Effect of Container Type and Root Pruning on Growth and Anchorage After Planting Acer rubrum L. into Landscape Soil

Edward F. Gilman; Maria Paz; Chris Harchick

doi:10.48044/jauf.2016.006

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 1.
Timeline for measuring roots, shifting to larger containers, planting into landscape, and post-planting root measurement.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
Figure 2.
Relationship between bending stress while winching trunks to five degrees tilt 26 months after planting from four sizes of nursery containers. Vertical bars represent SE. Equation 2: Liner trunk bending stress = 3.1 + 7.4 (trunk angle) − 0.6 (trunk angle2); R² = 0.76, P < 0.0001. Equation 3: #3 trunk bending stress = 3.8 + 8.0 (trunk angle) – 0.6 (trunk angle²); R² = 0.80, P < 0.0001. Equation 4: #15 trunk bending stress = 2.4 + 7.6 (trunk angle) – 0.5 (trunk angle2); R² = 0.80, P < 0.0001. Equation 5: #45 trunk bending stress = 2.9 + 6.6 (trunk angle) – 0.6 (trunk angle2); R² = 0.83, P < 0.0001.

Tables

Figures

View popup
Table 1.
Trunk diameter when ‘Florida Flame’ maple were approximately five-years-old (October 2012) after planting into the landscape from propagation containers (liners), #3, #15, and #45 nursery containers.
Container size^{^z} Landscape planting date Trunk diameter end 2013 (mm)
Liner Apr 2008 119^{^y}
#3 Feb 2009 120
#15 Nov 2009 114
#45 May 2011 127
↵^z See Gilman et al. (in review) for description of containers.
↵^y n = 40 (liners), 24 (#3), 48 (#15), and 80 (#45). Experimental design did not allow statistical comparisons among container sizes.

View popup

Table 2.

Effect of container type on container imprint rating^{^z} of ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted into the landscape from #3 and #15 containers^{^y} 49 and 40 months earlier, respectively.

Container type^{^x}	Imprint rating on trees planted from #3 containers (1–5)	Imprint rating on trees planted from #15 containers (1–5)
AP	2.2 ab^{^w}	2.1 cd
CR	1.5 bc	1.5 e
FN	1.5 bc	2.7 ab
JP	1.3 c	2.2 bc
RB	2.0 ab	3.1 a
RT	2.5 a	2.6 abc
SP	2.0 ab	2.8 ab
SS	1.7 bc	1.7 de

↵^z Container imprint rating ranged from 1 (no imprint) to 5 (high imprint), visually estimated by two observers independently.
↵^y There was no difference (mean = 2.8, P = 0.20) among container types for trees planted as #45 containers.
^x See Gilman et al. 2015 for description of containers.
↵^w Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.01; n = 3 (#3) or 6 (#15), averaged across root pruning due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.06).

View popup
Table 3.
Effect of root pruning in the nursery on container imprint rating^{^z} of ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted in the landscape from #15 and #45 containers 49 and 34 months earlier, respectively.
Root pruning^{^y} Imprint rating on trees planted from #15 containers (1–5) Imprint rating on trees planted from #45 containers (1–5)
Yes 1.8 a^{^x} 2.1 b
No 3.0 b 3.4 a
↵^z Container imprint rating ranged from 1 (no imprint) to 5 (high imprint), visually estimated by two observers individually.
↵^y Shaving removed the outer 3 cm of the #3 and #15 root ball periphery and bottom prior to shifting into current container.
↵^x Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.008; n = 24, averaged across container type due to insignificant interaction [P = 0.06 (#15) and 0.40 (#45)].
View popup
Table 4.
Tree orientation^{^z} effect on root CSA^{^y} for ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted from four container sizes.
Root CSA on trees planted from four container sizes (mm²)
Tree orientation Liner #3 #15 #45
North 4189 1416 909 830 a
South 3062 1775 801 652 b
P-value 0.21 0.30 0.37 0.01
↵^z Except for liners, north side of trees in nursery were planted to the north in the landscape. Roots measured in the north and south 90 degree quadrants.
↵^y Root CSA = root cross-sectional area measured 5 cm outside root ball edge; n = 10 (liners), 24 (#3), 48 (#15), 80 (#45) means averaged across container type (#3, #15, and #45) and root pruning (#15 and #45) due to insignificant interaction.

View popup

Table 5.

Effect of container type on bending stress required to tilt trunks to four and five degrees^{^z} for ‘Florida Flame’ maple planted into the landscape from #45 containers^{^y} 26 months earlier.

Container type^{^x}	Bending stress four degrees (MN/m²)	Bending stress five degrees (MN/m²)
AP	20.2 abc^{^w}	22.1 abc
CR	20.0 abc	21.7 abc
FN	20.6 ab	22.7 ab
JP	18.4 c	20.1 c
RB	21.4 a	23.4 a
RT	19.0 bc	20.8 bc
SP	20.3 abc	22.2 abc
SS	21.1 a	23.1 a

↵^z Container type was not significant when trees were winched to 1, 2, or 3 degrees.
↵^y Bending stress for trees from #3 and #15 containers was not impacted by container type.
↵^x See Gilman et al. 2015 (companion paper, in review) for description of containers.
↵^w Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P = 0.04 (left) and 0.03 (right); n = 6, averaged across root pruning due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.32).

View popup
Table 6.
Effect of root pruning in the nursery on trunk rest angle for ‘Florida Flame’ maple winched to five degrees trunk tilt^{^z} planted into the landscape from #15 and #45 containers 26 months earlier.
Root pruning^{^y} Trunk rest angle of trees planted from #15 containers (degrees) Trunk rest angle of trees planted from #45 containers (degrees)
Yes 0.9 b^{^x} 0.9 b^{^x}
No 1.2 a 1.1 a
↵^z Angle of trunk base relative to vertical start position following release of winching cable.
↵^y Shaving removed the outer 3 cm of the #3 and #15 root ball periphery prior to shifting into planted container size.
↵^x Numbers followed by a different letter within columns are statistically different at P < 0.005; n = 24, averaged across container type due to insignificant interaction [P = 0.75 (#15), 0.06 (#45)].