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

Container Wall Porosity and Root Pruning Influence on Swietenia mahogani Root Ball Architecture and Anchorage After Planting

Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz and Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2015, 41 (3) 155-167; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2015.016
Edward F. Gilman
Edward F. Gilman (corresponding author), Professor, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Maria Paz
Maria Paz, Biologist, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Chris Harchick
Chris Harchick, Farm Manager, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 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.

    Four root systems from Swietenia mahogani grown in the field for eight months after planting from 57 L containers. Note the prominent imprint from the 57 L container on the root systems and vertical orientation of structural roots associated with trees planted without root pruning (left). Trees shaved at planting had little imprint, and they had a horizontal root orientation (right). Note: Trees grown in either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers, then planted into landscape soil

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Effect of nursery container type on root attributes in finished 57 L solid-walled containers.

    Nursery containerzLiner visual imprint ratingy3.8 L visual imprint ratingy9.5 L visual imprint ratingy% root ball circumference without rootsx% root cullw
    PC1.1 bs1.7 b2.2 b23 b7 b
    SC2.9 a4.4 a4.2 a66 a64 a
    Nursery container% trunk circled inside 57 L peripheryvRadial root ball symmetryuNo. radiating straight roots to periphery of 57 L containert% five largest roots grew straightt
    PC22 b4.3 a12 a65 a
    SC65 a2.1 b3 b9 b
    • ↵z Trees grown in either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers.

    • ↵y Visual rating of root deflection severity at indicated container position with 1 = little imprint or retained “cage” formed by deflected roots, and 5 = strong imprint formed by deflected roots retaining the shape of the container.

    • ↵x Percentage circumference (looking down on the root ball) lacking roots >5 mm diameter.

    • ↵w According to Florida Grades and Standards for Nursery Plants (Anonymous 2015).

    • ↵v Percent trunk circled with roots >3 mm diameter from liner, 3.8, and/or 9.5 position.

    • ↵u Visual rating with 1 = radially asymmetrical distribution of roots with most on one side of root ball, and 5 = radially symmetrical distribution of mother roots (roots growing directly from stem).

    • ↵t Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured just inside the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk; root diameter measured at trunk.

    • ↵s Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.0004; n = 16 trees averaged across propagation container type due to insignificant interaction with propagation container type.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Effect of propagation and nursery container type on root attributes in finished 57 L solid-walled containers.

    Propagation container (liner)zNursery containery% circumference without rootsx% five largest roots grew straightw
    EPPC21 cv69 a
    SC70 a6 d
    SMPC24 c62 b
    SC62 b12 c
    • ↵z Trees seeded into either Ellepot (EP) or smooth-sided (SM) container before shifting to 3.8 L nursery container.

    • ↵y Trees grown in either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers.

    • ↵x Percentage of root ball circumference, looking down on the root ball, lacking roots >3 mm diameter.

    • ↵w Percent of roots that grew from trunk to 5 cm inside 57 L container wall position at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk; root diameter measured at trunk.

    • ↵v Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.04 and 0.0001, left to right; n = 8.

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Effect of propagation and nursery container type on root attributes eight months after planting 57 L container root ball into landscape soil.

    Propagation container (liner)zNursery container typezNo. radiating straight roots trunk to position of 57 L container wallyNo. radiating straight roots trunk to beyond 57 L positionx% five largest roots that grew into soilw% circumference circled inside position of 57 L container wallv
    EPPC9 au11 a54 a20 c
    SC6 b10 a36 b47 b
    SMPC9 a13 a56 a15 d
    SC3 c4 b18 c78 a
    • ↵z Trees seeded into either Ellepot (EP) or smooth-sided container (SM) then into either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers, then planted into landscape soil.

    • ↵y Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm inside the position of the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk.

    • ↵x Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm beyond the position of the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk.

    • ↵w Percent of the five largest diameter roots (diameter measured just beyond root collar) that grew beyond the periphery of the 57 L container position following the largest root at forks.

    • ↵v Percent trunk circumference circled with roots >5 mm diameter from either propagation container, 3.8, and/or 9.5 L container position.

    • ↵u Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.04; n = 10, averaged across root pruning at landscape planting due to insignificant interactions.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Effect of nursery container type on trunk diameter and root attributes eight months after planting 57 L container root ball into landscape soil.

    Nursery containerz3.8 L visual imprint ratingy9.5 L visual imprint ratingy% trunk circled inside 57 L wall positionx% trunk circled at 57 L wall positionwNo. radiating straight roots trunk to position of 57 L container wallv% five largest roots grew into soiluRoot dry mass (g)t
    PC1.6 bs2.3 b18 b27 b9 a55 a1029 b
    SC4.3 a4.3 a62 a34 a5 b27 b1247 a
    • ↵z Trees grown in either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers.

    • ↵y Visual rating of root deflection severity at indicated container position with 1 = little imprint or retained “cage” formed by deflected roots, and 5 = strong imprint formed by deflected roots retaining the shape of the container.

    • ↵x Percent trunk circumference circled with roots >5 mm diameter from either propagation container, 3.8, and/or 9.5 L container position.

    • ↵w Percent trunk circled with roots >5 mm diameter at the position of the periphery of the 57 L root ball.

    • ↵v Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm inside the position of the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk.

    • ↵u Percent of the five largest diameter roots (diameter measured just beyond root collar) that grew beyond the periphery of the 57 L container position following the largest root at forks.

    • ↵t All roots within a 60 cm diameter cone-shaped root ball 60 cm deep.

    • s Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.01; n = 20, averaged across propagation container type and root pruning due to insignificant interactions.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Root attributesz eight months after root pruning 57 L container root balls when planted into landscape soil.

    Root pruningy57 L visual imprintx% circumference circled at position of 57 L container wallwNo. roots >5 mm diameter deflected by 57 L container wall% circumference without roots >5 mm diameter 5 cm beyond 57 L wall positionRadial root ball symmetryv (1–5)No. radiating straight roots trunk to beyond 57 L wall positionu
    Yes1.5 bq4 b1 b22 b4.0 a15 a
    No4.4 a59 b16 a58 a1.8 b4 b
    Root pruning% five largest roots grew into soiltTotal no. roots grew from entire 57 L root ballsNo. roots grew from top half of 57 L root ballsTotal root CSA (mm2)rRatio root CSA from top: bottom half of root ball
    Yes58 a27 a18 a862 a2.3 a
    No22 b12 b7 b311 b1.3 b
    • ↵z Root characteristics measured within a hand dug, shoved-excavated, cone-shaped soil volume 60 cm in diameter and 60 cm deep centered on the trunk.

    • ↵y Trees were root pruned by shaving away the outer 3 to 4 cm periphery of the 57 L root ball when planted into the landscape.

    • ↵x Visual rating of root deflection severity at 57 L container position with 1 = little imprint or retained “cage” formed by deflected roots, and 5 = strong imprint formed by deflected roots retaining the shape of the container).

    • ↵w Percent trunk circled with roots >5 mm diameter at the position of the periphery of the 57 L root ball.

    • ↵v Visual rating with 1 = radially asymmetrical distribution of roots with most on one side of root ball, and 5 = radially symmetrical distribution of mother roots (roots growing directly from stem).

    • ↵u Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm beyond the position of the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at <45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk.

    • ↵t Percent of the five largest diameter roots (diameter measured just beyond root collar) that grew beyond the periphery of the 57 L container position following the largest root at forks.

    • ↵s Roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm beyond 57 L periphery.

    • ↵r Root cross-sectional area (CSA) measured 5 cm outside 57 L root ball position for roots >3 mm diameter growing from entire root ball periphery.

    • ↵q Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.0002; n = 20, averaged across propagation and nursery container types due to insignificant interactions.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Effect of nursery container type and root pruning at landscape planting on root attributes eight months later.

    Nursery containerzRoot pruningy% circumference circled inside position of 57 L container wallx% five largest roots >5 mm diameter grew into soilw% circumference without roots >5 mm 5 cm beyond position of 57 L container wall
    PCYes26 cv78 a18 d
    No9 d29 c65 a
    SCYes54 b38 b27 c
    No69 a16 d57 b
    • ↵z Trees grown in either porous- (PC) or solid-walled (SC) 3.8 L then 9.5 L nursery containers prior to shifting into 57 L solid-walled containers, then planted into landscape soil.

    • ↵y Trees were root pruned by shaving away the outer 3 to 4 cm periphery of the 57 L root ball when planted into the landscape.

    • ↵x Percent trunk circumference circled with roots >5 mm diameter from either propagation container, 3.8, and/or 9.5 L container position.

    • ↵w Percent of the five largest diameter roots (diameter measured just beyond root collar) that grew beyond the periphery of the 57 L container position following the largest root at forks.

    • ↵v Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.0001; n = 10, averaged across propagation container type due to insignificant interactions.

    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Correlation of root attributesz with trunk angle and rest angle following winching seven months after planting 57 L containers into landscape.

    Root attributePearson correlation coefficient (P value)
    Trunk angle while holding at 4.1 MN/m2Trunk rest angle immediately following winching to 4.1 MN/m2
    3.8 L visual imprint ratingy0.32 (0.05)(>0.05)
    No. radiating straight roots trunk to 5 cm beyond 57 L container wall positionx−0.34 (0.03)−0.33 (0.04)
    Percent graded as cullw0.38 (0.02)0.34 (0.04)
    Root symmetry ratingv−0.39 (0.01)−0.33 (0.04)
    Percent circumference without roots >5 mm diameter 5 cm beyond 57 L container wall position0.39 (0.01)(>0.05)
    Total no. roots >3 mm diameter grew into landscape from top half of 57 L container root ball−0.33 (0.04)−0.38 (0.02)
    Root CSA (mm2) top halfu−0.33 (0.04)−0.38 (0.02)
    • ↵z Roots within a 60 cm diameter 60 cm deep cone shaped soil volume centered on the trunk.

    • ↵y Visual rating of root deflection severity at indicated container position with 1 = little imprint or retained “cage” formed by deflected roots, and 5 = strong imprint formed by deflected roots retaining the shape of the container).

    • ↵x Number of roots >3 mm diameter measured 5 cm outside the position of the 57 L container wall that grew from trunk at < 45 degree angle to substrate surface without making a turn of >60 degrees relative to parent root azimuth at trunk.

    • ↵w Graded cull according to Anonymous (2015).

    • ↵v Visual rating with 1 = radially asymmetrical distribution of roots with most on one side of root ball, and 5 = radially symmetrical distribution of mother roots (roots growing directly from stem).

    • ↵u Root cross-sectional area (CSA) measured 5 cm outside 57 L root ball position for roots >3 mm diameter growing from top half of root ball.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 41 (3)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 41, Issue 3
May 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.
Container Wall Porosity and Root Pruning Influence on Swietenia mahogani Root Ball Architecture and Anchorage After Planting
(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
Container Wall Porosity and Root Pruning Influence on Swietenia mahogani Root Ball Architecture and Anchorage After Planting
Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz, Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2015, 41 (3) 155-167; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2015.016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Container Wall Porosity and Root Pruning Influence on Swietenia mahogani Root Ball Architecture and Anchorage After Planting
Edward F. Gilman, Maria Paz, Chris Harchick
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 2015, 41 (3) 155-167; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2015.016
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

  • 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
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • air root pruning
  • Boxing
  • Mechanical Root Pruning
  • Nursery Container
  • Propagation Container
  • Shaving
  • Straight Roots
  • Swietenia mahogani

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire