Research ArticleArticles

Comparison of Tree Responses to Different Soil Treatments Under Concrete Pavement

E. Thomas Smiley, James Urban and Kelby Fite
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 2019, 45 (6) 303-314; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2019.027

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    Figure 1.

    Study 1 plot design.

  • Figure 2.
    Figure 2.

    Study 2 plot design.

  • Figure 3.
    Figure 3.

    Installation plan drawing for Silva Cells™.

  • Figure 4.
    Figure 4.

    Installation plan drawing for Stratacells™.

  • Photograph 1.
    Photograph 1.

    Study 1 five years after planting in 2009. Treatments are supported pavement, expanded slate structural soil (ESSS), compacted control (CC), and gravel-based structural soil (GBSS). The unlabeled plot was a replacement for the expanded slate (ES) plot where the trees died. The smaller plants are magnolias that replaced the original cherry trees in 2007.

  • Figure 5.
    Figure 5.

    Mean elm trunk diameter measured at 15 cm above grade at the end of the growing season. The supported pavement treatment had significantly larger caliper than all other treatments in 2006 and 2007, and from 2010 through 2014, the ESSS treatment calipers were significantly lower than all other treatments in 2006 and 2007 and again from 2009 through 2014 (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 6.
    Figure 6.

    Mean elm height measured at the end of the growing season. There was significantly more height growth with the supported pavement treatment from 2010 through 2014, while there was significantly less growth in the ESSS treatment in 2012 and 2014 (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 7.
    Figure 7.

    Mean visual foliar color rating based on a 0 to 10 scale (0 = dead, 10 = dark green). Bars with the same letter indicate that there are no significant differences among treatments (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Photograph 2.
    Photograph 2.

    Study 2 two years after planting in 2016. One of the six replicates is labeled by treatment.

  • Figure 8.
    Figure 8.

    Mean Liriodendron trunk diameter measured at 15 cm above grade at the end of the growing season. In 2016 and 2017, data separated into two significantly different groups, and the Silva Cell™, Stratacell™, and open control were larger than the other three treatment trees (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 9.
    Figure 9.

    Mean Liriodendron height measured at the end of the growing season. In 2016 and 2017, data separated into two significantly different groups, and the Silva Cell™, Stratacell™, and open control were larger than the other three treatment trees (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 10.
    Figure 10.

    Mean September foliar color visual rating based on a 0 to 5 scale (0 = dead, 10 = dark green). Bars with an asterisk above do not different significantly from other means in that year (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 11.
    Figure 11.

    The mean number of roots close to the base of the Liriodendron that were greater than 1.2 cm in diameter. Bars that share a letter do not differ significantly (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 12.
    Figure 12.

    Mean maximum length of root growth measured parallel to the direction of the concrete or across (perpendicular) to the concrete. There were no significant differences among treatments measured across the plot. There were significant differences in root length parallel to the length of the plot. Bars that share a letter do not differ significantly (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 13.
    Figure 13.

    Mean maximum depth of root growth. Bars that share a letter do not differ significantly (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 14.
    Figure 14.

    Mean weight of the above- and belowground portions of the tree. Bars that share a letter do not differ significantly within the measurement type (SNK P = 0.05).

  • Figure 15.
    Figure 15.

    Mean soil volumetric moisture content as measured with a Fieldscout TDR 350 with 12-cm rods (Spectrum Technologies, Aurora, IL). Bars that share a letter do not differ significantly (SNK P = 0.05).

Tables

  • Table 1.

    The amount of non-compacted soil installed in each plot. The space available in each plot was 1.1 m3. Numbers with the same letter indicate that there are no significant differences among treatments (SNK p = 0.05).

    TreatmentVolume of non-compacted soil installed (m3)
    Control (non-compacted)2.1 b
    Stratacell1.8 a
    Silva cell2.0 b
    Sand-based structural soil2.5 c
    Gravel-based structural soil2.5 c
    Control (compacted)2.5 c
  • Table 2.

    Concrete cracking associated with soil treatments and tree root growth. Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (SNK p = 0.05).

    TreatmentNumber of replicatesMean number of cracks in the concrete per replicate
    Compacted soil60.17 a
    Expanded slate structural soil60.83 a
    Supported concrete61.00 a
    Gravel-based structural soil62.83 b
  • Table 3.

    Mean soil subsidence, measured from the bottom of the concrete to the top of the soil in cm. Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (SNK P = 0.05).

    TreatmentSubsidence gap below the concrete pavement in cm
    Compacted control0.0 a
    Sand-based structural soil0.1 a
    Gravel-based structural soil0.4 a
    Stratacell1.5 c
    Silva cell0.6 b
    Open control0.9 b
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Email Article
Citation Tools
Comparison of Tree Responses to Different Soil Treatments Under Concrete Pavement
E. Thomas Smiley, James Urban, Kelby Fite
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 2019, 45 (6) 303-314; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2019.027
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords