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

Nursery Planting Depth, Mulch Application, and Root Pruning at Landscape Planting Affect Tree Health and Anchorage

Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz and Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 2015, 41 (2) 75-87; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.009
Edward F. Gilman
Edward F. Gilman (corresponding author), University of Florida, Environmental Horticulture, 1533 Fifield Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Paz
Maria Paz, University of Florida, Environmental Horticulture, 1533 Fifield Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Harchick
Chris Harchick, University of Florida, Environmental Horticulture, 1533 Fifield Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Effect of mulch over root ball on cumulative elm trunk diameter increase (measured in October of indicated year) in the first five years after landscape planting (P < 0.04); vertical bars indicate SE. Note: All trees in both treatments received mulch from the edge of the root ball outward starting at planting Feb 2008; mulch did not impact maples (P > 0.33).

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

    Trunk bending stress three years (A) and five years (B) after landscape planting for elms planted even and deep in nursery containers; vertical bars indicate SE. No interactions were significant (P > 0.05); vertical bars indicate SE. Shallow = topmost root 13 mm deep into 11.4 L (#3) and even with substrate surface into 57 L (#15) and 170 L (#45) container; deep = topmost root 64 mm deep into 11.4 L and 57 L containers (128 mm deep total), and even into 170 L container.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Bending stress required to winch trunks to increasing angles three (2011) to five (2013) years after landscape planting averaged across mulch, planting depth, and root remediation; n = 40 for each taxa.

    For elm (A):

    • Stress to 1 degree = 12.8 (year) – 1.5 (year2) – 17.3; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.18.

    • Stress to 3 degrees = 31.3 (year) – 3.7 (year2) – 44.3; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.25.

    • Stress to 5 degrees = 41.4 (year) – 4.9 (year2) – 58.7; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.27.

    For maple (B):

    • Stress to 1 degree = 4.7 (year) – 0.7 (year2) + 0.06; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.22.

    • Stress to 3 degrees = 11.4 (year) – 1.6 (year2) – 4.7; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.24.

    • Stress to 5 degrees = 20.0 (year) – 2.8 (year2) – 16.7; P < 0.0001, R2 = 0.27.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Effect of nursery planting depth on time required for root remediation at planting (air excavate top of root ball plus prune to remove roots growing over the root collar).

    Nursery planting depthzAir excavation time (seconds)Elm Root pruning time (seconds)Total (excavation + prune) time (seconds)
    Shallow70 by185 b255 b
    Deep102 a328 a430 a
    Nursery planting depthAir excavation time (seconds)Maple Root pruning time (seconds)Total (excavation + prune) time (seconds)
    Shallow98 bz380 b478 b
    Deep153 a756 a909 a
    • ↵z Shallow = topmost root 13 mm deep into 11.4 L (#3) and even with substrate surface into 57 L (#15) and 170 L (#45) container; deep = topmost root 64 mm deep into 11.4 and 57 L containers (128 mm deep total), and even into 170 L container.

    • ↵y Means followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.05; n = 10.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Effect of nursery planting depth and root remediation on root attributes five years later after planting into the landscape.

    Elm
    Nursery planting depthzRoot remediation at planting% trunk circled at plantingxy% trunk circled 5 years after plantingxRoot depth–north (cm)Depth of straightw
    roots–north (cm)
    Depth of descendingv
    roots–north (cm)
    ShallowYes36 bu3 b14 b10 b17 b
    No36 b22 b26 a22 a30 a
    DeepYes68 a1 b20 ab21 a22 ab
    No68 a55 a20 ab20 a22 ab
    Maple
    Nursery planting depthzRoot remediation at planting% trunk circled at plantingxy% trunk circled 5 years after plantingxCSA largest circling root–northt (cm2)Depth of straightw roots (cm)
    ShallowYes41 bs9 c5 b13 b
    No41 b66 b11 ab16 b
    DeepYes77 a22 c15 a14 b
    No77 a85 a8 ab22 a
    • ↵z Shallow = topmost root 13 mm deep into 11.4 L (#3) and even with substrate surface into 57 L (#15) and 170 L (#45) container; deep = topmost root 64 mm deep into 11.4 and 57 L containers (128 mm deep total), and even into 170 L container.

    • ↵y Data presented in Gilman et al. 2010b; means for root pruning yes and no are identical because roots were not pruned in that study.

    • ↵x Percentage of trunk circumference circled with roots > 5 mm diameter.

    • ↵w Straight = root segment just beyond the root ball was oriented < 60 degrees in either compass direction compared to azimuth of parent root inside root ball; depth measured 10 cm outside root ball.

    • ↵v Descending = growing down < 45 degrees in relation to landscape soil surface on north side of tree.

    • ↵u Means for elm followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P = 0.05, 0.01, 0.006, 0.003, and 0.02, left to right; n = 10, averaged over mulch treatment due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.05).

    • ↵t Diameter of largest root circling the north half of the tree at the position of the 170 L root ball; there was no effect on circling roots on south side.

    • ↵s Means for maple followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P = 0.01, 0.001, 0.008, and 0.04, left to right; n = 10, averaged over mulch treatment because of insignificant interaction (P > 0.05).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Effect of root remediation when landscape planting and mulch application over the root ball on maple root attributes five years later.

    Root remediation at plantingMulch 7 cm deep over root ball% trunk circled 5 years after plantingzTotal straighty root CSA (cm2)Depth of straighty roots (cm)
    YesYes25 bx45 a13 b
    No7 c59 a14 b
    NoYes69 a45 a22 a
    No83 a22 b15 b
    • ↵z Percentage of trunk circumference circled with roots > 5 mm diameter.

    • ↵y Straight = root segment just beyond the root ball oriented < 60 degrees in either compass direction compared to azimuth of parent root inside root ball; depth measured 10 cm outside root ball.

    • ↵x Means followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P = 0.002, 0.006, and 0.01 left to right, respectively; n = 10, averaged over nursery planting depth due to insignificant interaction with nursery planting depth (P > 0.18).

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Effect of root remediation at planting, mulch, and nursery planting depth on maplez trunk bark death evaluated 15 months after planting, and root depth five years after planting into landscape soil.

    Mulch 7 cm deep over root ballRoot remediation at planting% circumference of trunk with bark deadDepth of straightyroots (cm)
    YesYes52 ax13 b
    No19 c22 a
    NoYes41b14 b
    No38 b15 b
    Nursery planting depthwRoot remediation at planting% circumference of trunk with bark dead
    ShallowYes46 ax
    No45 a
    DeepYes41 a
    No18 b
    • ↵z Elms experienced no trunk bark death.

    • ↵y Straight = root segment just beyond the root ball oriented < 60 degrees in either compass direction compared to azimuth of parent root inside root ball; depth measured 10 cm outside root ball.

    • ↵x Means followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.001; n = 10, insignificant three-way interaction (P > 0.87).

    • ↵w Shallow = topmost root 13 mm deep into 11.4 L (#3) and even with substrate surface into 57 L (#15) and 170 L (#45) container; deep = topmost root 64 mm deep into 11.4 and 57 L containers (128 mm deep total), and even into 170 L container.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Effect of mulch application over the root ball on bending stress to tilt elm and maple trunks five yearsz after planting in the landscape.

    Elm
    Mulch 7 cm deep over root ballBending stress to 5 degrees trunk tilt 5 years after planting (MN/m2)Bending stress to 10 degrees trunk tilt 5 years after planting (MN/m2)Bending stress to 15 degrees trunk tilt 5 years after planting (MN/m2)
    Yes25.9 ay31.6 a33.4 a
    No23.3 b27.9 b29.5 b
    Maple
    Mulch 7 cm deep over root ballBending stress to 5 degrees trunk tilt 5 years after planting (MN/m2)
    Yes15.5 a
    No13.4 b
    • ↵z Bending stress not affected (P > 0.05) years 3 and 4.

    • ↵y Means followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.03; n = 20, averaged over nursery planting depth and root pruning due to insignificant interactions of these two factors with mulch (P > 0.07, elm; and P > 0.22, maple).

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Effect of nursery planting depth and root remediation at planting on bending stress required to winch maple to various trunk tiltsz four yearsy after planting in the landscape.

    Nursery planting depthxRoot remediation at plantingBending stress to two degrees trunk tilt (MN/m2)Bending stress to 5 degrees trunk tilt (MN/m2)
    ShallowYes12.4 aw20.1 ab
    No11.6 ab19.0 ab
    DeepYes10.3 b17.7 b
    No12.2 ab20.8 a
    • ↵z Depth × remediation interaction was insignificant (P = 0.11) for tilting to one degree; mean separation for three and four degrees tilt was identical to five degrees.

    • ↵y There was no impact three and five years after planting.

    • ↵x Shallow = topmost root 13 mm deep into 11.4 L (#3) and even with substrate surface into 57 L (#15) and 170 L (#45) container; deep = topmost root 64 mm deep into 11.4 and 57 L containers (128 mm deep total), and even into 170 L container.

    • ↵w Means followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.05, n = 10, averaged over mulch treatment because three-way interaction with mulch was not significant (P > 0.07).

    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Pearson Correlation Coefficients of root attributes (measured 10 cm beyond planted 170 L container root ball) with rest angle and bending stress to tilt trunk 5 and 20 degrees five years after planting.

    Elm
    Root AttributeTrunk rest anglezTrunk bending stress 5 degreesTrunk bending stress 20 degrees
    CSA leewardy−0.490.500.54
    Straightx CSA leewardy−0.370.480.51
    Ascendingw CSA leewardy−0.480.400.57
    Straight-rootx descendingu CSANSs0.390.41
    Straight-rootx CSA−0.400.330.40
    CSA−0.450.330.41
    Ascendingw CSA−0.61NS0.45
    Maple
    Depth straightx roots windwardvNS0.49NS
    Downwardt CSA windwardv0.400.47NS
    Depth straight-rootsxNS0.43NS
    Descendingu CSA windwardv0.400.42NS
    Straight-rootx CSA windwardvNS0.41NS
    CSA windwardv0.380.37NS
    DepthNS0.37NS
    Straight-rootx CSANS0.36NS
    CSANS0.34NS
    • ↵z Rest angle = trunk angle after releasing pulling cable following winching to 20 degrees trunk tilt.

    • ↵y Growing in the quadrant toward the pulling winch.

    • ↵x Straight = root segment just beyond the root ball oriented < 60 degrees in either compass direction compared to azimuth of parent root inside root ball.

    • ↵w Ascending = growing up toward landscape soil surface.

    • ↵v Windward = growing in the quadrant opposite the pulling winch.

    • ↵u Descending = growing down < 45 degrees in relation to landscape soil surface.

    • ↵t Downward = growing down > 45 degrees in relation to landscape soil surface.

    • ↵s P > 0.05.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 41 (2)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 41, Issue 2
March 2015
  • 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.
Nursery Planting Depth, Mulch Application, and Root Pruning at Landscape Planting Affect Tree Health and Anchorage
(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
Nursery Planting Depth, Mulch Application, and Root Pruning at Landscape Planting Affect Tree Health and Anchorage
Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz, Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 2015, 41 (2) 75-87; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2015.009

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Nursery Planting Depth, Mulch Application, and Root Pruning at Landscape Planting Affect Tree Health and Anchorage
Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz, Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 2015, 41 (2) 75-87; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2015.009
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
    • 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

  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Linking Urban Greening and Community Engagement with Heat-Related Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review of the Literature
  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Acer
  • Bending Stress
  • circling roots
  • elm
  • maple
  • Root Ball
  • Root Collar
  • Root Flare
  • Root Remediation
  • root systems
  • Stem-Girdling Roots
  • Trunk Damage
  • Trunk Flare
  • Ulmus

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire