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

Soil Compaction Affects the Growth and Establishment of Street Trees in Urban Australia

Gregory M. Moore, Alicia Fitzgerald and Peter B. May
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 2019, 45 (6) 239-253; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2019.020
Gregory M. Moore
Gregory M. Moore (corresponding author), School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Burnley College, University of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, Australia 3121, 613401-061-077,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Alicia Fitzgerald
Alicia Fitzgerald, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Burnley College, University of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, Australia 3121
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter B. May
Peter B. May, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Burnley College, University of Melbourne, 500 Yarra Boulevard, Richmond, Australia 3121
  • 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.

    Mean trunk diameter after 20 months for all species grown in compacted and uncompacted soils. Letters denote significant difference (P < 0.05), and the number at the top each column is the value of the mean.

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

    Mean tree height after 20 months for all species grown in compacted and uncompacted soils. Letters denote significant difference (P < 0.05), and the number at the top each column is the value of the mean.

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

    Mean full canopy width after 20 months for all species grown in compacted and uncompacted soils. Letters denote significant difference (P < 0.05), and the number at the top each column is the value of the mean.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Mean trunk diameter, height, and canopy width for each species.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Tree condition rating category means for each species using the criteria from Table 1.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Tree condition assessment of roots, trunk, branches, and foliage and their component categories.

    Tree partRating categoriesScore rangeTree partRating categoriesScore range
    RootsAnchorage1-5BranchesAttachment1-5
    Exposed roots1-5Epicormic shoots1-5
    Girdling roots1-5Deadwood/dieback1-5
    Pest or disease1-5Low branching1-5
    Root score range4-20Pest or disease1-5
    TrunkPhysical damage/injury1-5Crossing/rubbing branches1-5
    Multiple stems1-5Broken branches1-5
    Trunk taperAnnual shoot tip growth1-5
    Lignotuberous/epicormic shoots1-5Even branch distribution in canopy1-5
    Pest or disease1-5Branch score range9-45
    Trunk score range5-25FoliageLeaf size and colour1-5
    Pest or disease1-5
    Foliage score range2-10
    Rating descriptorMajor problemsSignificant problemsSome/few problemsMinor problemsNo problems
    Rating value12345
    Minimum total rating score 18Maximum total rating score 100
    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Initial and final bulk density means for compacted and uncompacted soils. When comparing the same level of compaction, LSD = 0.08. Bulk density means in the same row or column with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).

    Bulk densityBulk density compacted Mg/m−3Bulk density uncompacted Mg/m−3LSDP-valuePenetrative resistance compacted MPaPenetrative resistance uncompacted MPa
    Initial1.88a1.50b0.13< 0.001> 2.60< 1.00
    Final1.60c1.50b0.08   0.011   2.95   2.09
    Treatment mean1.70ac1.50b0.09< 0.001
    • View popup
    Table 3.

    Mean final bulk density at different soil depths for compacted and uncompacted soils. Means in the same row or column with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).

    DepthUncompacted Mg/m−3Compacted Mg/m−3
    Top (0-10 cm)1.50a1.60bc
    Middle (10-20 cm)1.54b1.58
    Bottom (20-30 cm)1.55c1.57
    • View popup
    Table 4.

    Overall root length for compass and treatment means. Means in the same row with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05). Compacted Direction LSD = 220.9. Direction LSD = 121.4.

    NorthSouthEastWest
    Compacted mean (mm)1224107810401056
    Uncompacted mean (mm)1209118510271186
    Compass mean (mm)1216a11311033b1121
    • View popup
    Table 5.

    Overall root length (mm) means for all species grown in compacted and uncompacted soils. Means in the same row of the species and separately for the compacted/uncompacted columns with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05). Species LSD = 305, Treatment LSD = 171, and Species Treatment LSD = 433

    SpeciesSpeciesUncompactedCompacted
    A. littoralis  441e  543p  339q
    C. maculata833cd  682p  984r
    C. sempervirens1454b1434s1474s
    E. polyanthemos2166a2121t2211t
    L. confertus1072c1101r1042r
    O. europaea1344b1521s1166r
    Q. palustris  768d807pu728up
    W.floribunda927cd  1002r  851ur
    Species and treatment mean  1125  1152  1099
    • View popup
    Table 6.

    Species with significantly different mean root length (mm) for each treatment and compass bearing. Means in the same row with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05).

    SpeciesNorth uncompactedNorth compactedSouth uncompactedSouth compacted
    C. sempervirens1094a1769b19091410
    O. europaea161611741670a992b
    • View popup
    Table 7.

    Summary of canopy and root mass (kg) mean comparisons and canopy:root ratios for all species growing in compacted and uncompacted soils. For each species, means in the same column with a different letter are significantly different (P < 0.05). For L. confertus and Olea europaea, to simplify interpretation, paired letters (ab), (bc), (de), and (fg) are significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). The row mean allows total canopy and root mass regardless of soil treatment for species comparison, while the column mean is the total canopy and root mass for compacted versus uncompacted soils.

    CompactedUncompactedMeanCompactedUncompactedMean
    A. littoralisC. maculata
    Canopy0.400.59  0.49a  4.28a  2.31a  3.29a
    Root0.080.17  0.13b  0.94b  0.48b  0.71b
    Mean0.240.382.611.39
    Canopy:shoot ratio3.834.234.875.35
    C. sempervirensE. polyanthemos
    Canopy  0.97a  1.15a  1.06a  11.09a  10.64a  10.87a
    Root  0.24b  0.28b  0.26b  2.19b  2.87b  2.53b
    Mean0.600.716.646.76
    Canopy:shoot ratio3.994.116.504.15
    L. confertusO. europaea
    Canopy  1.00a  2.78b  1.89d  0.94a  3.00b  1.97d
    Root  0.31b  0.65c  0.48e0.57  1.39c  0.98e
    Mean  0.65f  1.72g  0.75f  2.19g
    Canopy:shoot ratio4.353.791.521.99
    Q. palustrisW. floribunda
    Canopy  0.16a  0.19a  0.17a0.43  0.83a  0.63a
    Root  0.29b  0.38b  0.33b0.24  0.32b  0.28b
    Mean0.230.280.330.58
    Canopy:shoot ratio0.520.452.012.31
    • View popup
    Table 8.

    Species combinations which were significantly different in trunk diameter and height.

    SpeciesDifference between trunk diameter means (mm)LSD for trunk diameter for species combinationsSpecies with larger trunk diameterDifference between tree height means (mm)LSD for tree height for species combinationsTaller species
    C. maculata – E. polyanthemos15.249.63E. polyanthemos0.490.43E. polyanthemos
    C. maculata – L. confertus10.789.98C. maculata0.670.44C. maculata
    C. maculata – O. europaea11.199.32O. europaeaN/AN/AN/A
    C. maculata – Q. palustris12.6910.32C. maculataN/AN/AN/A
    E. polyanthemos – L. confertus26.0210.27E. polyanthemos1.160.45E. polyanthemos
    E. polyanthemos – Q. palustris27.9310.60E. polyanthemos0.640.47E. polyanthemos
    L. confertus – O. europaea21.979.98O. europaeaN/AN/AN/A
    O. europaea – Q. palustris23.8810.32O. europaeaN/AN/AN/A
    E. polyanthemos – O. europaeaN/AN/AN/A0.800.43E. polyanthemos
    L. confertus – Q. palustrisN/AN/AN/A0.590.48Q. palustris
    • View popup
    Table 9.

    Species combinations which were significantly different in mean canopy width.

    SpeciesDifference between means (m)LSD for species combinationSpecies with a wider canopy
    C. maculata – E. polyanthemos0.340.29E. polyanthemos
    E. polyanthemos – L. confertus0.570.29E. polyanthemos
    L. confertus – O. europaea0.470.29O. europaea
    L. confertus – Q. palustris0.330.31Q. palustris
    • View popup
    Table 10.

    Street range and means for bulk density (Mg/m−3) and penetrative resistance (MPa).

    SpeciesBulk density range (Mg/m−3)Mean bulk density (Mg/m−3)Penetrative resistance range (MPa)Mean penetrative resistance (MPa)
    C. maculata141–1.581.464.25–4.934.68
    E. polyanthemos1.45–1.641.492.70–4.913.89
    L. confertus1.28–1.551.451.34–3.661.92
    O. europaea1.26–1.501.421.05–1.851.53
    • View popup
    Table 11.

    Variance components bulk density and penetrative resistance.

    MeasurementStreetAddress within streetDirection within address
    Bulk density10.8%30.1%59.1%
    Penetrative resistance21.9%32.8%45.3%
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 45 (6)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 45, Issue 6
November 2019
  • 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.
Soil Compaction Affects the Growth and Establishment of Street Trees in Urban Australia
(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
Soil Compaction Affects the Growth and Establishment of Street Trees in Urban Australia
Gregory M. Moore, Alicia Fitzgerald, Peter B. May
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2019, 45 (6) 239-253; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2019.020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Soil Compaction Affects the Growth and Establishment of Street Trees in Urban Australia
Gregory M. Moore, Alicia Fitzgerald, Peter B. May
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2019, 45 (6) 239-253; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2019.020
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
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    • 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
  • Energy Potential of Urban Tree Pruning Waste
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Australian Street Trees
  • soil compaction
  • Street Tree Establishment
  • Street Tree Growth

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire