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

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
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 Type Affects Root Development of Chanticleer® Pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’) During Landscape Establishment

Alison Stoven O’Connor, James E. Klett and Anthony J. Koski
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2018, 44 (4) 165-173; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2018.44.4.165
Alison Stoven O’Connor
Alison Stoven O’Connor (corresponding author), Colorado State University Extension, 1525 Blue Spruce Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado 80524, U.S.,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
James E. Klett
James E. Klett, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, 1173 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1173, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony J. Koski
Anthony J. Koski, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, 1173 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1173, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

While there are many advantages to producing woody plants in the industry-standard black plastic (BP) container, circling and girdling roots on plants grown in them may reduce transplant success, predispose plants to stress, shorten life span in the landscape, and increase the potential for the development of hazard trees. Plants grown in fabric containers may have fewer circling and girdling roots, possibly eliminating transplant problems sometimes seen with plants grown in BP containers. This study evaluated post-transplant root and shoot growth of Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ (Chanticleer®) produced using three container types: black plastic, Root Pouch® (RP) and Smart Pot® (SP). Researchers found no container effects on aboveground growth one, two, and three years following transplant into the landscape. All trees doubled their root dry weight annually over the three-year study. No container effects were found for any measured root parameters one year after planting. However, two and three years following planting, trees grown in RP and SP containers showed greater total root growth beyond the original root ball than BP-grown trees. Three years after planting, 72% of all root growth of trees grown in BP containers was within the original root ball, while more than one-third of all roots of RP- and SP-grown trees were found outside of the original root ball. Researchers believe that fabric containers should be considered as alternatives to BP containers because they may enhance root growth of transplanted trees and reduce the formation of future circling and girdling roots.

Key Words
  • Black Plastic Container
  • Circling Roots
  • Deciduous Tree
  • Fabric Containers
  • Girdling Roots
  • Landscape Establishment
  • Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ (Chanticleer®)
  • Root Pouch®
  • Smart Pot®
  • Transplanting

Container tree production is a popular way to grow ornamental trees and is more commonly used than field production in many parts of the United States. A national survey by the United States Department of Agriculture found that nursery crop sales in 2007 topped USD $6.5 billion (USDA 2007). Aboveground container nursery production makes up more than 75% of total nursery crop value in 17 of the top nursery producing states in the United States (USDA 2008); it’s estimated that 80%–90% of woody plants produced in California, Florida, and Texas are grown in containers (Davidson et al. 2000). There are many advantages to producing woody plants in containers, including ease of handling at the nursery, uniformity in plant growth, ease of shipping, consumer appeal, ability to produce more plants on less land, shorter production cycles, production of a plant with an intact root ball, and a longer seasonal market for plant material, since field-grown plants have a narrow window when they can be harvested and shipped (Harris and Gilman 1991; Gilman and Beeson 1996; Davidson et al. 2000; Whitcomb 2004). Studies comparing field-grown to container-grown trees found better transplant success with those produced in containers if irrigation wasn’t a limiting factor following planting (Harris and Gilman 1991; Harris and Gilman 1993; Gilman and Beeson 1996; Mathers et al. 2005).

The industry standard for container production is the black plastic (BP) container. Although lightweight, durable, efficient, and cost-effective, there are numerous disadvantages to using the BP container for nursery production. Circling and/or malformed roots, a common problem with plants grown in plastic containers, can negatively impact plant health and/or stability following planting in the landscape (Nichols and Alm 1983; Gilman and Harchick 2014; Gilman et al. 2015). Roots deflected in plastic containers grow in many directions, causing constrictions and circling roots (Gilman et al. 2010a) and uneven root development (Marler and Davies 1987). Malformed roots that begin with container production can later lead to instability and possible tree failure (Lindström and Rune 1999; Gilman and Paz 2014; Gilman et al. 2015).

Because of the potential problems associated with plant production in BP containers, alternative container types have been developed, including those with air root pruning technology, bottomless containers, fabric containers, containers incorporating chemical compounds, and containers using mechanical deflection technology. Some researchers have observed fewer circling/girdling roots with alternative containers (Arnold and Struve 1989; Beeson and Newton 1992; Struve et al. 1994; Martin and Bhattacharya 1995; Marshall and Gilman 1998; Gilman 2001). Fabric containers may reduce the occurrence of circling roots because of the “air pruning” effect on roots intercepting the container wall (Jones 1987; Langlinais 1987; Reese 1987; Privett and Hummel 1992; Marshall and Gilman 1998; Gilman et al. 2010a), which stimulates secondary root branching and discourages root circling.

Nursery production studies examining the effects of container type on root and/or shoot growth have yielded mixed results. While some have found few differences in aboveground growth among various container types (Marshall and Gilman 1998; Owen and Stoven 2008; Neal 2009), O’Connor et al. (2013) found that Callery pear trees grown in fabric containers grew more in height and stem caliper than trees grown in BP containers after two years. Conversely, Ortega et al. (2006) found that pine trees grown in air-pruning containers had slower root and canopy growth.

Few studies have examined effects of container type on growth after planting in the landscape. Marshall and Gilman (1998) and Gilman et al. (2003), working with low-profile, air root-pruning containers, found increased caliper growth on red maple (Acer rubrum L.) roots five years after planting. Gilman et al. (2015) found that circling roots of container-produced Ulmus and Acer persisted for as long as five years after landscape planting.

The current study examined container effects on root and shoot growth of Chanticleer® pear, produced in the nursery using three container types (black plastic, Root Pouch®, and Smart Pot®), and for three years following planting in the landscape.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nursery Planting

Two-year-old, lightly branched bare-root whips of Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ (Chanticleer) were planted into three container types on 07 May 2010 at the Colorado State University Plant Environmental Research Center (PERC), Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S. (USDA hardiness zone 5a) (40.56N, 105.08W). Prior to planting, roots were rehydrated by soaking in water for 30 minutes. Trees were root pruned to eliminate broken or crossing roots. The three container types used were: a) #15 standard black plastic container (BP) (Lerio Corp., Mobile, Alabama, U.S.), b) #15 fabric container (RP) (Root Pouch, Averna & Associates, Hillsboro, Oregon, U.S.), and c) #15 fabric container (SP) (Smart Pot, High Caliper Growing, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, U.S.). The container substrate (pH of 6.8, EC of 3.7 mmhos/cm) was a locally produced nursery mix (Organix Supply, Inc., Platteville, Colorado, U.S.), which consisted of 40% composted wood products, 40% sphagnum peat moss, 10% dehydrated poultry waste, 5% bark fines, and 5% volcanic pumice by volume. After planting, trees were fertilized by topdressing each container with 250 g of Osmocote Pro® 19N–2.1P–6.6K (The Scotts Company, Marysville, Ohio, U.S.).

At planting, trees averaged 17.7 mm (SE ± 2.8 mm) in trunk caliper (diameter), measured at a point 15 cm above soil line and 161.4 cm (SE ± 17.1 cm) in height. Containers were placed on the ground on black woven cloth in three rows with 0.9 m spacing within rows and 1.8 m spacing between rows. Trees were attached by a 1.8 m bamboo stake to a wire trellis 1.2 m above ground to prevent them from blowing over. Trees were placed in a randomized complete block design, with five single-plant replicates per container type. Trees were pruned to correct branching structure and to remove damaged branches.

During the nursery establishment phase (first six months after planting in containers), trees were irrigated using a drip irrigation system to apply 5.7 L of water every other day. Height and caliper (measured at 15 cm above the container growing substrate surface) were measured monthly, from June to September 2010.

Landscape Planting

In October 2010, 27 trees (three single-plant replications of three container types to be harvested over three years) were planted into a Poa pratensis (Kentucky bluegrass) lawn. The soil type was a sandy clay loam, with a pH of 7.7, EC of 0.4 mmhos/cm, and 6.4% organic matter. Soil test results prior to planting (Colorado State University Soil, Plant, and Water Testing Laboratory; data not shown) indicated that all nutrients were present at levels adequate for turf and tree growth, so supplemental fertilizer was not added at planting. At the time of removal from containers, root balls were scored for matting, circling roots, and root ball integrity (Table 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Root ball characteristics of nursery-grown (six months) Chanticleer pear in three container types (2010).

Trees were planted on 1.8 m × 1.8 m spacing, in a randomized complete block design, with three replicates and trees per container type and replication. Trees were planted using best management practices in saucer-shaped holes approximately three times as wide as the root ball. Root balls were not shaved or washed prior to planting, but the bottom and sides of each root ball were scored using box cutters, and any visible circling roots were hand pruned. Trees were planted at 2.5 cm above soil grade. Trees were watered and mulched with a 5 cm depth of organic mulch (shredded bark) measuring 1.8 m in diameter, centered on the tree. Mulch was not applied over the top of the root ball. Mulch was kept free of weeds and grass with occasional applications of glyphosate. Trees were not staked at planting. Following planting, trees and turf were irrigated with an automated irrigation system (to prevent turf stress; 2.5 to 5 cm/week). The turf was mowed twice weekly (5 cm mowing height), during periods of active growth, and fertilized twice yearly with 48.8 kg N/ha. Throughout the study, trees were pruned only to remove broken branches. Tree height and caliper were measured monthly during the 2011 to 2013 growing seasons. New twig growth, measured on one randomly selected branch on the north, south, east, and west sides of trees was measured in autumn of each growing season. Total leader growth was measured from the previous point of growth to the tip of the current season’s growth.

Harvest Methods

Tree roots were removed from the ground in autumn of 2011, 2012, and 2013 (nine trees each year; three from each container type) by air spading, and also using water to loosen roots that were still attached to the soil. At harvest, all leaves were removed and oven-dried at 70°C for one week to determine total leaf dry weight. Root balls were washed to remove soil. Branches and trunk were separated from the root ball, weighed fresh, and then oven-dried at 70°C for one week to obtain dry shoot weight.

Each excavated root ball was placed on a template of its original container width and pruned to separate roots that had grown beyond the original root ball after planting. Roots were separated into two groups (inside and outside of the original root ball), oven-dried, and weighed. Following drying, roots were separated into fine (<2.0 mm) and coarse (≥2.1 mm) roots and weighed again.

All data were subject to analysis of variance (Version 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, U.S.) using a fixed effect model. Where significant effects were indicated, means were separated using Tukey’s LSD test.

RESULTS

Nursery Study Effects on Roots

Container type did not affect tree height, caliper, root:shoot ratio, leader growth, branch growth, canopy width, or shoot, leaf, and total plant dry weight in the three years (2011–2013) following planting in the landscape in 2010 (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Shoot, root, and leaf growth of Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ grown in three container types (black plastic, Root Pouch, and Smart Pot) and harvested after one, two, and three years following planting in the landscape.

In both 2011 and 2012, there were no container effects on total root ball weight, root weight inside and outside the original planting root ball, and total fine and coarse root weight (Table 3). However, in 2012, trees grown in RP and SP containers had a higher percentage of total root dry weight (30.0% and 27.3%, respectively) beyond the original root ball than trees grown in BP containers (21.4%) (Table 4). Trees from BP containers also had a greater percentage of their total coarse root dry weight growing within the root ball (77.0%), compared to trees produced in RP (68.7%) and SP (71.5%) containers. In addition, a lower percentage of total coarse roots growing outside the root ball were found for BP containers (19.8%) compared to RP (27.9%) and SP (25.4%) containers. While there were no container effects on root dry weight after the initial growing season (2011), by the second season after planting, trees that had been grown in BP containers produced a greater percentage of their total root dry weight within the boundaries of the original root ball than did trees produced in both fabric containers.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Root weight and distribution of Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ grown in three container types (black plastic, Root Pouch, and Smart Pot) and harvested after one, two, and three years following planting in the landscape.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Percent root distribution of Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ grown in three container types (black plastic, Root Pouch, and Smart Pot) and harvested after one, two, and three years following planting in the landscape.

By the second season, total root ball dry weight of BP-grown trees was 24%–34% greater than that of RP- and SP-grown trees, respectively (Table 2). Trees grown in BP containers had 1.5 times more total and coarse root weight inside the original root ball than was measured for trees grown in the SP and RP fabric containers. Fully 72% of total root growth had occurred within the original planting root ball boundary for trees produced in BP containers, while trees produced in the fabric containers had 65 and 62.7% (RP and SP, respectively) of their roots growing within the original root ball (Table 3). More coarse roots were produced outside of the original root ball with the RP (33%) and SP (32.9%) containers, while BP-produced trees formed only 26.4% of their coarse roots outside of the original root ball.

DISCUSSION

Two growing seasons following transplant of Chanticleer pear trees from three container types, there were no container effects on above- or belowground plant growth (Table 2). However, container effects were found on post-transplant rooting in the third year, while seeing no container effects on aboveground growth. In the third year after planting, dry weight of excavated root systems of trees grown in BP containers was 24% greater than that of RP-grown trees and 32% greater than trees grown in SP containers (Table 2). While total root production might be considered a measure of establishment, the location (relative to the original root ball) of new root dry weight production following planting may be a more important indicator of transplant success.

The container in which the trees were originally grown appears to have influenced root production following planting into the landscape. The relative distribution of both fine (<2.0 mm diameter) and coarse (≥2.1 mm diameter) roots in the second and third years after planting (Table 3) differed among trees produced in SP and RP containers, compared to trees produced in BP containers. After the third year in the landscape, trees grown in the fabric containers had 25% (for RP) to 32% (for SP) greater dry root growth outside of the original root ball compared to trees grown in BP containers. In contrast, by the end of the third year, 72% of total dry root growth of trees grown in BP containers was concentrated within the boundaries of the original root ball, while more than one-third of root growth (dry weight) for trees grown in fabric containers was found outside of the original root ball (35% and 37% for RP and SP, respectively).

The concentrated root growth within the original root ball with trees grown in BP containers may reflect the condition of the root ball at the time of planting. Evaluations of root ball quality at planting (Table 1) showed greater incidence of circling roots and more root matting with BP trees than for the trees grown in the two fabric containers. Visible circling roots with BP-grown trees were obvious three years after transplanting, while trees grown in fabric containers had fewer noticeable circling roots and also produced root systems with greater lateral branching (Table 3; Table 4). Compared to trees produced in fabric containers, excavated tree root systems from BP containers had more visible circling roots and a greater percentage of new root growth within the original root balls; this suggests an increased potential for stem-girdling roots (SGRs) to form on those trees. Researchers suspect that there were hidden circling roots at the time of planting that were not pruned or corrected as part of the planting process. While researchers did not develop a rating system for root architecture, the measured percent distribution of new root growth for the three container types confirms that trees grown in the two fabric containers possess root systems with greater lateral growth and fewer roots concentrated within the circumference of the original planting root ball.

The presence of SGRs has been suggested as a predictor of tree failure (Johnson and Johnson 1999). Other studies have suggested that SGRs can arise from container-related circling roots present at planting, increasing the potential for future tree failure (Meilleur 2009). Johnson and Hauer (2000) found that 73% of lindens that failed in storms in Minnesota, U.S., broke at the point where SGRs had constricted the stems. In a North Carolina, U.S., study, 75% of 400 air-spaded trees were found to have SGRs (Meilleur 2007). Prior to planting trees in the current study, the only corrective procedure used to eliminate circling roots on the container root ball was vertically slicing the root ball on the outside several times, using a box cutter, and hand-pruning to remove any visible circling roots. Gilman et al. (2010b) and Gilman and Wiese (2012) found that shaving the roots from the outer periphery (2.5 cm) of the root ball leads to reduced circling and girdling roots. Had root shaving been practiced when transplanting trees in the current study, researchers may have observed improved root systems with trees grown in BP containers, since root shaving has been found to increase straight, radial root production from the trunk (Gilman et al. 2010b). This suggests an area of future research—to compare post-transplant root growth and architecture of shaved root balls of BP-grown trees with that of non-shaved fabric containers.

After the third year in the landscape, the largest percentage (94%+) of excavated roots for all three container types were coarse roots (≥2.1 mm diameter). However, researchers found more fine roots after the first year in the landscape (12%–13% of all roots for all container types) than in the second (approximately 3% for all container types) and third years (2%–5% for all containers). While the importance of fine-root development on establishment success of landscape trees is unproven, it’s commonly stated that fine roots aid in tree establishment (Ham and Nelson 1998) and that fine roots are important for the absorption of water and nutrients (Persson 1983).

No container effects were found on height, caliper, total dry leaf, and shoot weight and twig and leader growth of trees harvested in 2011, 2012, and 2013 (Table 2). While it is difficult to define when a transplanted tree has become fully established in the landscape, the absence of measurable container effects on aboveground growth could be explained by the findings of numerous studies suggesting that newly transplanted trees use carbohydrates to regenerate new roots, and that top growth may be significantly reduced until the new root system is sufficiently regenerated (Watson 1985; Lauderdale et al. 1995; Gilman et al. 1998; Marshall and Gilman 1998; Ortega et al. 2006; Owen and Stoven 2008; Neal 2009). A study by Gilman (1997) found that in USDA zone 9 (Florida, U.S.), a 5.1 cm tree established in six months, while the same species in USDA zone 5 took 24 months to establish. Defining when a tree has become established and measuring transplant success remains difficult (Watson 1985; Gilman 1990; Struve et al. 2000). However, the most limiting factor following tree establishment is irrigation, as found by Gilman et al. (1998). Since trees in this study were not drought-stressed, irrigation was not a treatment factor. The trees can be assumed to be fully established after one year. Researchers found that there were differences among the containers and their root systems in years two and three but not the first year after transplant.

Researchers speculate that because neither soil moisture nor soil fertility were limiting factors in the study, they were not likely to see container effects on the height and caliper of trees following transplanting. Similarly, Gilman et al. (2010a) found few effects of container type on height and caliper when transplanted trees were given adequate irrigation and fertility, and Marshall and Gilman (1998) and Gilman et al. (2003) found no effects of container type on height and caliper of red maple five months and five years after planting in the landscape, respectively. Gilman et al. (2003) concluded that irrigation frequency for the first 24 weeks following transplant in Florida was a more important factor than container type in influencing establishment and aboveground plant growth. Because successful establishment of transplanted trees in Colorado and the semi-arid western United States requires the frequent application of irrigation, the effects of irrigation on aboveground growth might be expected to override measurable container effects on growth during the establishment period. Measuring aboveground growth 5–15 years following planting might reveal growth differences reflective of long-term container effects on rooting and the ability of those root systems to sustain optimal aboveground growth.

CONCLUSIONS

While a number of container studies have examined the root growth of trees and shrubs during nursery production, few have examined container effects on total root growth following transplanting in the landscape. The work published here appears novel in that researchers excavated complete, intact tree root systems and documented the location of new fine and coarse roots (relative to the original root ball) for three years following planting. Unlike Gilman et al. (2003), who found no container effects on rooting five years after red maples were planted in the landscape, researchers of the current study found significant quantitative container effects in the second and third year following planting.

This research, with Chanticleer pear and three container types, found that nursery production using BP containers resulted in circling roots both in the container and following transplanting in the landscape, consequently reducing the amount of lateral growth beyond the original root ball. Conversely, trees produced in fabric containers had fewer circling roots and root matting at planting, produced fewer circling roots, and had 25%–30% more roots outside of the original root ball than BP-grown trees. Because circling roots are more likely to lead to the development of stem-girdling roots as trees mature in the landscape, researchers suggest that growers consider the use of fabric containers as alternatives to black plastic because of the short- and long-term positive effects they can have on tree root growth. While circling and stem-girdling roots can be corrected at or possibly following planting, it can be argued that the use of alternative fabric containers during production to prevent these rooting problems could be easier, more effective, and less costly than doing so during or after planting the tree in the landscape.

An obvious limitation to this study is that it was conducted with one tree species; researchers are not suggesting that similar container effects will occur with all other tree species. Also, root growth was examined over just three growing seasons. Long-term studies (5–10 years) using additional species are necessary to determine if the container effects observed with the one species occur with other species, and if the beneficial effects extend beyond two to three years following planting. When container-grown trees have produced circling or matted roots, pruning or shaving to remove circling, matted, or deformed roots at the time of landscape planting may discourage continued circling root growth, while encouraging more lateral root production—important for stabilizing landscape trees (against wind) following planting (Gilman and Wiese 2012; Gilman et al. 2015). The authors recommend that nursery producers more carefully consider the potential benefits of growing trees in fabric containers and that end-users be receptive to planting trees that have been produced in fabric containers.

  • © 2018, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. ↵
    1. Arnold, M.A., and
    2. D.K. Struve
    . 1989. Green ash establishment following transplant. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 114:591–595.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Beeson, R.C.,
    2. Jr., and
    3. R. Newton
    . 1992. Shoot and root responses of eighteen southeastern woody landscape species grown in cupric hydroxide-treated containers. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 10:214–217.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Davidson, H.,
    2. R. Mecklenburg, and
    3. C. Peterson
    . 2000. Nursery Management: Administration and Culture, fourth edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, U.S. 529 pp.
  4. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.
    1990. Tree root growth and development, II. Response to culture, management, and planting. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 8:220–227.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.
    1997. Trees for Urban and Suburban Landscapes. Delmar Publishers, Albany, New York, U.S. 688 pp.
  6. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.
    2001. Effect of nursery production method, irrigation, and inoculation with mycorrhizae-forming fungi on establishment of Quercus virginiana. Journal of Arboriculture 27:30–39.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. C. Harchick
    . 2014. Root system morphology influences lateral stability of Swietenia mahagoni. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(1):27–35.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. C. Wiese
    . 2012. Root pruning at planting and planting depth in the nursery impact root system morphology and anchorage. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 38(5):229–236.
    OpenUrl
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. M. Paz
    . 2014. Container production strategies influence root ball morphology. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 40(1):16–26.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F., and
    2. R.C. Beeson
    . 1996. Nursery production method affects root growth. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 14:88–91.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. C. Harchick, and
    3. M. Paz
    . 2010a. Effect of container type on root form and growth of red maple. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 28:1–7.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. J. Grabosky,
    3. A. Stodola, and
    4. M.D. Marshall
    . 2003. Irrigation and container type impact red maple (Acer rubrum L.) 5 years after landscape planting. Journal of Arboriculture 29(4):231–236.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. M. Paz, and
    3. C. Harchick
    . 2010b. Root ball shaving improves root systems on seven tree species in containers. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 28(1):13–18.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. M. Paz, and
    3. C. Harchick
    . 2015. Nursery planting depth, mulch application, and root pruning at landscape planting affect tree health and anchorage. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 41(2):75–87.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Gilman, E.F.,
    2. R.J. Black, and
    3. B. Dehgan
    . 1998. Irrigation volume and frequency and tree size affect establishment rate. Journal of Arboriculture 24:1–9.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Ham, D.L., and
    2. L.R. Nelson
    . 1998. Newly planted trees: Strategies for survival. Clemson Extension, Department of Forest Resources. Forestry Leaflet 17.
  16. ↵
    1. Harris, J.R., and
    2. E.F. Gilman
    . 1991. Production method affects growth and root regeneration of Leyland cypress laurel oak and slash pine. Journal of Arboriculture 17:64–69.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Harris, J.R., and
    2. E.F. Gilman
    . 1993. Production method affects growth and post-transplant establishment of ‘East Palatka’ holly. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 118(2):194–200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Johnson, G., and
    2. R. Hauer
    . 2000. A practitioner’s guide to stem-girdling roots of trees. Regents of the University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. <www.extension.umn.edu/garden/yard-garden/trees-shrubs/img/guide-stem-girdling-roots.pdf>
  19. ↵
    1. Johnson, G.R., and
    2. B. Johnson
    . 1999. Storm damage to landscape trees: Prediction, prevention, treatment. FO-7415-S. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service. 8 p. <www.extension.umn.edu/environment/trees-woodlands/storm-damage-to-landscape-trees>
  20. ↵
    1. Jones, B.
    1987. Experiences in growing and marketing trees and shrubs in grow-bags. Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators’ Society 37:532–533.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Langlinais, K.
    1987. Pros vs. cons in using root-control field-grow containers. Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators’ Society 37:529–531.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Lauderdale, D.M.,
    2. C.H. Gilliam,
    3. D.J. Eakes,
    4. G.J. Keever, and
    5. A.H. Chappelka
    . 1995. Tree transplant size influences post-transplant growth, gas exchange, and leaf water potential of ‘October Glory’ red maple. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 13:178–181.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Lindström,
    2. A., and
    3. G. Rune
    . 1999. Root deformation in plantations of container-grown Scots pine trees: Effects on root growth, tree stability and stem straightness. Plant and Soil 217:29–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Marler, T.E., and
    2. F.S. Davies
    . 1987. Bare-rooted and container-grown ‘Hamlin’ orange trees in the field. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticulture Society 100:89–93.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Marshall, M.D., and
    2. E.F. Gilman
    . 1998. Effects of nursery container type on root growth and landscape establishment of Acer rubrum L. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 16:55–59.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Martin, C.A., and
    2. S. Bhattacharya
    . 1995. Effects of cupric hydroxide treated containers on growth of four southwestern desert landscape trees. Journal of Arboriculture 21:235–238.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Mathers, H.M.,
    2. T.H. Yeager, and
    3. L.T. Case
    . 2005. Improving irrigation water use in container nurseries. HortTechnology 15:9–12.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Meilleur, G.
    2007. Root pruning: Severing subterranean stranglers. Tree Care Industry Magazine July:8–14.
  29. ↵
    1. G.W. Watson,
    2. B. Scharenbroch,
    3. L. Costello, and
    4. E.F. Gilman
    1. Meilleur, G.
    2009. Severing subterranean stranglers: A protocol for managing stem-girdling roots. pp. 381–388. In: G.W. Watson, B. Scharenbroch, L. Costello, and E.F. Gilman (Eds.). Landscape Below Ground III. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 397 pp.
  30. ↵
    1. G.W. Watson,
    2. B. Scharenbroch,
    3. L. Costello, and
    4. E.F. Gilman
    1. Neal, C.
    2009. Nursery container types affect root zone temperatures, survival, and growth of over-wintered plants. pp. 121–125. In: G.W. Watson, B. Scharenbroch, L. Costello, and E.F. Gilman (Eds.). Landscape Below Ground III. International Society of Arboriculture, Champaign, Illinois, U.S. 397 pp.
  31. ↵
    1. Nichols, T.J., and
    2. A.A. Alm
    . 1983. Root development of container-reared, nursery-grown, and naturally regenerated pine seedlings. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 13:239–245.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. O’Connor,
    2. A.S.,
    3. J.E. Klett, and
    4. A.J. Koski
    . 2013. Container type and overwintering treatment affect substrate temperature and growth of Chanticleer® pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’) in the nursery. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 31(2):117–123.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Ortega, U.,
    2. J. Majada,
    3. A. Mena-Petite,
    4. J. Sanchez-Zabala,
    5. N. Rodriguez-Iturrizar,
    6. K. Txarterina,
    7. J. Azpitarte, and
    8. M Duñabeitia
    . 2006. Field performance of Pinus radiata D. Don produced in nursery with different types of containers. New Forests 31:97–112.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Owen, J., and
    2. H. Stoven
    . 2008. Searching for the perfect pot. Digger Magazine. March 2008:40–45, 57.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Persson, H.
    1983. The distribution and productivity of fine roots in boreal forests. Plant and Soil. 71:87–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. Privett, D.W., and
    2. R.L. Hummel
    . 1992. Root and shoot growth of ‘Coral Beauty’ cotoneaster and Leyland cypress produced in porous and nonporous containers. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 10:133–136.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Reese, B.
    1987. Mass production of trees in gro-bags. Proceedings of the International Plant Propagators’ Society 37:526–528.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Struve, D.K.,
    2. L. Burchfield, and
    3. C. Maupin
    . 2000. Survival and growth of transplanted large- and small-caliper red oaks. Journal of Arboriculture 26:162–169.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Struve, D.K.,
    2. M.A. Arnold,
    3. R.C. Beeson, Jr..,
    4. J.M. Ruter,
    5. S. Svenson, and
    6. W. Witte
    . 1994. The copper connection. American Nurseryman 179:52–56.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. United States Department of Agriculture
    . 2007. Nursery crops 2006 summary. Agricultural Statistics Board. <www.nass.usda.gov>
  41. ↵
    1. United States Department of Agriculture
    . 2008. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.
  42. ↵
    1. Watson, G.
    1985. Tree size affects root regeneration and top growth after transplanting. Journal of Arboriculture 11:37–40.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Whitcomb, C.E.
    2004. Plant Production in Containers II. Lacebark Inc., Stillwater, Oklahoma, U.S.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 44, Issue 4
July 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • 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 Type Affects Root Development of Chanticleer® Pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’) During Landscape Establishment
(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 Type Affects Root Development of Chanticleer® Pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’) During Landscape Establishment
Alison Stoven O’Connor, James E. Klett, Anthony J. Koski
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2018, 44 (4) 165-173; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2018.44.4.165

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Container Type Affects Root Development of Chanticleer® Pear (Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’) During Landscape Establishment
Alison Stoven O’Connor, James E. Klett, Anthony J. Koski
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2018, 44 (4) 165-173; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2018.44.4.165
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • 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

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Black Plastic Container
  • Circling Roots
  • Deciduous Tree
  • Fabric Containers
  • Girdling Roots
  • Landscape Establishment
  • Pyrus calleryana ‘Glen’s Form’ (Chanticleer®)
  • Root Pouch®
  • Smart Pot®
  • Transplanting

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire