Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Effect of retention time in 11 L nursery container on Magnolia trunk diameter increase from landscape planting (May 2010) through September of the indicated growing season (Acer and Ulmus not significant). zMeans within a growing season with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.05; n = 10, mean across root pruning treatment due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.17).
- Figure 2.
Effect of retention time in 11 L nursery container on trunk bending stress required to tilt Acer trunk base to five degrees. zMeans for each degree of tilt with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.01; n = 20, mean across root pruning and year (2010 and 2011) due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.29). Trees planted May 2010 and winched 6 and 18 months later.
- Figure 3.
Effect of retention time in 11 L nursery container on trunk bending stress required to tilt Acer trunk five degrees from vertical start position. Bending stress for Ulmus and Magnolia was not affected by retention time.
- Figure 4.
Effect of root pruning at landscape planting on bending stress required to tilt Acer trunks to five degrees; difference between pruned and not pruned was significant at P < 0.02 for each angle; n = 20, mean across retention time and year (2010 and 2011) due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.29). Bars indicate standard error.
- Figure 5.
Effect of year after planting on bending stress required to tilt Ulmus (n = 20, A), Acer (n = 40, B), and Magnolia (n = 40, C) trunks to five degrees; mean across retention time due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.12).
Tables
- Table 1.
Effect of retention time in containerz on post-landscape planting tree height increase, xylem water potential, and visual root imprint rating of Acer.
Retention time (months) in containersz Tree height increase Ψ 5/19/10w (Mpa) 2011y,x (m) Ψ 6/7/10w (Mpa) Visual root imprint rating from 57 Ly,v container (1–5) 11 L 57 L 170 L 4 8 20 0.7 bu −1.59 b −1.50 ab 2.9 b 7 10 15 0.8 ab −1.56 b −1.45 b 2.2 b 9 12 11 1.1 a −1.61 b −1.45 b 4.0 a 12 14 6 0.7 b −1.69 a −1.58 a 4.2 a ↵z All trees were retained in three progressively larger containers (11, 57, and 170 L) for a total of 32 months with varying retention times in each.
↵y Tree attribute not affected for Magnolia and Ulmus (P > 0.07).
↵x Height increase 2011 growing season; height increase during 2010, 2012, and 2013 growing seasons not significant (P > 0.06).
↵w Ψ not significant October 2010, March and April 2011 (P > 0.08); Ulmus Ψ was not affected by retention time, and Magnolia was not measured.
↵v Imprint imposed on root system by roots deflecting at the 57 L nursery container wall; 1 = little imprint, 5 = highly visible imprint; imprint imposed by 11 L and 170 L containers not significant (P > 0.16).
↵u Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.05; n = 10, mean across root pruning treatment due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.41).
- Table 2.
Effect of root pruning when landscape planting (May 2010) on trunk diameter increase, visual root imprint from container, and CSA of the largest circling roots at 170 L container position in subsequent four years.
Root pruningz Trunk diameter increase 2012 growing seasony (mm) Visual root imprint rating from 170 Lx container (1–5) at 170 L positionw (mm2) CSA largest diameter root >5 mm diameter circling at 170 L positionw (mm2) Total CSA three largest roots >5 mm diameter circling Acer Yes 26 av 1.3 b 20 b 26 b No 26 a 3.9 a 830 a 1605 a Magnolia Yes 25 bv 1.2 b 26 b 34 b No 30 a 4.0 a 299 a 579 a ↵z Roots and substrate on periphery 5 cm of 170 L root ball removed at landscape planting by shaving; Ulmus were not subjected to root pruning at planting.
↵y Magnolia and Acer trunk diameter increase during the first (2010), second (2011), and fourth (2013) growing seasons after planting not significant (P > 0.12).
↵x Imprint imposed on top 10 cm of root system by roots deflecting in a pattern conforming to the 170 L nursery container wall, evaluated June 2014; 1 = little imprint, 5 = highly visible imprint; P < 0.0001; imprint imposed by 11 L and 57 L containers not significantly affected by root pruning (P > 0.16).
w Cross-sectional area (CSA) of largest roots top 10 cm of soil evaluated June 2014; P < 0.0001.
↵v Means in a column with a different letter are statistically different at P < 0.03; n = 20, mean across retention time due to insignificant interaction (P > 0.14).
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.