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

Evaluation of Nature-Based and Traditional Solutions for Urban Soil Decompaction

Glynn C. Percival, Sean Graham, Christopher Percival and David Challice
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) July 2025, 51 (4) 297-313; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2025.012
Glynn C. Percival
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, Charlotte, NC, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Sean Graham
School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, King’s College, Aberdeen, Scotland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Percival
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory, Cutbush Lane East, Shinfield, Reading, England
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
David Challice
Challice Consulting Ltd., Holmwood Farm Grange, Horsham Road, North Holmwood, Dorking, Surrey, England
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    The influence of soil decompaction on diameter at breast height (DBH)(percent increase) over a 3-year period. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 4Month 16Month 28
    Control0.80a0.64a0.94a
    VM1.46ab2.10b2.51b
    WCM1.56b2.23b2.83bc
    VM + WCM1.71b2.61b3.28bc
    VM + WCM + worms2.20b3.07b3.75c
    VM + WC1.70b2.25b2.76bc
    VM + WC + worms2.29b2.12b3.19bc
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.608
    Treatment< 0.001
    Month (time) × treatment0.167
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment descriptions, see Materials and Methods.

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    The influence of soil decompaction on tree canopy density over a 3-year period. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 4Month 16Month 28
    Control47.5a49.0a50.0a
    VM50.0ab52.0ab55.5ab
    WCM50.5ab53.5ab57.5bc
    VM + WCM52.5ab56.0bc61.0bcd
    VM + WCM + worms54.5b57.0bc62.5cd
    VM + WC54.5b57.5bc64.5de
    VM + WC + worms54.5b60.0c68.5e
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.602
    Treatment0.010
    Month (time) × treatment0.200
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment description, see Materials and Methods (Winn and Araman 2010).

    • View popup
    Table 3.

    The influence of soil decompaction on bulk density over a 3-year period. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 4Month 16Month 28Month 16Month 28
    Inside canopyOutside canopy
    Control1.80d1.81c1.81c1.80d1.80d
    VM1.68c1.50b1.40a1.69c1.62c
    WCM1.69c1.55b1.51b1.68c1.60c
    VM + WCM1.64bc1.41a1.40a1.66c1.60c
    VM + WCM + worms1.59ab1.37a1.32a1.43a1.49b
    VM + WC1.66bc1.41a1.38a1.68c1.59c
    VM + WC + worms1.51a1.38a1.37a1.54b1.38a
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.9670.943
    Treatment< 0.0010.001
    Month (time) × treatment< 0.0010.387
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment description, see Materials and Methods.

    • View popup
    Table 4.

    The influence of soil decompaction on soil organic matter content over a 3-year period. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 4Month 16Month 28Month 16Month 28
    Inside canopyOutside canopy
    Control4.56a5.04a4.97a5.23a5.21a
    VM5.33bc5.47ab4.97a5.71ab5.29a
    WCM5.15ab7.23de7.22b6.44c6.50bc
    VM + WCM5.87c7.30e7.48b6.90c6.90c
    VM + WCM + worms5.89c6.08bc5.63a6.32bc6.14b
    VM + WC5.60bc7.17de7.44b6.39bc6.43bc
    VM + WC + worms5.73bc6.61cd6.86b6.52c6.09b
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.0700.644
    Treatment< 0.0010.041
    Month (time) × treatment< 0.0010.270
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment description, see Materials and Methods.

    • View popup
    Table 5.

    The influence of soil decompaction on soil ENR (estimated nitrogen release)(g/m2) over a 3-year period. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 4Month 16Month 28Month 16Month 28
    Inside canopyOutside canopy
    Control15.0a15.3a14.6a15.4a14.9a
    VM16.0ab16.6ab17.4b15.9ab16.0ab
    WCM18.3c19.5cd19.8c16.7b17.6cd
    VM + WCM16.6b20.3d20.5c17.0b18.3d
    VM + WCM + worms16.2ab16.8ab17.6b16.4ab16.9bc
    VM + WC17.1bc19.4cd19.1c16.7b17.7cd
    VM + WC + worms16.9bc18.0bc17.3b16.0ab16.7bc
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.4200.390
    Treatment< 0.0010.001
    Month (time) × treatment< 0.0010.050
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment description, see Materials and Methods.

    • View popup
    Table 6.

    The influence of soil decompaction on calico strip degradation at month 28. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentInside canopyOutside canopy
    Control11.0a8.5a
    VM31.5b9.5a
    WCM40.0c9.0a
    VM + WCM57.0d10.5a
    VM + WCM + worms72.0e47.0c
    VM + WC32.5b10.0a
    VM + WC + worms38.0bc32.5b
    Significance of treatment< 0.001< 0.001
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s honestly significance test (P = 0.05). For treatment description, see Materials and Methods.

    • View popup
    Table 7.

    The influence of soil decompaction on root dry weight (mg/g soil dry weight) at month 16. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentInside canopyOutside canopy
    Control0.743a0.742a
    VM1.094a0.868a
    WCM1.349a0.928a
    VM + WCM1.576a0.777a
    VM + WCM + worms1.687a1.140a
    VM + WC0.962a0.638a
    VM + WC + worms1.319a1.164a
    Significance of treatment0.3500.414
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different based on Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means from a generalized linear model (GLM) with α = 0.05. For treatment description, see Materials and Methods

    • View popup
    Table 8.

    The influence of soil decompaction on earthworm count at Month 16 and 28. VM (vertical mulching); WCM (wood chip mulching); WC (white clover).

    TreatmentMonth 16Month 28Month 16Month 28
    Inside canopyOutside canopy
    Control0.2a0.3a0.1a0.2a
    VM0.3a0.3a0.3a0.3a
    WCM0.5a0.0a0.4a0.2a
    VM + WCM0.3a0.1a0.4a0.2a
    VM + WCM + worms2.6b1.0b2.9b1.2b
    VM + WC0.7a0.4a0.7a0.7ab
    VM + WC + worms2.1b1.0b2.2b1.2b
    Significance over time
    Month (time)0.5590.653
    Treatment< 0.001< 0.001
    Month (time) × treatment0.9930.762
    • Numbers within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly different based on Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means from a generalized linear model (GLM) with α = 0.05. For treatment description, see Materials and Methods.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry: 51 (4)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 51, Issue 4
July 2025
  • 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.
Evaluation of Nature-Based and Traditional Solutions for Urban Soil Decompaction
(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
Evaluation of Nature-Based and Traditional Solutions for Urban Soil Decompaction
Glynn C. Percival, Sean Graham, Christopher Percival, David Challice
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2025, 51 (4) 297-313; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.012

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Evaluation of Nature-Based and Traditional Solutions for Urban Soil Decompaction
Glynn C. Percival, Sean Graham, Christopher Percival, David Challice
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jul 2025, 51 (4) 297-313; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2025.012
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
    • Conclusions
    • Conflicts of Interest
    • 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

  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Compaction
  • Cover Crop
  • Plant Health Care
  • Root Growth
  • Soil Biological Activity
  • Soil Management
  • Urban Soils

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire