).

    Root density Lv (cm cm−3)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green wasteOverall meany
    Layered profiles2.32.92.72.6b
    Uniform profiles2.34.55.03.9a
    Overall mean2.3b3.7a3.8a

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000 and the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from six replications.

    • ↵y Overall means followed by the same letter down the column and across the row are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

    • Mean root density in unamended sand = 2.9 cm cm−3.

  • Table 9.

    The effect of organic matter type and profile design on root density of C. maculata at sample depth 350–500 mm (14–20 in) (back-transformed means).

    Root density Lv (cm cm−3)z
    CoirComposted biosolidsComposted green wasteOverall meany
    Layered profile1.62.52.52.2b
    Uniform profile2.25.55.04.2a
    Overall mean1.9b4.0a3.7a

    • ↵z Trees planted in August 2000; the experiment concluded in January 2001. Means are from six replications.

    • ↵y Overall means followed by the same letter down the column and across the row are not significantly different (P < 0.05).

    • Mean root density in unamended sand = 2.3 cm cm−3.

Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Above and Belowground Growth of Corymbia maculata in a Constructed Soil: The Effect of Profile Design and Organic Amendment
Karen Smith, Peter May, Robert White
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2010, 36 (1) 11-17; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2010.002
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords